Donald Trump’s March 5, 2025 congressional speech rejected further Ukraine funding, calling for peace despite NATO’s escalation and Alex Jones’ claims of Ukrainian war crimes—including $600B in alleged corruption and false flag attacks like Poland strikes. Harrison Smith mocked Democratic disruptions (e.g., Al Green’s forced removal) and their baseless bingo-style protests, framing their strategy as self-destructive while criticizing Trump’s administration for failing to dismantle globalist tools like BlackRock or the $375B EPA slush fund. Both argued suppressed zero-point energy tech could thwart agendas like the "Greater Israel Project," a conspiracy linking Zionism to one-world governance, while Jesse Ventura urged MAGA supporters to focus on personal resistance over futile protests. The episode ends with Jones rallying listeners to sustain InfoWars’ anti-globalist media empire through VIP memberships and merchandise sales. [Automatically generated summary]
As manpower shortages deepen, Ukrainian recruitment officers, often operating in unmarked vans, have been seen targeting men aged 25 to 60, sometimes have been seen targeting men aged 25 to 60, sometimes even younger, snatching them from public places like bars, stores, and stores.
streets and vehicle registration offices with little to no warning.
unidentified
So I had this Ukraine guy reach out to me after he saw my Zelensky video.
But he was basically like, dude, you're spot on.
Zelensky is threatening and it's awful here in Ukraine.
He said, please let Americans know what kind of democracy is going on here.
I'm not even talking about the simple fact that our borders are closed for all men of military age, which is 18 through 60. We can't leave the country.
We can't even leave our towns or villages because there are checkpoints with the police and military recruiters everywhere.
We don't have any real opposition.
We don't have any real...
We don't have election.
They can also spray gas into your car and set you on fire if you don't get out.
The answer from European capitals has been as resounding as it is clear.
We are in an era of rearmament.
And Europe is ready to massively boost its defense spending.
Both to respond to the short-term urgency to act and to support Ukraine, but also to address the long-term need to take on more responsibility for our own European security.
I think they have to start speaking up because if we persist in walking away from Ukraine, it will be the greatest geopolitical mistake that this country's made since World War II. As Zelensky continues to threaten the United States that it will become embroiled in Ukraine's quagmire if Article 5 is triggered.
unidentified
The U.S. will have to send their sons and daughters exactly the same way as we are sending their sons and daughters to war.
And they will have to fight because it's nature that we're talking about and they will be dying.
I mean, it was classic Trump, classic form, reborn in the USA. America is back.
It was certainly rousing.
It was definitely triumphant.
It was classic Trump.
But that's good and bad, isn't it?
Classic Trump.
I mean, it's what makes him great.
His sort of, you know, rambling rally address style is what people love and it's what he does.
It's what...
We're used to and have come to expect.
I just feel like there are times where I wish it was a little bit different.
Just a little bit different.
Not too different, but just maybe a little bit.
Because I feel like there are times like this where you've got the whole nation's eyes on you.
That's a real opportunity not to just sort of beat your chest and play to your base, but explain things to people.
I'll give you a quick example.
We're going to do the Daily Dispatch.
We've got news about Ukraine.
We've got all sorts of stuff.
I do want to play some highlights from the speech yesterday in case you missed it or in case, again, you want to see the high comedy that is the Democrats attempting to resist greatness.
It really is interesting.
But, you know, one moment.
So, he talks about getting rid of DEI, right?
He goes through all these things that he's done.
And to us, you know, we get it.
We understand what's going on.
And we understand what he's saying when he's like, you know, we got rid of DEI. But that's as far as he goes with it.
Or he says, what did he say after DEI? Well, at one point he's just like, America will never be woke again.
You know, obviously getting rid of DEI is a good thing.
But it seems like this would be the moment.
To maybe explain why it's a good thing.
Yeah, Trump rallies the faithful is the headline from Drudge Report.
Most polarizing presidents in history.
Members of Congress clash.
Yeah, and again, you know, it's not his fault that the Democrats are just insane, just literally psychotic.
And they really did not do themselves any favors yesterday.
And I'll show you the polls that represent that.
I mean, it was a hugely popular speech.
Something like 75% of respondents to a CBS poll.
Said they were very happy with it.
I just, okay, so there was this time, and hopefully, well, maybe I'll leave the names out.
It's not my story to tell, but a friend of mine, who works in M4s, was doing some shopping, and he was, like, checking out, and the guy on the other side of the counter was a black guy, and I guess there was, like, a news report or something that showed that a second plane had crashed.
So the first plane crashes when it hits the helicopter.
And Trump comes out and says, you know, this is DEI. And DEI caused this.
And then like a few days later, there's another plane crash.
And so my friend is at this counter.
They see this announcement about a plane crash.
And the black guy on the other side of the counter goes, man, Trump's going to blame this on us.
Wait, you think Trump blamed the last plane crash on black people?
And you think that...
Being against DEI is being against black people.
And you think that this was not because Trump actually understands what happened with the crash and is telling you what caused it, the bad hiring practices.
And so again, it's a completely bafflingly wrong view of the world, but it's a view that a huge amount of Americans believe.
And if you watch leftist content, liberal...
Like, that's what they're telling people.
They're like, oh, DEI is when black people get hired.
And so then they hear, you know, Trump going, oh yeah, this plane crash because of DEI. And in their mind, they're like, oh, Trump just...
It's like they hear, you know, a plane crash and Trump gets on the mic and just is like, black people, I'm telling you folks, black people can't fly planes.
Sorry, it's the truth.
Black people can't be pilots.
Like, that's what they hear.
It's absurd, but that's what they hear.
And so...
When you're hearing this speech and you know that it's going to get massive views, you know that, you know, left and right are going to be watching this, that would be the time to go, I got rid of DEI because DEI is discrimination and we don't want discrimination.
And, you know, even though you've been told that DEI is this, here's what it actually is.
Here's why it's good that I got rid of this.
I mean, it would only need to be a sentence or two.
But it's like, you know, if you're going to say, I got rid of DEI. Just understand that to half the country who's misinformed, ill-informed, and lied to by the mainstream media, they don't see that as a good thing.
They see that as a bunch of Republicans cheering the anti-black thing, right?
Again, it's absurd, and it's sad that we shouldn't have to say things, construct our arguments on the basis of their misunderstanding, but that's reality.
It was a good speech for us, but I'm watching it through the eyes of just the average normie person, and not a lot Trump did yesterday would have convinced me that what he was doing was good for me.
Even though it is.
Even though everything he's doing is great for the average person.
There are times where Trump has these opportunities to like...
You know, really not just do a campaign rally, but he always just does the campaign rally.
It's kind of like, all right, it's good, it's fun, but I said pretty much the same thing during the RNC speech also, right?
It was right after he almost got assassinated.
He's up there with a bandage on his ear.
You know everybody in America is watching this.
Like, that's the time to make those...
Because he can do it.
We know he can do it.
His first inauguration speech was like this.
Some of the states of the union in his first administration were a little bit better, I think, in that regard.
So we know he can do it.
But just like at the RNC, it's like, okay, then he just gives a two-hour rambling speech about all sorts of stuff.
And it's like, this was the time you had all the eyes in the nation on you.
His first public appearance after nearly being killed on live TV. That was the time to, like, really—and, you know, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong, because obviously he won.
Obviously, like, what he does brings success.
So, you know, I don't want to be, you know, questioning things that are clearly working.
But that was my big takeaway from it.
It was, like, it was really good for the base.
It was really, you know, powerful for, you know, people that love what he's doing.
I just sort of wish he'd taken the opportunity to, like, explain a little bit more why he's doing what he's doing.
Even the stuff about, you know, getting men out of women's sports.
It's like, yeah, it's a good thing, but you could elaborate a little bit on it.
You could elaborate just a little bit on, and I guess he did.
I mean, for that, he did a little bit where he gave some of the numbers about, you know, the cyclist who finished the race five hours before the closest competitor because it was a man racing against women.
You know, if that makes sense.
But again, it's just like, I could have just used, you know, one extra sentence.
That would just be about, you know, women fought so long to get the right to, you know, their own sports.
We're not going to, you know, let men interfere and disrupt that for them.
I don't know.
So I'm nitpicking a little bit, but I'd give it, I'd give the speech about an eight.
I'd give it about an eight.
Personally.
And of course, of course, always with the State of the Union.
It's the thing where you bring people up and you point to them and you say this person's daughter was killed and now Lake and Riley's parents were there.
Again, I'm sort of torn because I don't know.
