Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much, we feel too little.
More than machinery.
We need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe, and our food is unfit to eat.
As if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy.
You've got to say, I'm a human being.
God damn it.
My life has value.
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature.
Don't give yourselves to brutes.
Men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here, and today we're going to be talking about the first part of the five-part documentary series that Tucker Carlson has now officially released on 9-11.
I know some of you out there have watched all five parts, bucked up the 10 beans.
I have not.
I did immediately watch the first part and certainly had some concerns about it.
Now, that's not to say I don't think that the information presented, at least partially, is not important or that I don't think that Tucker Carlson is trying to do the right thing.
But we are going to be reviewing some of the more troubling aspects of that documentary, including this Rosini character that is being interviewed about Alex Station and praising a gentleman by the name of John Antisv.
Because John Antisv, as we will show you today, was the FBI handler of Ahmed Salam, the person that actually built, built the bomb in the 93 World Trade Center bombing that went off.
But he didn't build it on his own.
He wasn't an FBI informant because he was building it beforehand.
No, he built it with the supervision of the FBI and the government because they told him, we need to build a real bomb.
That Anisev, really great guy, huh?
Hmm.
I mean, food for thought.
So we're going to show you that.
We are also going to show a subsection of the film Fabled Enemies with commentary because somebody else that jumped in on Rosini and what he was saying about Alex Station and bin Laden is Sabelle Edmonds.
And Sabelle Edmonds is featured in my film Fabled Enemies.
Her story is there, at least in part.
She's revealed so much more.
And she was highly, highly upset with the first eight minutes or so of this 22-minute part of the documentary.
We're also going to be discussing YouTube today and freedom of speech in general.
Now, why are we coupling YouTube with freedom of speech?
As you know, and now, as I've been saying for the past several days, ever since Jim Jordan has released this deal that the DOJ cut with Google, no criminal prosecutions.
I don't know that there are any avenues for lawsuits.
There may be from this ruling.
I'm sure there are lawyers that may want to get involved now that we do have this ruling, but that type of litigation is going to take so long and be so expensive that it may transcend this administration.
And who knows where the policy goes from there?
Because in large part, I'm not necessarily buying what Alphabet, aka Google, aka YouTube has to sell me.
With that being said, I have now reapplied for monetization.
We're going to get to how you, the Burmese Brigade, can try to help put pressure on YouTube for that monetization.
But I am going to put it out there that Alex Jones, somebody that has not been on YouTube, I think, for almost seven years at this point.
I think they kicked him off about seven years ago, 2018, 19-ish.
It preceded the COVID-19 44 nightmare.
Just want to put that out there.
He tried to initiate a new channel with this news, okay, and was almost immediately taken down.
And there is a response by YouTube now saying that this is a pilot program, a pilot program.
And when we are talking about actual freedom of speech, I think that it is also good to be in alignment with the Jimmy Kimmel story, because I think there's a lot of misinformation, of perception of the reality of the Kimmel show and what happened with the FCC, what happened with the network, what's going on right now, et cetera, et cetera.
And I want to lay down what actually happened and what I think of it because I'm a free speech absolutist, but at the same time, that doesn't guarantee you a job.
And when we're talking about censorship via something like YouTube and something like network television, there are two things that really come to mind that are different.
Okay.
Number one, when you're on television, you have a time slot, you have a network, you're there.
You're also getting paid by that network.
Okay, you have a boss.
With YouTube, certainly now they have creators that they pay outwardly.
Okay, but then there is the model of advertisements that is supposed to be even across the board.
Is it even across the board?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But they will take you off of what is supposed to be the public square, a public forum like that, like that.
Okay, and I'm not Mr. Cancely.
I'm not a cancel culture guy.
I'm not here to cancel anybody, actually.
I do think actions have consequences, but I want to play, I mean, I didn't realize it because I'd only seen clips.
But if we do get the time in this broadcast, we're going to be breaking down the beginning of the Kimmel show, at least up until he talks to Robert De Niro.