It feels a little bit exploitative.
I'm not going to lie.
I don't love it.
At the same time, you've got to humanize these travesties.
It doesn't compel people when you say a percentage or a statistic about It's way more impactful to be like, here's this girl's mother and sister, and you can just imagine, you know, you can imagine Lake and Riley sitting there, but she's not there because she was murdered by an illegal immigrant that was led in by the Biden administration.
It gives me a bad feeling when it's like him describing the rape and murder of a little girl and the camera's just like zooming in on her mother's face.
I'm always just like, I don't like this.
I don't love this.
I don't love emotional manipulation personally.
We'll show you all the videos from it, but that was my big takeaway.
8 out of 10. He did pretty good, you know, flaunting some of his accomplishments.
I just think he could have explained them a little bit better.
Now, that being said, he really, it doesn't matter what he did, the Democrats made this a victory for him by being just disgusting people, just really thoroughly bad people.
It's very funny.
We'll show you the clips of Al Green getting kicked out and these people just like, they're just these old, that lady.
That lady, who I guess is in—she was the one who was put in charge of the—whatever their resistance coalition is, their government oversight, whatever.
It's that—I mean, it's just a parade of evil freaks.
I mean, all of Congress is just an absolute cavalcade of freaks.
Old weirdos with see-through skin bumbling around.
Like morons.
It's very pathetic.
Including Al Green, who, I swear to you, he looks like, he looks like the carvings of Indian chiefs outside of cigar stores.
Let's just do your daily dispatch, and then we'll show you the videos on the other side, the highlights of the speech on the other side.
Here it is, your Daily Dispatch.
All right, here it is, folks, your Daily Dispatch for Wednesday, the 5th of March, 2025.
Democrats showed whose side they're on, and it's not the American people.
That's the statement from the White House following the...
Joint address to Congress, the Joint Houses of Congress.
Congressional Democrats were too consumed by their own hatred of President Trump, refusing to show support for lowering taxes, fighting childhood cancer, capturing terrorists, protecting women and girls in sports or law and order.
Tonight, President Donald Trump delivered bold, forward-looking remarks before a joint session of Congress, highlighting the historic accomplishments already achieved in his second term and setting the course for four years of prosperity and strength.
Unfortunately, congressional Democrats were too consumed by their own hatred of President Trump to show support for any of it.
And we'll show you the clip at the end of the Daily Dispatch.
I think his most powerful line of the night was him saying, it doesn't matter how...
Much we succeed.
These people will never cheer.
It doesn't matter how much I do for the American people.
It doesn't matter how low your taxes are or how victorious our country is.
These people will never cheer for it.
And I think that's the right framing device.
And I think he did well with that.
And again, the response to the speech itself was extremely positive from CBS News and YouGov.
Views of Trump's speech among speech watchers got a 76% approval with just 23% disapproval.
CNN also had a 66% approval poll as well.
So, you know, clearly a success by any metric.
And we'll show you clips from that in just a minute.
Meanwhile, U.S. cuts off intelligence sharing with Ukraine, FT reports.
U.S. has cut off intelligence sharing with Kyiv in a move that could seriously hamper the Ukrainian military's ability to target Russian forces.
Britain's Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing officials familiar with the matter.
However, an official in Kiev told Bloomberg News that Ukraine was continuing to receive intelligence from the United States, according to a post on X by Bloomberg News reporter Anne-Marie Horden.
The FT said two officials confirmed that Washington had frozen intelligence channels with Kyiv.
President Donald Trump's administration was still sharing intelligence on Russia and Ukraine with his closest allies, including Britain, the FT said, citing one official.
Reuters Daily...
Yeah, so, again, sort of mixed signals from there, but officially, the official report is that he's cut off intelligence sharing, although, again, people have told Bloomberg that, no, actually, the intelligence is still coming in.
But that would be a much possibly even more devastating blow to Ukraine than even just cutting off the money would be cutting off the intelligence since it has been our CIA that has been directing the course of this entire war and providing the entirety of the intelligence that the Ukraine army is operating on.
So sort of blinding Ukraine itself by removing intelligence.
Meanwhile, Democrat mayors to appear before Congress in Sanctuary City Showdown.
This should begin around 10 a.m.
Eastern Time today, 9 a.m.
Central Time.
As busloads of migrants arrived in their streets in the past few years, the Democratic mayors of New York, Denver, Boston, and Chicago promised to welcome and protect the newcomers.
On Wednesday, they defended their status as sanctuary cities at a Republican-led hearing expected to be a skewering session rife with political tripwires.
The hearing will be made for television spectacle, a made-for-television spectacle pitting four Democratic leaders against a largely hostile congressional committee.
That will accuse them of protecting criminals and thwarting the president's plan to deport millions of people who are in the country illegally.
So that will again happen in about a little under an hour.
That hearing should begin, and we'll bring that to you live just as soon as it starts off.
Meanwhile, we have this.
U.S. rejects plan for Gaza reconstruction proposed by Arab leaders.
The Trump administration has rejected a long-awaited plan for the reconstruction of Gaza endorsed by Arab leaders, saying the president stands by his own vision, which includes expelling the territory's Palestinian residents and transforming it into a Riviera owned by the United States.
The current proposal does not address the reality that Gaza is currently uninhabitable and residents cannot humanely live in a territory covered in debris and unexploded ordinance, National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said in a statement Tuesday night.
President Trump stands by his vision to rebuild Gaza free from Hamas.
We look forward to further talks to bring peace and prosperity to the region.
So this is pretty annoying for us not Israel-obsessed Trump supporters.
After all, it seems like he proposes this thing.
There's speculation that's like, well, he maybe means that America should take over Gaza.
But this is also a great negotiation tactic to pressure the Arab states around to step up and present a plan.
And then they present a plan.
Yesterday I saw that this plan had been presented.
And the post-war plan for the Gaza Strip proposed by Egypt calls for Hamas to cede power and for an interim administration until a reformed Palestinian authority can assume control.
It would allow its roughly 2 million Palestinian residents to remain in contrast to Trump's proposal.
So it's like, okay, Trump...
You know, negotiates, does some hardball negotiation, says, actually, we're going to take it.
And then, you know, Egypt and all the Arab leaders go, actually, we have a plan.
You know, Hamas will be removed, but people will still be able to stay there.
The $53 billion proposal by Arab nations calls for rebuilding Gaza by 2030. The first phase calls for starting the removal of unexploded ordnance and clearing more than 50 million tons of rubble left by Israel's bombardment and military offensives.
The Jordanian officials told the CNN earlier that the plan will be presented to Donald Trump in the coming week.
So I guess it could still be accepted.
And I would like it to be.
I think that it sounds like a good plan as far as I can tell.
The Arab states around Palestine giving $53 billion and helping to establish a government there that won't get all of its citizens massacred continually for a year.
That would be nice to see.
So I think we should accept that.
Finally, we have this.
China's upset, threatens trade war or any other type of war on the U.S. after Trump raises tariffs.
China's Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a stark warning after President Trump raised tariffs, saying it's ready to fight till the end in response to the U.S. trade crackdown, saying it's ready to fight in a trade war or any other type of war against the United States.
In response to Trump raising tariffs on Chinese goods, they said if war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war or a trade war or any other type of war, we're ready to fight till the end.
And again, we've been just seeing signal after signal after signal out of China that they are preparing for war.
I mean, there's been a lot of different ways in which they're signaling a military posture, a warlike posture, whether that's by conscripting people or firing the less jingoistic generals in their army, the less aggressive generals in their army.
From that moment on, it has been nothing but swift and unrelenting action to usher in the greatest and most successful era in the history of our country.
We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations.
accomplished in four years or eight years and we are just getting started again just uh a very powerful beginning to The whole speech sort of went like that.
They were just seething the whole time and waving these dumb little signs that, first of all, didn't make sense on their own, and also just gave us a great mean template.
This is the American Journal going over some of the highlights of the speech yesterday Trump gave to the joint session of Congress.
Again, I would almost want...
In the Constitution, what it says about this address is it's like the chief executive will, from time to time, address the joint houses of Congress.
To, you know, provide direction and encourage them to implement policies as he sees fit.
And I almost like that more, right?
It's become this sort of ceremonial thing where once a year the president gives a speech where he says the state of the union is strong and it's sort of become a campaign rally with, you know, only one side of the chamber cheering.
Like, I'd rather Trump do this, like, every three months where he just goes, he calls a joint session of Congress and literally just directs them.
He goes, here's the bill I want you to pass.
Here's what I want you to do.
And, like, lays out his plan.
And actually, you know, it's like a chief executive addressing a shareholder meeting or a company-wide meeting to go, all right, here's our vision.
Here's what's happening.
Here's what I need you to do.
Here's where you should focus.
I think that would actually fit Trump's style a little bit better, style of governance better.
But we got what we got, which is this triumphant speech being interrupted in the most hedgerent and stupid way.
I mean, I'm not...
Things have obviously changed, right?
And I hope most people...
You know, watching this right now, remember, all the way back when it must have been 2013 or something, when Obama was giving a State of the Union and a Republican was just like, you lie!
And it was like this major story.
It was like outrage.
Everybody was like, this is unacceptable.
This is the State of the Union.
You're supposed to show respect to the president.
Because it's not supposed to be a partisan thing.
At the end of the day, you're supposed to recognize, as much as you might not like the person that's up there, They're an avatar for the American people.
You're supposed to show respect for the American people by showing respect for the avatar, right?
Yeah, so when was this?
2014, you lie.
The two-word outburst that changed Republican politics.
And that was, again, it was like insane and outrageous.
Yeah, 15, 18 years ago, something like that.
Yeah, sorry, I can't wait.
2009. Okay, so it was even longer ago.
2009. So since then, that was like the first crack in the dam of decorum.
Two words, you lie.
And it was just like, oh my god.
Oh my god, what?
The Republicans have no respect for this sacred institution.
Fast forward 15 years, and just every Democrat is just like...
Wearing hot pink as a protest.
They're all waving signs.
They're interrupting constantly.
Al Green has to be bodily dragged from the chamber by the sergeant at arms.
So, you know, is this inevitable?
I don't think so.
I think you could get back to some form of decorum, but clearly the feedback loop, this spiraling out of control of just basic, you know, the basic way you comport yourself.
As a member of Congress, it's just devolved completely until this point.
There's a crazy old man waving a cane at the president and yelling things that nobody can hear or understand.
And doing it at the funniest possible time.
So let's go to this video and really think about just how, like again, it's not even the Democrats are just like interrupting.
It's like, they're so dumb.
They're so dumb.
How bad they are at everything.
So, we'll go to this video.
We'll talk about how Al Green could have maybe done it a little better.
I'm going to give some advice to cigar store chief Al Green.
Which I don't think is racist because I don't know what race Al Green is.
I think he might literally be carved out of wood.
He might be an int.
Can you be racist against ints?
I don't know.
But the man looks like he was whittled.
Let's go to clip number two.
Here's Al Green getting kicked out.
Actually having the master of ceremonies, Mike Johnson, invoke his right to call the sergeant-at-arms and haul them off.
And you also get to see Republicans across the board, specifically J.D. Vance, give the get-em-out motion, which we should do this more and more aggressively.
Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of the quorum and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant at arms to restore order to the Joint Center.
Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order.
I've seen Al Green standing outside of kitschy general stores in Colorado.
I really have.
Who knows what he was yelling.
He's literally protesting the outcome of the election.
It just makes no sense.
So I'm going to give some advice to Al Green and all the other Democrats.
You're all very stupid.
First of all, if you're going to stand up and protest and make a big scene, maybe do it while Trump is talking about a policy of his that you don't like.
Instead, you're standing up and interrupting and protesting when he's simply delivering the incontrovertible fact that he won the popular vote.
The fact that the Democrats for a year told us that it required a law being passed to secure the border and Trump just rubbing the Democrats face in the fact that that was a Ridiculous lie.
In comparison, under Joe Biden, the worst president in American history, there were hundreds of thousands of illegal crossings a month.
And virtually all of them, including murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and people from mental institutions and insane asylums, were released.
Into our country.
Who would want to do that?
This is my fifth such speech to Congress.
And once again, I look at the Democrats in front of me and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud.
Nothing I can do.
I could find a cure to the most devastating disease, a disease that would wipe out entire nations.
Or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded.
And these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements.
Michael, this is an indictment, in my opinion, on the Democratic leadership.
I talked to a lot of members during the, they was texting.
The staff were on my phones and they were calling.
And I think the best way to describe it is the Democratic leadership said they didn't want disruptions and they wanted people to attend and bring a guest and they wanted, you know, little business as usual and we're fighting back in other ways.
There is a palpable disgust, as Claire said, from not just the members but their constituents.
And it's like a pot, as someone described it to me, that's boiling and it's about to bubble over.
If you do not allow the members a space to release valve, it's gonna bubble over.
And this was a, the members, the visuals are not taken back to house in 2026.
Not these visuals.
unidentified
Where's the signs?
Put the signs up, please.
- The dry erase board, the dry erase board with different messages.
The thing about the moment for me, and for folks, if you really want to understand the difference between Republican control...
And democratic acquiescence?
It's in how two things happened in that chamber and how they were handled.
When Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert stood up and showed their behinds on the House floor, when they just act a fool, shouting and talking and being loud and disruptive, what happened?
We got other stories to get into, other news to get to, other videos to show you.
We're actually on the whole show on the speech last night, but there were a lot of good instances that are worth highlighting, and it was in a way sort of a crystallization, an embodiment of American politics as it stands right now.
Trump and the Republicans, triumphant.
Democrats.
Petulant, obstructionist, and just bad at what they're trying to do.
Everything about Democrats right now is in total disarray.
Their messaging is non-existent all over the place.
Their resistance is annoying to everybody and ineffective.
It's very funny.
Honestly, it's very funny to see.
Everybody gets this.
Everybody gets this, by the way.
Let's go now to clip number 13, where CNN held a poll asking people whether they thought the Al Green's protest getting physically removed from the chamber while protesting the results of the election.
So literally protesting the votes that Americans made.
During the course event, which is wanting to get reaction on Congressman Al Green's antics and being ejected, 80% of speech watchers said that the Democratic congressman's interrupting of Trump's speech was inappropriate.
Only 20% of speech watchers thought what Green did was appropriate, Aaron.
80% of respondents, and that's CNN. That's probably heavily Democrat anyway.
Thought it was inappropriate what Al Green did.
It doesn't even make sense on the face of it.
It's one of the things the Democrats do.
It's like, you're a congressman.
You're a senator.
You're in charge.
You're supposed to make these stands and advocate for your people in your position, in your lawful and official position.
That's what you're there for.
It literally makes no sense for them to be protesting.
It never does.
And it's the same type of thing when it's like AOC holding a sit-in in an office.
And it's like, but you're the congressman.
Protests are supposed to be like regular people petitioning their government to do something and coming together to go look at all these people who agree with me.
You can see this is a popular thing.
You should do this for us because you represent us.
If you're the congressman, it just doesn't make any sense.
And then finally, and maybe most terribly, the Democrats, who couldn't find it in their heart to stand for objectively good things, including the 95-year-old mother of Mark Fogle.
And Mark, who got rescued from a Russian prison, and they couldn't even stand up for that.
I thought Democrats came into this speech lost and defeated by Donald Trump, and today it looks to me like they're even more lost and even more defeated than when this speech started.
They think Doge is like Musk going in and stealing money?
I'm trying to make sense of what this claim could possibly be.
And first of all, this is the problem when lefties try to do conspiracy theories.
They don't even have good ones.
They make no sense, and they're boring.
When we talk about billionaires, we're like George Soros is the puppet master who is You know, hijacking law and order in this country to release criminals on the street to rape and murder as his foot soldiers of the communist revolution.
And you can look into it and it's like, oh my god, he is.
I mean, you might agree with him.
You might think what he's doing is good, but you can't say that we're lying.
He's certainly using billions of dollars to fund left-wing prosecutors who let people out of prison.
I mean, that's all true.
You can say it's a good thing because, you know, law and order is racist or whatever these dumbasses believe, but you can't actually deny it.
Or, you know, Bill Gates.
You go, you know, our conspiracy theories are like Bill Gates is weaponizing mosquitoes and hijacking 5G to depopulate entire continents.
He's manufacturing GMO mosquitoes to deliver supposed vaccines that are in fact...
And then you look into it and you're like, why is he giving all the money to these?
Why are they releasing mosquitoes out of helicopters?
They're mosquito factories where they're producing tens of millions of mosquitoes with GMO alterations that make them incapable of...
You know, piercing skin with their bloodsuckers.
This is all very creepy.
Like, you look into it and you start going down a rabbit hole.
You're like, oh my god, I don't know if he's really trying to depopulate people, but clearly there's some weird stuff going on and I should look into this.