Because I, you know, it's so funny because I know Tylenol is all in the news and all these other things.
It was De Niro and his Tribeca Film Festival like 20 plus years ago that was actually talking about autism and shots.
Okay.
I'm not here to make any kind of assumptions and tell you any kind of medical advice, talk about the CD.
This is an RFK Jr. video, but he was certainly championing documentaries in that field.
And now he's sitting here coming to the side of Kimmel that just couldn't wait, wait to tell you that if you didn't inject yourself with something, okay, you didn't deserve a hospital bed if you got sick from something else, if you had a heart attack, if you had anything.
I mean, that is deplorable.
And that's not in a political sense.
That's a deplorable thing to say.
That's an anti-human thing to say and think.
And let me say this about the shift in late night television to the point where even before this, it's really been on its last legs.
Gone are the days of Carson, Leno, Letterman.
It's over.
That's over.
It's been over, Conan.
It's over.
That's why Conan has a podcast now.
Okay?
Because that's done.
It doesn't have anywhere near the cultural significance it used to be.
Now, that's without the alienation of an entire political class.
Because, hey, when I watched comedy late night via the networks, in large part, there would be jokes, usually about the political administration in power.
And they were light jokes.
They weren't, you know, you weren't going to stop watching it because of the joke.
You weren't on a constant political ideological tirade.
Now, there was a shift.
Okay.
There was a shift in the 90s, even via the networks and then cable that transferred into the networks.
Okay.
When you had Bill Maher come out with politically incorrect, it's now real time, this forum show.
And really, Gutfeld on Fox News is very much, very much almost a clone show of that show on networks.
Okay.
So there was that creep.
And then Comedy Central, which just started to do its own programming, turned to the news.
And at first, pre-Jon Stewart, by the way, they had a guy named Craig Kilbourne.
And it was very much just a parody of the news anchor.
It wasn't taking a political position.
But then, during the time period where I was like in college, late high school, it all shifted.
And a lot of people made that their daily routine.
That became a part of this.
It's pre-internet, really, pre-at least video internet.
And they were sometimes getting better ratings than late night.
I mean, Colbert got his start on the daily show and then the Colbert Report.
And now he has literally morphed into what late night is.
Well, the thing is that now there is a ton of other variety.
People have woken up to the fact that narratives pushed by corporate America via NBC, ABC, CBS, okay, they realize that a lot of the time isn't real.
They're uninterested.
And they certainly don't want to be lectured constantly when they're watching late night.
Not as many people are worried about the big Hollywood stars, especially young people.
Young people have shifted away from that too.
So that's another loss for late night.
In fact, Jason Bateman, who, you know, has really been an actor in the entertainment industry my entire life.
Okay, my entire life.
I've seen Jason Bateman on a ton of different shows and movies.
He was on Hot Ones, which is something I do watch.
It's an internet-based show.
I'm sure a lot of people know this.
This is prior to Kimmel and prior to Bateman saying that, you know, Jimmy Kimmel was fired or suspended.
He wasn't fired, by the way.
He never got fired.
I never saw that.
Suspended by the network, whether or not it was, you know, this whole idea of the FCC putting pressure.
I've seen no evidence of that.
I've seen the interview they're talking about.
We're going to discuss that.
But he was already saying prior to, it was a freedom of speech interview that late night's going away.
And it is.
It's donezo.
It's not the same thing.
Okay.
It's just like the corporate news is not the same thing anymore.
It does not maintain the same type of audience.
It is not water cooler conversation.
It's just not.
The only time it becomes water cooler conversation is when somebody else picks it up that has a prominent voice on the internet and then blows it up.
That's the truth.
Okay.
So we're going to get into all these issues.
We are going to start with the Tuckins and his documentary on 9-11.
What I need you guys to do right now, okay, is thumbs it up, subscribe, share, ring that bell.
And if you can, I need you now more than ever.
There are no paychecks.
This is true independent media.