And why is he giving billions of dollars to Gavi?
And why is he, you know, doing these supposedly beneficial things in the middle of Africa where there's no...
Why is he testing vaccine programs in the poorest places in the world?
This is all very weird and disturbing.
Like, you look into it, and it's like, oh my god, he really is.
He really is weaponizing mosquitoes to deliver medicine against our will.
This is disturbing.
And then you go to the left, and they're just like, Elon Musk steals things.
He's stealing money!
Like, the richest man in the history of the world, the man worth half a trillion dollars, is stealing.
Okay.
Great point.
The hell are you talking about?
He's trying to steal our social security numbers.
Like, okay, so your conspiracy theory is that, let me just say it again, the richest man in the history of the world...
He spent hundreds of millions of dollars to hijack the United States government to get his hands on retirement funds from Social Security?
And the other thing is maybe it's like a lack of imagination.
I was listening to this lecture from a A military, you know, war college.
He was talking about when you look at strategy after the fact and are trying to determine what is a good strategy and what is a bad strategy, you can't actually stick strictly on what works and what doesn't.
For example, you can have a very good strategy that fails because it was an impossible situation, right?
Sometimes victory is not possible and you can have the best strategy ever and still lose.
So you can't say that was a bad strategy because it lost.
The same way you can't say this was the best strategy because it won.
Because even if you have a strategy that achieves a goal, maybe there's a different strategy that could have achieved the goal better.
And the whole thing was about how to...
It's actually the basis of what has been warped and distorted and perverted by the left like they do everything.
It's critical analysis.
That's what that means.
Critical analysis.
And so when you critically analyze strategy, one of the things you have to do is be able to imagine strategies that don't exist.
And compare them in your mind with the strategies that exist on paper.
All this is to say, can you imagine being Elon Musk?
Can you imagine if your goal was to steal money?
Is this the way you'd go about it?
Would you really draw all the attention you possibly could onto yourself?
Would you make yourself the focal point of attention from the mainstream media?
And parade around what you were doing every day.
Can you imagine if his goal was to steal money, how much money he could steal from the shadows?
I mean, can you imagine?
Because I can, and this is how it would happen, because this is how it happens with the Democrats.
You know, the Democrat sources or the Norm Eisen's who are receiving, you know, tens of millions of dollars to create podcasts that get less than 200 views.
These big scams they run, they don't do it out in front of everybody in everybody's face.
If Elon Musk wanted to steal money, he could have gotten Trump elected, just like he did, and then as soon as the election happened, faded away, said, ah, you know, I was doing that for the election, we won, this was great, congratulations Trump, I'm going to go back to shooting rockets at the moon, okay?
And he just backs off, and then quietly in the background is like, alright, I need, you know, we need contracts on this, you know, I'd like to be favored on this.
I'll tell you what, I got a new charity I'm running.
I'd love a couple billion dollars for that.
And he could be making money hand over fist if that was his design.
But if you can't imagine that, if you can't project, you know, your mind into Elon Musk's and say, okay, if I'm acting this way, what is my goal?
What is my purpose?
If his purpose was to steal, he could be robbing us blind from the shadows.
The fact that he's out in the open, the fact that he's publishing everything that he's doing, the fact that he's made himself a focal point, means that he ain't after money.
He ain't after silent, quiet, secretive gain.
He's doing what he says he's doing.
It all goes to the Democrats' flailing desperation to sink their teeth into anything.
That makes for a compelling argument, and they have absolutely nothing.
So all they have is to call Elon Musk a robber baron, say he steals with no evidence or justification or anything, any argument at all, and just expect their constituents to be dumb enough to buy it without any evidence.
And it ain't working.
It's just not working.
And of course, do they not know?
That any time you hold up a sign, people are going to hijack it.
People are going to Photoshop it to make it say funny stuff.
They're very stupid, and it's a compounding thing.
Their stupidity has led to their failure.
Their failure has led to their desperation.
In their desperation, they're acting even stupider, which is making them fail harder, which is making them more desperate.
It's a beautiful, glorious feedback loop that will consume them.
Give it enough time, which is why you know that the people actually in charge of the Democrat Party, not the brain-dead puppets that they put out in front of everybody, like AOC. Not the people they literally hold auditions for to be actresses.
But the people at the top of the party, the people running this, the people, you know, the CIA or the World Bank that are actually...
Setting agendas for the Democrats.
I guarantee you right now they're like, alright, this isn't working.
So, I mean, and that's one of the reasons why they have started to shift towards MAGA. That's why you have Mark Zuckerberg and others embracing MAGA because they want to infiltrate and subvert it.
It's not really going to work, though, because we know who they are and you can't just...
Wave an American flag and go, haha, forget that I begged Xi Jinping to name my child.
Can you forget that for a little?
Sorry about censoring you constantly and still to this day.
So they're full of crap, but they still recognize the way the wind is blowing, and they're trying to get out in front of it.
They're trying to steal away some of that energy because they're vampires.
It's not going to work, but I guarantee you the people at the top of the Democratic Party are going, okay, we need to meet fire with fire.
We have to have the equal and opposite force of Trump.
We have to have our own Trump.
In the same way, they say we have to have our own Joe Rogan.
This is what they do.
They're failing in every regard, and so they're seeing the strategies that work for Republicans, and they're trying to create a facsimile of it.
They're trying to copy it in an inorganic way.
See, Republicans, none of this is top-down designed.
Donald Trump was never supposed to win anything.
Remember, it was supposed to be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.
That was supposed to be our choice in 2016. And you can just imagine the world we'd be living in today if Jeb or Hillary had gotten into office, which all that means is Hillary Clinton would have gotten into office.
So you can just imagine where we'd be 10 years down the line.
So Trump arises naturally out of an organic process.
They see that and they go, okay, we need our own facsimile of that.
Then they see that Donald Trump is...
Achieving massive victory through his podcast strategy.
And they're like, okay, we need to copy that.
But instead of just going on podcasts and being normal people, they do this.
They build an entire set.
They have to create this giant fake world where they pretend that they're cool and modern and hip and hanging out with the top podcasters.
It's all fake.
It's all an illusion.
It's all a desperate attempt to mimic what the Republicans naturally do.
And how many times have you heard we need our own Joe Rogan?
We need a leftist Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan was liberal.
You people drove him away because this is the natural consequence of you being just terrible, just terrible, terrible, terrible people.
And they're not getting it and they're not learning.
And I mean, again, this is wonderful.
I mean, they're practically doing exactly what we would want them to do.
And it's amazing.
So we actually have a statement from Al Green about what the hell he was actually yelling about.
Now remember, the part that he interrupted, it was, it's literally, it's Trump going, I won the popular vote.
And this guy gets up and he's like, it's like, okay, but he did win the popular vote.
It's like, this is just reality, but it's also, it's even worse than that.
Reality of the democratic process.
So what you're protesting is just the outcome of the democratic process, which really says a lot about who you people are.
But afterwards, after he was kicked out, the reporter asked, why were you shouting at the president?
Al Green responds, the president said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the president that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful.
These poor people, they only have Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their health care.
I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.
We need to save Medicaid, protect it.
Now, unless I'm wrong, there's been no cuts to Medicaid.
They pretty much every time they talk about cuts, they say, you know, except for Medicaid and Medicare, we're not going to touch those.
We're not going to touch Social Security.
That's safe.
Because it would be politically suicidal to cut Social Security or Medicaid.
Part of these systems being set up is that they're impossible to withdraw from.
Once you have Social Security and you have people paying into Social Security their whole life, you can't exactly say, actually, we're canceling that project now.
We're just going to keep all your money?
It doesn't make any sense.
And it is a very, very deliberate Ponzi scheme on purpose.
By the time this was always the point of Social Security.
So this is what I'm saying.
They are tilting at windmills.
Nazi-shaped, you know, swastika-shaped windmills they're tilting at.
It doesn't exist.
Why'd you stand up and interrupt the president?
I want to let him know that we will be protecting Bigfoot.
His budget has a policy to eradicate Bigfoots, and we are here to say that we're standing up to protect Bigfoot.
It's like, you're in fantasy world, you're a lunatic, you're delusional, you're schizophrenic.
What are you even talking about?
What are you even talking about?
But again, it's tough because they do just say things and people believe them.
So like, Trump can say over and over and over again, I'm not cutting Medicaid, I'm not cutting Medicaid, I'm not cutting Medicaid.
They go on TV and say, Trump is cutting Medicaid!
And then they just continue as if that's true.
It's very stupid.
It's all just very stupid.
The reporter still asks, is yelling the way to best get that across?
And Al Green says, it's the best way to get it across to a person who uses his incivility against our civility.
I'm telling you, I can't just keep repeating myself, but there's only so many words to describe delusion, to describe insanity, to describe lunacy.
Hallucinations, right?
And it's another one of those things.
It's a feedback loop where Trump wasn't even that uncouth.
He sort of would insult people.
He'd be a little bit mean.
But almost every time it was in response to somebody insulting him first.
He almost never started the fight.
But they take this And then run with it.
And they do the same thing with like, you know, violence at the rallies, right?
Trump was never the one, his supporters were never the ones committing violence.
But the way it was always reported was like, Trump rally explodes in violence.
You know, the crowd outside of a Trump rally got into a fight and there was a big rumble.
And it's like, okay, but the Trump supporters were there to see a speech and then a bunch of leftists showed up and started throwing glass bottles at them.
But that's not how it's reported.
It's reported as violence at Trump rally.
So then people have it in their mind that, okay, Trump is violent.
His supporters are violent.
Therefore, we have to be violent.
Well, if they're going to be violent, we're going to be violent.
If he's going to be incivil, then we're going to be incivil.
Until somebody else decides that because he's Trump, they get to...
Be a dick to him, and he just defends himself.
And then they use that as an excuse.
So this is the way that, like, just by acting like their delusions are real, they almost make them real, or they give more fodder to act like they're real.
Again, this is why this whole speech last night is sort of a microcosm of the left overall.
So there it is.
And the reporter asks, is that the only punishment?
You were kicked out.
Is there something?
Al Green says, I don't know.
Whatever the punishment is, I'm not fighting it.
This is about the people who are being punished by virtue of losing their health care.
Not happening.
This is the richest country in the world, and we have people who don't have good health care.
We've got to do better.
Now we're about to cut Medicaid, which for poor people, health care has become wealth care for many, and we can't afford to let that happen.
So they impeach him on baseless grounds, and then that becomes grounds for the impeachment?
So they're impeaching him because they impeached him.
They impeached him because they targeted him for lawfare and charged him with a bunch of stuff of which he was innocent.
But because they charged him, now they say, we're going to impeach him because he's been charged.
He had 34 felony charges that we put on him, so now we have to do this.
It reminds me of, there was a guy who was talking about Cheddar Man.
This Cheddar man who was an intact, frozen body found in the UK. And what happened was the professor found this and he said, you know, because as leftists always do, they get a position, they use that position to progress whatever their particular ideology is, not do the thing that the position is supposed to be.
So as a scientist who's supposed to be studying anthropology or archaeology, you're supposed to like...
Find things, try to figure out how they fit into the timeline and what we can learn about them.
Instead, the professor that found Cheddar Man was all about Cheddar Man.
He was like, we have to use archaeology to discredit the idea that Britons are a race and that the UK is home to a race of people that have been here forever.
He's like, that's bad.
Nationalism is bad.
White nationalism is bad.
So we're going to take Cheddar Man and say...
Actually, he's black.
Actually, Cheddar Man is black.
He was African.
And so therefore, this proves that white people aren't indigenous to the UK. Cheddar Man was black, so actually black people are.
And it was totally fraudulent, totally made up, and totally political and deliberately anti-white.
He wanted to provide the...
And so what happens is people believe that.
People...
Believing his lie and then saying, well, so Cheddar Man is black.
Black people say he's now ours.
This old body from the UK belongs to us.
He's now part of us.
And then the professor says, well, now that Cheddar Man is culturally black, now we have to treat it as if it is.
So he lies about it.
And then says, because they believe the lie, now it's true.
I sort of butchered the story, but I think this is why some people watch us and think we sound crazy because it's like.
It's sort of vague connections.
But they're important ones.
And once you see them, you'll start sort of seeing the same strategy everywhere.
And it's because everything that we talk about sort of hinges on basic human psychology.
And it always sort of functions the same.
So, while we might have started talking about like sort of the self-fulfilling prophecy of...
Acting like Trump is violent or uncivil, not civil, doesn't treat people with civility.
And so, you know, even though it's not true, they start acting like it is true and like becomes true.
So then, you know, but they're the ones that started it, but they act like they're being defensive.
And you start seeing this, you'll see this over and over and over and over and over again.
I mean, you could practically apply it to like every...
Major conflict in the world today.
When you look at Israel and Gaza, it's like, okay, who started it?
Where did it start?
It's, you know, you say these people are violent, so you treat them harshly, and they respond in kind, and you're like, see, they're violent.
I mean, it happens over and over and over again.
And so, you know, psychologically, these things are all very similar in the tactics used.
By these people, it's always exactly the same, and it's very obvious once you see it.
It's very deliberate that they're doing it.
So we'll go to the video that I was trying to explain.
I believe this is a guy named Tom Roswell.
I think this is Tom Roswell.
We'll go ahead and go to clip 26 now.
unidentified
The Tedder Man reconstruction was advised by a scientist called Tom Booth, who works with the Natural History Museum.
In 2017, he worked on a paper with my former university, UCL, where he complains about racists and right-wing people and Brexit and how geneticists have a duty to try and prevent people from identifying with ancestral populations because that feeds into nationalist narratives.
Recently, after all this time of him encouraging black people in the UK to believe Cheddar Man was like them somehow and like a part of, like racially like them or genetically related to them, even though he knows perfectly well that Cheddar Man has no relation to them, he'd made a tweet saying something along the lines, I have to paraphrase, like now he'd made a tweet saying something along the lines, I have to paraphrase, like now that black people have identified with Cheddar Man, Cheddar Man is politically black because he's Like, you just lied to make them think that.
And then you say because they believe the lie, therefore now it has to be true because it's part of their cultural experience of being British and black.
We've got a lot of videos to go to in the meantime.
But give us a call.
1-877-789-2539.
1-877-789-2539.
Let's go to clip number 16 here.
This is Stephen A. Smith putting Joy Behar in a body bag on her own show because, again, the Democrats are being divided into those with at least some semblance of consciousness, some vague connection to reality, and those who are just completely lost in the woods of partisanship.
But the problem is that if you're the Democratic Party and you lost 49.8% to 48.3%, and you're looking at that 1.5%, that's an excuse for you to say, what we did really wasn't that bad.
And suddenly the beach gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
And it's like, okay, this is the forewarning for the tsunami that's about to come.
And I think it is about to come.
And I think that it's going to get very interesting when it does.
I predict that by 2028, and maybe even before that, I think you're going to see politicians running on explicitly pro-white I think it's getting to the point with all of the discrimination against white people, all of the hatred against white people, and that's what DEI is.
Everybody sees it now.
I was watching a video earlier today.
Do you know the Oscars happened?
You guys remember the Oscars?
The Oscars used to be well, it's always been a giant circle jerk, but it used to be this thing where the movie industry would get together and pat themselves on the back and award Little statues to the best movies and the best actors and the best makeup artists.
And it was an award ceremony, an industry-inclusive award ceremony for the best in the business it used to be.
A couple years ago, they decided actually it's a diversity prize.
Actually, it should be a prize for the films that best encapsulate non-white, non-Christian ethics and people.
So nobody watches.
This might be news to some of you.
Yes, the Oscars literally happened a few days ago.
I'm not even sure which day it was.
I think it may have been Sunday.
Then later, I think it may have been Monday.
I don't really know.
Nobody saw any of the movies that won.
And some of the best movies of the year were actually excluded because they didn't fulfill arbitrary and anti-white diversity requirements for the movies.
And I was watching a video.
About this today from Nerd Rodic, a friend of the show.
And, you know, they're not explicitly political.
But, like, they're doing a panel thing and, you know, they're reading out the diversity requirements.
And halfway through, the person's like, just say non-white.
Just say no white guys.
Because everybody gets it now.
Everybody gets it.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion.
And they're like, we need to bring on underrepresented people, even if they're the majority.
Like women.
Women, higher percentage than men by population.
But they're the minority.
They're still a minority.
Even though they're the majority, they're still the minority.
Even though they, you know, are just as prevalent in film always.
They need help, okay?
But it's like women and Asians and blacks and Hispanics and gay people.
And it's just like, just say...
Everybody except for straight white men.
So everybody gets this now and everybody's sick of it.
Everybody's sick of pretending like this is some sort of virtuous thing to go into white countries and then discriminate against white people and say that white people are the majority race even though globally white people are the smallest race by percentage.
Everybody's getting sick of this.