This is when there are no supporters other than the audience.
And I want to thank all those that have continuously supported.
In fact, let's give a refresh because I know that we had some people supporting last night.
Thank you so much.
Ex-Pastroke11.
Thanks, Jason.
You are among the most reasonable and sane channels in the red pill space.
Well, I don't tell people that I am a red pill or blue pill guy.
Okay.
I know because even the Matrix, if you've seen my work, I've talked about that.
I'll say this.
And it's not even just like the red pill, blue thing in the Matrix, but you notice it also plays into the left-right paradigm and it plays into that conservative versus liberal thing, red versus blue.
Just pointing that out there.
Okay.
And I'm trying to bring people together.
So $5, $10, $15.
It absolutely means the world to me.
Big donors.
Thank you so much.
There are other links down below, including a PayPal if you're more comfortable with that.
I do want to give a big shout out to other true independent media.
Here, if we go to the news and commentary section, you can check out some of the stuff that the River City Reader.
Okay.
That's rcreader.com has going for it.
And I love the River City Reader.
You can actually get a hard copy of this every month and support my man, Todd McGreevy, who we've had on the broadcast.
And by the way, they've got another business because alternative media, even print media in a place like the Quad Cities, it don't have the skills to pay the bills no more because it's difficult when you don't have corporate sponsorship or you don't have YouTube backing, right?
So, Marigold Resources, they buy and sell businesses, they do financial advisory, that type of thing.
You need someone to dot the I's, cross the T's, check them out, marigoldresources.com.
And then, hey, this is gonna, this, this is the topic today.
Okay, we're at free speech.
Um, this is at Team YouTube, uh, basically telling them that I want my channel back, I want the defamation back.
Okay, I've already gotten my channel back like five times through X, okay, which is which is, I don't believe, is a free speech platform, by the way.
Okay, again, look at my numbers on X.
I haven't grown in weeks, in weeks.
Okay, I'm stuck at 48K again.
I have to go on a big show, I have to go on a big space.
My stuff still doesn't get seen.
Even this one, which I've been pumping out, this tweet right here, that I have been pump-diddly umping.
Take a look, guys.
Pump-diddly umping via this platform for you guys to go over there and I'm going to put it in the live chat right now, quote it and say, remonetize Jason Burmes' channel.
Okay, to 2,120 views.
Doesn't even have 100 likes.
Can't get 50 retweets on an account that has 48,000 followers.
I'm sure that's normal.
I'm sure that's normal.
And again, I get it.
Well, you're not guaranteed freedom of reach.
Guys, you're not a freedom of speech platform unless everybody's on the same playing field.
Everybody's got the same opportunities.
I haven't broken any terms of service.
Not once.
Not once.
Sorry.
Nope.
Chernopo.
So I wanted to start.
And of course, did I get the wrong one here?
Yes, of course.
What did I do?
Of course I did.
That's fine.
That's fine.
We're just going to go to my Twitter and we're going to just scroll down because I X'd out the wrong thing.
As I often do.
And by the way, this is a good reason to follow me on X.
I want to go to my Tuckins tweet where everybody now, what was it, three days ago?
Here it is.
Could go see this.
Okay.
And then we're going to get into it.
So I believe it's at like 4:36, and this is 26 minutes.
That John Antisev is called a really good guy.
And that's why I got a little upset.
But if you look at this, okay, the first eight minutes, FBI Al-Qaeda, wrong, 100% false, telling you, as the one from the FBI who was gagged and gagged again on all this, wrong, 100% false.
This is Sabelle Edmonds.
Okay.
It says, up until the late 2000s, the U.S. government worked closely with the bin Laden group via Zawahali.
I worked with every single 9-11 insider and whistleblower from 2002 to 2008.
This Rossini guy was nowhere near the 9-11 truth period.
The first eight minutes are wrong, absolutely false, 100% false.
In late 2000, here, let's just get all of it right there.