And it's probably going to happen in America first.
And then it will, you know, expand out to Europe.
In Europe, they have a lot more pressure against this type of stuff.
But I'm seeing more and more of it.
I predict that by like 2028, and it's way overdue by the way, this should have been a stance in 2016. And frankly, it's embarrassing still that Trump will mention every ethnic group except for white people explicitly.
Again, it's not, and because they have people in this delusion that To actually even acknowledge that white people exist and might have interest is white supremacy and makes you a Nazi.
People aren't really falling for that anymore.
And so you're going to start to see more and more mainstream media figures who have deliberately ignored this fact for a long time finally start to talk about this.
And I want to make it clear that the reason that this change has come about...
It's mostly due to the actions of the Democrats, the leftists, the anti-white people.
They've really made it impossible to ignore at this point how biased they are.
So you're going to have a natural reaction to that.
But I also would give credit to the people who just speak about this plainly.
Because the trap people fall into is they sort of start to realize this is the case and they go like full bore.
I can't remember what I said on Acts.
I can't remember what I was saying, but I said something about, oh, I think I said that the greatest advantage that the Jews ever enjoyed to this day is the incompetence of their, the quality of their opposition.
A lot of people didn't understand what I meant by that.
And it's like nobody's going to be converted by a bunch of people throwing the Nazi salute and saying, Hail, Hitler, saying the N-word.
That doesn't convince anybody.
That actually just radicalizes people against you.
And so somebody responded to me saying, no, you know, Americans are asleep.
Have you ever talked to anybody outside of the internet?
The internet has thrown people's minds for a loop.
They think the world is completely different than it actually is.
If you actually wanted to stop discrimination against white people, you need to talk about it in a normal, calm, loving way, in the way that you talk about anybody.
At least that's my strategy.
That's what I do, because it's genuine.
It's like, okay, if I lived in a country that discriminated against black people, Then I'd be against that and I'd speak out against it.
Now I live in a world where they discriminate against white people.
I'm going to speak up against that.
So it's going to be people like Tucker Carlson saying this stuff.
It's going to mainstream it.
And it's going to convince people.
And it's going to wake people up to the reality of Of the fact that the entire Democratic coalition and the entire plot of the globalists is like very explicitly designed to destroy white people as a race on purpose in a targeted fashion.
And you can call me a Nazi for saying that, but it's like, I'm not wrong though, am I? I mean, this is, so I'm not going to be cowed.
By these words, when all I'm doing is defending a race from unfair persecution is actually what we should be doing.
In the same way that, like, if we want to stop the anti-Semitism bills that are coming down the pipeline, the way you argue against that is very simple.
It's the way you'd argue against any threat to the First Amendment.
You argue it on First Amendment grounds.
The momentum is with freedom.
It's with America.
It's with us.
Like, we are moving in the right direction.
And I think we're going to accelerate in that direction.
And I think you can be derailed or hindered by people just being uncouth and outrageous in the way they talk about this stuff.
Instead, what you need is people like Tucker Carlson or myself, I hope.
That I can do a good job of just, like, explaining this in a way that, like, everybody should agree, every good person should agree that, like, races shouldn't be discriminated against.
It's pretty standard stuff.
Somehow, somehow, all of America has been convinced that actually discriminating against white people is good.
And that's weird and wrong and bad.
We can argue against that without engaging in...
Racism or anti-symmetism ourselves, because that's not the basis of it.
It's we want to defend the people being persecuted.
So let's go to clip number 24 here.
Here is Tucker Carlson, again, sort of coming around to this reality and this conclusion.
So yeah, you know, it's shocking that this hasn't been said in the mainstream media like ever, but it's absolutely true, and I think more and more people are going to sort of come around to this, which makes you wonder what's going to be the response to this, because it's not working anymore just saying, That you're a Nazi if you don't want white people to be eradicated.
That you have to sit there and watch your country be taken over by foreigners because to defend your homeland is racist?
Like, it's a testament to the psychological manipulation that the globalists have been able to carry out.
It's really an impressive feat they've been able to carry off.
But it's not going to last that much longer.
And I think it's time for the Republicans in particular to embrace that fact and reject the idea that somehow you're bad for just recognizing the attack against white people.
Yeah, first I want to say, you know, it seemed like yesterday, I think you messed up, and I think you accidentally popped a fistful of a white supremacist steroid pills.
On your first segment, but I think you caught it, and then you got some super chill Winston for your little call with Patty.
Yeah.
Anyway, y'all owe me a bottle of that for having to sip you that on hold.
But anyway, yeah, okay, so, you know, in that interview, that last interview, you know, Hannity asked her, you know, what are you going to redact, that national security stuff?
And that, to me, was a signal that we're going to get Weinsteined.
And what we're going to get as far as perpetrators is going to be Tom Hanks, etc., a bunch of useless idiots that seem important but aren't really important.
And we're not going to get the Clintons.
We're not going to get the big boys because of national security.
And again, our position the entire time has been, we don't exactly need these documents.
We already know pretty much everything there is to know about Jeffrey Epstein.
It'd be nice to get some official verification of what we know, and it could lead to a wider action and a wider conversation.
But no, I think you're exactly right.
I mean, national security is one of those phrases that you can really apply to just about anything or anyone.
And nobody can say, well, that's not actually national security because they don't actually know what it is.
You say, well, we rejected that person's name because it's national security.
And it's like, you have to believe them.
There's nothing you can say to discredit that argument.
So, yeah, I think you're exactly right, Joshua.
When she says national security, that is a very wide-ranging net to throw over anything you don't want published, especially when it comes to international relations where it's like, look, even just...
I've explained it over and over that it's like the idea is that if you talk about the fact that Israel was running these blackmail operations, that will make people question our relationship with Israel, which means that we may not be funding them anymore or providing them security anymore, which would mean that they would succumb to the attacks of their neighbors.
So it's like out of it's an existential threat.
Revealing Israel's connection to Epstein would be an existential threat down the line.
But that's the argument that's Do you think we're going to get anything from the Epstein releases?
I mean, they keep teasing it.
They keep saying, oh, now we have a truckload.
It'll be any day now, any minute now, two weeks to slow the spread of Jeffrey Epstein's documents.
What do you think we're getting at the end of the day, Joshua?
Ladies and gentlemen, third hour of American Journal is on.
We're going to go to your phone calls momentarily, but in this first five-minute segment, I want to cover this bombshell story published by the New York Post.
$375 billion EPA slush fund handled by John Podesta gave billions to charities founded only months earlier.
The Biden administration funneled at least $20 billion into environmental groups, most of which had only been recently founded, the Post has discovered.
In one case, former Vice President Kamala Harris handed over a check for nearly $7 billion to Bethesda, Maryland-based group Climate United Fund, which does not appear in the IRS's charity database and has no federal filings.
The nonprofit fund has only been incorporated in Delaware.
On November 30, 2023, according to public records, just five months before Harris handed over the cash in April 2024. Because the company is so new, there is no publicly published accounting of how it plans to spend the $7 billion.
Politicians tell their friends, hey, go incorporate a company in Delaware.
Call it a charity.
Do the right paperwork.
And then we'll just cut you a check for $7 billion.
You have to do nothing, achieve nothing, prove nothing.
You don't have to show how you're going to spend the money.
And we will rob the American people of $7 billion.
Billion dollars and just hand it to you for free.
No oversight, no justification, no need to pay it back.
Some of these numbers are so big, it makes the other big numbers seem not so big, right?
When you're talking about $375 billion, it's an unimaginable amount of money, but then it makes $7 billion seem like...
Chump change.
Who cares about $7 billion?
We were talking about $375 billion.
$7 billion is more than most major corporations make in a single year.
Do you know how successful you have to be to make a billion dollars?
You have to found Apple.
You have to found McDonald's.
It's such a rare accomplishment and achievement to get just $1 billion.
These people are writing themselves $7 billion checks out of the U.S. Treasury and providing nothing for it.
I went ahead and just typed it into chat GPT. Let's see what it came up with.
With $7 billion, what could we buy?
You could buy 1,750,000 Tesla Model 3s.
You could buy 70,000 Rolls-Royce Phantoms, 3,500 private jets, 140 super yachts, 700,000 Rolex watches, and a Mega Mansion anywhere in the world with money to spare.
And I have the feeling these are all combined, right?
You combine all of these.
3,500 private jets.
Can you even picture 3,500 private jets?
Because that's what was given away with your tax dollars to a company that was founded months earlier by one of Kamala Harris' friends.
Just wholesale, unbelievable theft.
You can buy entire countries with $7 billion.
Even just, I mean, what would you do if I cut you a check for $10 million?
And that is literally a drop in the bucket of the funds that were handed out to Democratic operatives for free with your money.
And yet, this is the stuff that socialists and leftists will say, that's not fraud, that was legal.
It was legal because the government did it.
Total fraud.
$7 billion handed out to a company formed the month before.
Now we're just getting the actual numbers and figures and how they're doing it out in the open.
But unbelievable is not the right word.
It's perfectly believable.
It's just horrifying.
So again, the story from New York Post, $375 billion EPA slush fund handled by John Podesta gave billions to charities founded only months earlier.
Including one that got $7 billion, the Climate United Fund, who had never done anything, never proved themselves in any way whatsoever, and yet received $7 billion.
For free, because they're friends with Kamala Harris, and filed the right paperwork with the Delaware Secretary of State.
They went on a legal Zoom, and they checked the charity box when it asked, what corporation do you want to form?
They got a little packet for $300 where they filed with the Secretary of State, and that apparently is worth $7 billion, if you have the word climate in the name of your...
Never filed with the IRS. Never showed what they would use the money for.
We don't even know who's in it, what they're doing.
Just handed out $7 billion.
And that in and of itself is just a fraction of a fraction of the total money spent robbed from you in the name of, wait for it, fighting inflation.
Yeah, remember that?
Remember when they passed the Inflation Reduction Act?
And it was the largest climate change bill ever passed and they bragged about that?
In 2022, President Joe Biden named Podesta, John Podesta, of Pizzagate fame to helm the Climate Fund, which resulted from the Inflation Reduction Act, a 2022 law that was aimed at combating climate change and creating clean energy.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
The bill that was aimed at combating climate change and creating clean energy.
But it was called the Inflation Reduction Act.
Last year, EPA advisor Brent Efron was caught on video describing how the agency hastily parceled out a related $20 billion climate fund that was held by Citibank before the end of the Biden administration.
This was the famous throwing gold bars off the Titanic video.
They're able to do things that they shouldn't be able to do because they do them in the open.
It's kind of a weird thing.
In the Oscars, the movie that won is about a whore.
It's about a prostitute.
And the person who gave the speech is like, sex work is valid and good.
And a perfectly good...
You know, choice of career path for young women being a sex worker.
And if we call it sex work and we're open about it, then it must be good.
Again, this might be a little tangential.
It might not be like a total...
But there's a thing.
There's just a thing out there.
There's a psychological occurrence taking place where like all of these things that are terrible, it's like...
Because they just do them out in the open, that therefore makes it good?
It's bizarre.
Now, you remember a few years ago where it was like the woman holding the golden statue going, I got my baby aborted, and if I hadn't aborted my baby, I wouldn't have ever won this.
So that's a message to young women from Hollywood.
It's like, kill your children to get fame, and if that doesn't work, sell your body.
Be a baby murderer and if you still can't succeed, then be a whore.
We're for women's empowerment.
So I can't help but see sort of a weird connection where it's like, okay, there are these horrible, immoral, disgusting things that are apparently good because people just do them out in the open now.
And somehow, by virtue of being blatant about this, nobody can see that what they're What they're doing is telling little girls to be whores.
It's weird that this is how it works.
And with the stealing of the money, I mean, this is the argument most leftists make, is they go, this isn't fraud because it was done in the open.
You can't steal $375 billion and get away with it.
For the Inflation Reduction Act.
I mean, this is the thing, man.
It's like, what do we really have to...
I mean, who is defending this?
How do they get away with this?
I genuinely want to know.
How do they get away with saying, we're going to pass the Inflation Reduction Act because we care so much about the And the ability of young families to live.
The inflation is killing them.
We need to get the Inflation Reduction Act passed.
And it's just a gigantic scam to steal money to give to climate change initiatives that don't actually exist, don't actually do anything, and are just there as a gigantic slush fund for Democrat activism.
It's wild, wild that it's gone on this long.
And that we're still treating it like we need to investigate.
It's crazy.
It is absolutely crazy.
Of the eight pass-through entities that received funding from the pot of the $20 billion in tax dollars, various recipients have shown very little qualification to handle a single dollar, let alone several billions of dollars.
I have zero tolerance for waste and abuse at the EPA.
This is what Zeldin said.
A spokeswoman for the Climate United Fund told The Post that the Biden-controlled EPA encouraged groups to work with coalitions to receive the cash.
Another example, the similarly named Justice Climate Fund.
Okay, the Justice Climate Fund is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit which was set up in 2023 and has yet to submit a tax filing to the IRS and has no information about its principles on its website.
The group received $940 million from the EPA. It lists its aims as working with community partners to, quote, drive transformative investments focused on reducing pollution, amongst other goals.
Another group, a third group, Power Forward Communities Incorporated, was registered in 2023 and chose a total of just $100 in revenue in its tax filing for that entire year, according to the public filings.
Yet the Columbia, Maryland based nonprofit somehow received $2 billion from the EPA fund, according to public records.
So they found a charity.
They claim it makes $100 in its first year, and the next year the government decides it's worthy of receiving $2 billion from the taxpayer coffers and money.
Tim Mayopoulos, the former CEO of housing financial company Fannie Mae and Democratic donors, listed as the group's interim president and CEO, according to public filings.
He contributed $5,600 to Joe Biden's presidential campaign in 2020, a federal filing show.
Well, what a brilliant investment that was.
He contributes $5,000 to Joe Biden, and in return, Joe Biden's vice president signs off.
On a $2 billion grant to his fake company that he is apparently president of.
So that's just the latest and just a, again, drop in the bucket of the trillions of dollars that are just being robbed from all of us wholesale and given out to Democratic operatives to do God knows what with.
Again, this is the thing that, you know, good, we should cut off this money.
Obviously, these people need to go to jail.
They need to go to jail.
They need to have everything they've ever received from the government clawed back with interest.
It's a giant scam.
Democrats have been running a gigantic mafia operation for decades.
Stopping the money is not enough.
Good start.
The money has to be clawed back.
The people who did this have to be imprisoned and have everything they've ever owned confiscated and sold at auction to repay the money they've stolen from us.
It's the only way.
It's the only way that this can be said right or at least stopped.
But I just always have a hard time not fantasizing about what the world would be like if we did this instead.
Now, it's impossible because Republicans are, you know, ideologically and at their foundation, moral and upstanding people who are genuinely outraged at the way that the good nature of the American people and the manipulation of the mainstream media can be taken advantage of to rob people outright.
But I can't help but feel like, you know, if this is the way the game is played, I don't know.
I'm honestly fine with either one, but those are the only two options available.
So that's how we have to play it.
If it's fraud, arrest these people.
If it's not fraud, then why are we not doing it?
The only reason not to do it is because it's fraud, but if it's not, then let's do it.
Let's do it.
Let's do it, you guys.
Let's hand out hundreds of billions of dollars to us, to ourselves, and our ideas, and our agendas, and our combines, and our fake charities that we start up.
I would like somebody to talk about it more, or like Congress to talk about it more, and I would like it to be done right away, because I think that's the number one issue to me.
And also, I would like to ask if you've ever seen a documentary called The Arrivals.
It's not the movie, but it's a really long documentary.
About eight hours, actually.
About the Zionist movement in itself from the beginning to the end.
I encourage you, go try to get something done with chemtrails at the state level and just keep us up to date and we'll support you and try to bring attention to your cause because that is an important one.
Thank you for the call, Byron.
Let's go to Wild in Canada now.
Wild in Canada, go ahead.
You're on the air.
unidentified
Hey, complete honor, man.
Thanks for calling in.
Yeah, I wanted to sort of relevant in terms of the...
The way the state of the Canadian cope here and the State of the Union addressed yesterday, the way you brought back the word retarded is absolutely incredible.
It's one of those, it's got that French fanciness to it.
BlackRock strikes $23 billion deal to place Panama Canal ports under American control.
It's not American control, is it?
It's BlackRock control.
American control would be America making a deal to place the ports under our control.
BlackRock, not really American.
And it's bizarre and it's sort of inexplicable because you've got on one hand...
Trump's made like a central pillar of his current administration, the destruction of DEI and ESG, and yet he is best friends and in bed with constantly BlackRock, who is the origin of DEI and ESG. So are we supposed to celebrate this?
So it's like time and time again, you know, Trump does something where he's like, the Panama Canal, we gave it away, and now China controls it, and we want it back.
It's like, yeah, hell yeah, we should have it back.