In late 2000, Zawahari had a meeting in person with U.S. and NATO officials in the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, known by the FBI, CIA, State Department, NATO, Azerbaijan government officials, Turkey government officials, Pakistani and Israeli officials and Saudi officials.
You notice how I continually call this an international intelligence operation with players in Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and here.
You get it?
You got it?
Good.
On tape records, on paper documents with dozens of copies.
Correct the first minutes of false, first eight minutes of false info.
So before I play my response here about John Antisev, why don't we just dick a dick-ado a little bit?
For 20 a.m., so this is the Rosini guy, and let's listen to him because this is where he brings up Antisev.
What's he saying?
What's she doing?
These people are 10,000 miles away.
They don't give a shit about America.
I don't care about going to jail.
They want to die.
How are you going to get a source inside there?
Before September 11th, U.S. Intel services got most of their intelligence on bin Laden from what was called the HADA home switchboard in Sana, Yemen.
That was a communications hub that bin Laden and his associates used to communicate with each other.
They were at the time living in Yemen.
The FBI gained access to this after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
How did we officially get the HADA home in Sana'a Yemen on the books, on the radar, if you will?
Nairobi, 1998, August 7th.
John Antiseth, Special Agent John.
So this guy right here is Antiseth.
Okay, let's just show him.
And he's going to tell you how great John Antisev is.
And this is where I get a little skeptical, is all.
Nantisev, greatest FBI agent ever in the FBI.
Even better than me.
John flies over to Nairobi.
And one of the survivors, one of the perpetrators who chickened out and ran and lived, Dawood Rashid Alawali, Saudi.
He gets captured by the Kenyan police.
John flies over from New York.
And already there have been two FBI agents interviewing Dawood.
They were getting someplace, but they really weren't getting that far.
John walks in.
And first thing he does, he says, you need some water?
You want to drink?
Did you eat today?
Did you pray?
Are you okay?
Yeah, I'm fine.
I'm fine.
I'm fine.
Just relax.
Let's have a chat.
Now, I'm not saying that John Anisev wasn't good at making some of these people feel comfortable.
Greatest FBI agent ever.
Seems a little wacky to me when we know this about him.
Let's roll it, everybody.
Muslim extremism seemed to show its ugly face in that unprecedented fashion on February 26, 1993.
A truck bomb had gone off in the parking area of the World Trade Center.
Luckily, the bombers failed to follow instructions and parked the truck carrying the explosives against the main support column.
What is not discussed, however, is the bomb was actually built by an FBI informant under the supervision of the FBI.
Ahmed Salam, a former Egyptian army officer who had been doing undercover work for the FBI, was the man who actually built the bomb.
When he was told that he would have to use real bomb-making material instead of harmless substitutes, he became suspicious and began taping his conversations with FBI officials.
Last winter, the FBI was praised for its speed in cracking the case of the World Trade Center bombing and bringing four suspects to trial.
Now, there is some evidence that the FBI may have known of the plot in advance through an informant and might, might even have stopped the bombing that killed six people.
Notice the media emphasizes that they might have been able to stop it.
They then gloss over the fact that the bomb was built by their agent under FBI supervision in conjunction with the district attorney.
FBI agents might have been able to prevent last February's deadly explosion at New York's World Trade Center.
They discussed secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, but they didn't, according to the FBI's own informant, Imad Salem.
Unbeknownst to the FBI at the time, Salem recorded many of his conversations with his handlers.
The actual recording where Salam discusses this with his FBI handler John Antisep was released years after the trial.
You got paid regularly for good information.
I mean, the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned.
Don't tell Nancy I told you this.
Well, I have to tell her.
Of course.
Well, then if you have to, you have to.
Yeah, because, I mean, the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with a receipt.
Yeah, and now it's questionable.
It's not questionable.
It's like a little out of ordinary.
Okay.
You know, that's right.
I don't think it was.
If that's what you think, guys, fine.
But I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb, which is went off in the World Retroit Center.
It was built by supervision from the Bureau and the GA.
And we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be by who?
By who?
By your confidential informant.
What a wonderful, great case.
He's telling you that he built the bomb.
Now, does Anisev seem like he's being an honest guy right there with his CI, the guy who built the bomb in the 93 World Trade?
Don't tell Nancy we had this conversation.
Oh, no, Again, color me skeptical.
So now I'm going to play my subsection of Fabled Enemies via the cover-up, via Sabelle Edmonds right here and the Pakistani connection because she chimed in almost immediately about the FBI CIA misinformation that's now been put out in this documentary.
And look, again, I'm going to watch the other four parts.
We're going to probably be pretty critical, but I think that this is extremely important.
Confirmation of these allegations against Israel would finally come in January of 08, when the Times Online would tell FBI whistleblower Sabelle Edmonds' story.
This Turkish translator for the FBI found an international spy ring that included Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan working with household names within the United States.
She was gagged and to this day has been unable to tell her entire account.
Edmonds stated that one high-level official was aiding foreign operatives against U.S. interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department, but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position, and political objectives.
The article stated that the Turks and Israelis had planted moles in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology.
The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmed, then the ISI chief.
Intelligence analysts say that the members of the ISI were close to al-Qaeda before and after 9-11.
Ahmed was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Ada, one of the 9-11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.
Oddly enough, General Ahmed would be in Washington, D.C., meeting with George Tennett, the current director of the CIA, and others, in the weeks before the attacks.
In fact, on the morning of 9-11 itself, he would be having breakfast with Senator Bob Graham and Porter Goss.
These two men would co-chair the initial congressional investigation.
And Goss would later become the head of the CIA.
I was trying to make the point that Ahmed didn't hide the fact, when we met with him in Pakistan and when he was in Washington, that he was close to the Taliban, that that was his job to be close to the Taliban.
Graham would go on PBS and have this to say.
I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.
I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists.
Most of that information is classified, I think overly classified.
I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement.
In that report, 27 pages would be completely redacted.
And do you think that will ever become public?
Which countries are going to be able to do that?
It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now.
We need to have this information now.
Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there is a state that was a state sponsor behind 9-11?
I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in fundraising financing, although that was part of it, by a sovereign foreign government.
The day after the attacks, it was apparent that some people within the government were aware of the Pakistani funding of al-Qaeda.
Secretary Powell, one country you didn't mention was Pakistan, and I understand that your deputy has spoken with the ambassador to Pakistan.
Deputy Secretary Armitage did meet with Pakistani officials today.
It would be useful to point out to the Pakistani leadership at every level how helpful they might be if we find a basis to act upon that information.
Senator Joe Biden, who had also met with the head of the Pakistani ISI, would have harsh words on the Senate floor.
And the word should go out to those who pretend that they wish to be our friends, that they're going to have to make some very difficult choices.
Pakistan in particular is going to have to make a very difficult choice very soon.
Words will not be sufficient.
Actions will be demanded.
When Biden was confronted, he confirmed his meeting with Ahmed, saying Pakistani intelligence was indeed funding the Taliban.
Sir, sir.
In the days following 9-11, you met with the head of Pakistani ISI, General Mohad Ahmed.
It has since come to light that he ordered Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Ada.
Why was he allowed to go back to Pakistan?
And why wasn't he questioned?
And why were you meeting with him?
I met with him to deliver a message that if he didn't, if he didn't stop supporting the Taliban, we would take him out.
Why did we let him go?
We let him fly freely.
We never investigated him.
We never even looked into him.
Look, there's a thing called diplomatic passports.
We did not arrest Khrushchev when he came, but he finally did not.
He was the hijackers and you let him go and he's free.
Hijacked the new we finance.
It's liars.
They say get away.
He would later state that the information was indeed classified.
How did you know Kitchen?
The ISI was helping the Taliban, sir.
How did you know the hijacking?
Pakistan was set up as the silent funding arm of the hijackers.