We built it.
Tens of thousands of our people died creating it.
It's a piece of military infrastructure, crucial for our ability to move ships to either one of our coasts without having to go around the southern tip of South America.
Who are the corporations that are outsourcing everything to China?
Well, they're all owned by BlackRock.
Why are all these corporations engaged in anti-white discrimination through ESG and DEI? Because BlackRock made them do it.
So this isn't a victory.
This is a total scam.
And there's so many things like this where it's like, okay, do you not get it at all?
Are you just full of crap?
This isn't what anybody who voted for Trump wanted.
I bet you could pull 90, you know, 100 Trump supporters, 99 of them, when asked about BlackRock, would have a negative opinion on BlackRock.
Does not want, recognizes BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street as the progenitor of all of these problems in our country.
So how are they benefiting most from Trump's presidency?
It's infuriating.
It's a betrayal.
And at the same time, you know, and again, I sort of addressed this a little bit yesterday, but you got all these people going, Oh, you fell for it again.
We're tricked again.
It's like, no, we voted for Trump for a huge variety.
I didn't vote for Trump to get the Panama Canal back, okay?
That was never a big selling point for me.
And the things that he has done have had tangible, real-world effects that are good.
For example, I got to hang out with Stuart Rhodes, who was supposed to be in prison until he was like 80. And you can't tell me that, like, that would have happened under Kamala Harris or be like, you know.
Well, you fell for it.
It's like, no, we're getting a lot of what we wanted.
It's just, in certain cases, and we've always known this was the case.
Again, it's not like we went in expecting something different, but it's like, does it have to be so blatant?
The Hong Kong-based conglomerate that operates ports near the Panama Canal has agreed to sell shares of its units that operate the ports to a consortium, including BlackRock Inc., after President Trump alleged Chinese interference with the operations of the critical shipping lane.
In a press release, C.K. Hutchinson Holdings said Tuesday that it would sell all shares in Hutchinson Port Holdings and all shares in Hutchinson Port Group Holdings in a deal valued at $22.8 billion.
Oh, well, we could have bought it if they just called themselves a charity.
They should have just said they were a climate change charity, and then they could have just $28 billion.
You could buy the Panama Canal, and that's just like a small portion of the money that was handed out to leftist organizations, but let's not get distracted.
The two units hold 80 percent of the Hutchinson Port Group that operates 43 ports in 23 countries, including two of the major four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal.
The deal will give the BlackRock Consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere.
The consortium composed composed of BlackRock Global Infrastructure Partners and Terminal Investment Limited will acquire 90 percent interest in Panama Ports Company, which owns and operates the ports of Balboa and Cristobal in Panama, according to the filing.
This agreement is a powerful illustration of BlackRock and GIP's combined platform and our ability to deliver differentiated investments for clients.
These world class ports facilitate global growth.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said in a joint announcement with TIL of the deal.
Through our deep connectivity to organizations like Hutchinson and MSC, We are thrilled our clients can participate in this investment.
So again, they're not even like pretending this is a benefit for America.
So, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visits Panama in early February and told the president of Panama he had to reduce Chinese influence over the canal or face potential retaliation from the United States.
Molino rejected the idea that China had any control over canal operations.
Panama quit China's Belt and Road Initiative following Rubio's visit, drawing condemnation from Beijing.
It's like, that's all good.
Trump touted the move in his address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, saying to further enhance national security, our administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we've already started doing it.
Just today, a large American company announced they're buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals, the president said.
And again, it just goes back to what I was saying about the State of the Union in the first place.
It's like you can love Trump's way that he speaks and rallies and things, but then when it really matters and it's a speech that everybody's watching, that he really has a chance to explain to the American people what he's doing and really solidify What this agenda is all about and why all these things that he's doing are positive.
And it just sounds like every other rally campaign speech and it's like, okay, you know, fine, but a little bit disappointing, honestly.
When my boy Bobby Fossil, who I'm going to be riding around later in a van and picking up roadkill, when he said, ma-ha, he really went, ma-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, ma-ha-ha-ha-ha.
That's just like an evil laughter, but he can't really get it out because he's like this.
But anyway, the whole world is getting set ablaze for the Greater Israel Project.
They're doing an expansion out in the desert.
They have soil and terrain that cannot sustain a population of that size.
So, all my Ukrainian brothers, all my Russian brothers, you are Christians.
Shake hands and take out your freaking leaders.
Because that whole swat of land that they're taking from you, the most fertile soil in the world, is to feed the Zionists over in the Greater Israel Project.
Just like in Texas and other states, and just like they did in World War II with the Belfort Declaration, they set the whole world ablaze to take that land.
And when they're doing their expansion, they're doing the same thing.
Well, look, I mean, we've talked about that quite a bit here, and you do have to understand it's the Greater Israel Project, as we've explained quite a bit.
The ultimate goal is...
Is to have a one-world government that's headquartered in Israel.
I mean, everything is about the Great Israel Project, but the Greater Israel Project itself is going to just serve as the headquarters for...
I mean, you just have to take a look at the way the Soviet Union operated with Moscow as the center of this vast network of, you know, control and influence.
And, you know, just export that worldwide with Israel as the capital because of its geographic location and its spiritual importance and all that.
However, what I really want to say is when Trump signed the bill to start drilling, he said a comment that was very, very interesting and super exciting.
He said gas and oil, and he paused, and he said other technology.
Now, for me, to me, that means new ways of producing energy.
I know there's a company out there called Stavadi Corporation, something like that.
And they are actually developing new technologies, and it's kind of built upon zero, zero point energy.
Yes, I think that that is sort of an under-reported revolution going on right now.
We basically have achieved zero-point energy.
It just hasn't been activated yet or really widespread yet.
And for obvious reasons, right?
The whole construct of the world is built on scarcity of resources.
And the people in charge, they don't want to find out what happens when you have free infinite energy because it just robs them of all of their power.
So I know of a bunch of different methods by which essentially what can be called zero-point energy is already been achieved, whether that's small-scale, low-output nuclear devices that are being crafted right now.
Hydrogen energy is making huge advancements.
There's a lot of zero-point energy that's at the gate, ready to go, ready to be released.
And the world changes a lot as soon as that comes down.
So definitely something.
Maybe we'll spend some more time on it.
It's all speculative, though, at this point.
And, of course, this technology's actually been around since the time of Nikola Tesla in the early 1900s.
And they've done a very good job of keeping a lid on it so far, but they might not be able to hold back what's happening because technology is advancing so quickly.
And this is the type of thing that you could actually have be widespread and widely adopted and would absolutely change absolutely everything about humanity.
And it really would, like, you know...
You wouldn't have an excuse for immigration.
You wouldn't have an excuse for the climate change agenda.
I mean, it would just throw a stick in the spokes of their entire plan if you have infinite energy with very small or readily accessible fuel.
So, yeah, there's a lot of that coming, and that's why they're trying to cinch things up.
That's why they're trying to get everything implemented now, start World War III now, do the Great Reset 2.0 now.
To get everything in order so that they can unveil the infinite energy and immortality technology that they intend to use for themselves and withhold from the rest of us.
But by revealing it, we can prevent that final shutting of the jail cell on humanity.
There was a point in time in Coleman, Alabama, where I'm from, where a group of people, you know, protested Trump inside of a Trump rally, and everybody turned around and booed us and all that stuff.
And we were talking about the vaccines.
You know, the whole thing is this.
The Democrat Party, dude, is pretty much dead.
unidentified
These people are capitulated slaves to the New World Order.
And when people do things like what I did at that Coleman rally in Alabama where we booed Trump, dude, and everybody turned around and booed us and said that we were liberals and all kinds of stuff like that, dude, because we didn't want to get...
But long story short, dude, the reason why, dude, you know, BlackRock is a win for Trump, dude, is because everybody's annuity, retirement, and insurance is through BlackRock.
So they look at it and they're like, oh, I got BlackRock.
And if people do sit here and, you know, while we have this opportunity, because, you know, Trump will listen to us, unlike, you know, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or anything like that would just sit there and have everybody pushed out.
If we protested Trump, dude.
I mean, the thing is this.
You know, the guy, dude, who called with the East Coast accent, dude, totally stole my thunder.
I mean, you know, the Republican Party is the slow ride to the New World Order, where the Democrats, it's the floor drop.
So you take advantage of this time, you know, this four years that we got, get healthy, exercise, you know, report illegal aliens, you know, do what you have to do as an American to sit here and provide a better life for you and other Americans.