They were used as a launching base for the occupation of Afghanistan.
To review, we have just learned that many of the hijackers had ties to U.S. military installations, the FBI, and the CIA.
That both Israel and Pakistan have classified roles in 9-11 to this day.
And the man who co-chaired the initial investigation into 9-11 stated this information would be classified for at least 20 to 30 years.
Virtually none of this information was in the 9-11 commission report.
Instead, you are expected to believe that Osama bin Laden...
Let's just pause it right there for a second because we are going to show more of the cover-up.
Right there, you have the admission of a massive cover-up by not only one of the guys that wrote the initial report, okay, but also met with the Pakistani ISI gentleman that is facilitating the money to ADA, okay?
And then we're going to get into this part of the cover-up.
Now, I'm sure that later on, the 9-11 Commission is explored even further in the Tucker documentary and in the first, you know, 26 minutes of the Tucker documentary.
They really aren't great to the 9-11 Commission at all, but I would have loved for them to interview a guy like Max Cleland, who was on the 9-11 Commission and left because of the corruption.
So let's watch.
Aden carried out the attacks alone.
Yet two wars, and seven years later, he's still on the loose.
The bipartisan commission was full of insiders who whitewashed the events of that day to the point it was comical.
Five years after the horrors of 9-11, there's a new way to look at those unforgettable images.
Through color, caricature, and captions, comic book veterans Ernie Cologne and Sid Jacobson have brought to life the 9-11 Commission report.
It took a year and a half to distill 600 pages down to less than 150.
When you hear about the idea of the 9-11 Commission report as essentially a comic book, your first reaction is, what are you crazy?
It's accurate.
I mean, the graphic version is accurate.
That's what happened.
Thomas Keene was the co-chair of the commission with Lee Hamilton.
They would write a book together called Without Precedent.
In it, he would claim that NORAD and the Pentagon did not tell the truth and that indictments were considered.
If the report itself wasn't accurate, how could the comic book be?
Thomas Keene is now traveling the country in order to instruct teachers on how to teach 9-11 to their young and pressionable minds.
The 9-11 Commission was such a cover-up that Max Cleland, an appointed member, went off on Wolf Blitzing.
A deal announced yesterday between the White House and the Commission investigating the September 11th attacks is proving to be rather controversial.
Under the agreement, only certain members of the Commission will be allowed to review classified documents from the White House and their notes will be subject to administration review.
Today, some relatives of people who were killed in the attacks criticized the agreement and our next guest, who's a member of the commission, claimed the deal is disgusting.
Former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Democrat, joins me here.
Well, you've used the word deal three times.
I don't think the 9-11 Commission ought to be making deals with our own government under the responsibility we have from the Congress and our responsibility to the American people.
Why do we have to get all the facts to get all the facts about all the commissioners?
Look at those facts.
Now, we've had to subpoena the FAA for those documents.
We've had to subpoena NORAD for those documents.
I'm in favor of subpoenaing the White House for the documents we need so that all the commissioners can get to see all the documents that we need.
That's the only way we can face the American people and the families and say we have done a thorough investigation independently of the White House and the entire executive branch.
The president has said only a minority of the commission can see a minority of the documents, and then they have to clear what they're going to say to the rest of the commission with the White House.
If you're one of those four that gets to see these documents, would that change your opinion?
No.
They don't want any more eyeballs to see their documents than they could possibly get away with.
It's a scam.
It's absolutely disgusting.
Cleland would later resign.
Well, they have something to cover up.
And the 9-11 Commission, of course, was a master cover-up.
We know that question is what it was covering up.
I don't believe the reports on September 11th put out by the 9-11 Commission or by Congress.
I've seen one put out by the 9-11 Commission, and it was basically hundreds of pages of nothing.
It was very generic.
It was very indirect, indistinct, devoid of facts, devoid of hard positions.
It was things like mistakes were made.
We need to improve human intelligence.
This is nothing.
I mean, it's like, yes, I stand for truth, justice, and the American way, but it was vapid.
It was a waste of time and money, but gives the impression that, oh, yes, the government is doing something.
The government is studying the issue.
Well, what makes me really disappointed, and that's an understatement, is that Congress's role is oversight.
And Congress, even today, you'll see members of Congress saying, well, we haven't implemented everything that the 911 Commission recommended.
And the 911 Commissioners have said that the administration obstructed them, lied to them.
The staff statements were described by various commissioners to be an indictment of the FBI in particular, but also an indictment of the CIA.
I don't think the chairman and I have ever characterized the staff statements as an indictment.
It's possible others have done that.
We have not.
And Tom and I have heard repeated praises from people in your business, in the media business, thanking us for the quality of those statements.
And by the way, I never ever would correct the vice chairman, but I'm afraid I did characterize one of those statements as an indictment.
We're going to continue.
But those are the chairs of the commission under Zelikow who already wrote the outline before the investigation.
And he sits there and he's like, look at all the praise and the wonderment that the media business has poured on us for our great job.
After being asked by a journalist whether or not the staff statements were an indictment of the FBI and the CIA, and Keene even made that statement.
Even me, and it's hilarious.
It's look, I mean, come on, let's take a look together, everybody.
Look at that.
Oh, it's funny.
It's funny we covered up the death of 3,000 plus people only to cause the death of millions of people while bringing in a technocratic police state here at home.
It's hilarious.
I mean, it's funny stuff.
Let's continue.
So, how can you start with a document that you know is false and take that to the American people as a document by which Congress's accomplishments should be measured?
Dennis Kucinich would present 35 articles of impeachment against the Bush administration in June of 2008.
He would stand before the House for almost three hours before reading the last few articles, which were regarding 9-11.
He alleged that the administration had not acted on specific warnings prior to 9-11, that they had attempted to cover this information up, and they had tried to stop any commission from being organized in regards to investigating the attack.
Article 33 repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high-level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in the United States prior to 9-11 in his conduct while President of the United States,
George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution,
to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, failed in his constitutional duties to take proper steps to protect the nation prior to September 11th, 2001.
So the congressional report was redacted, and the 9-11 Commission is a cover-up.
Yet our supposed leaders continue to propagate fear of the boogeyman and his disciples.
I do believe that Al-Qaeda has now made it part of their global effort to destroy everything we stand for and we believe in it.
I'm running for President of the United States because I believe the greatest challenge of the 21st century is that of radical Islamic extremism.
I believe it's there.
I believe it's all over the world.
I believe it's a fight, a struggle between good and evil, everything we value and believe in, versus everything that is evil that wants to destroy everything America stands for and leads.
And I believe it was an Osama bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabia.
It was an Osama bin Laden job.
Right, Billy Clinton?
Right, John McCain?
See how that crosses the barriers of left and right and into establishment rhetoric and lies.
Just want to throw that out there.
We're going to get to the Kimmel thing, but before we do that, I want to read the YouTube statement because again, YouTube, and I want you to go there, please, please, please, please get over there.
And let's see, I think I have to go back now, right?
Yep.
Get over there and I'm going to put it in the chat.
Repost this, ask them to remonetize me.
Because, you know, again, we have this official the king and Spalding.
We've pressured them.
We, yeah, no, we're going to let conservatives back on.
It's not even about conservatism.
It never has been.
It's about freedom of speech, actual freedom of speech.
And so, you know, Jones and Fuentes try to put something back up.
No, sir.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.
No, that's come on.
Goodbye.
And this is what they've said.
Now, no, it's a pilot program.
We've seen some previously Terminator creators try to start new channels.
To clarify, our pilot program on termination is not yet open.
Oh, really?
Oh, it's still against our community guidelines for previously Terminator users to use, possess, or create other channels and will terminate new channels from previously terminated users in accordance with these guidelines.
We'll have more to share on the limited pilot program soon.
When can these people be sued into the ground?
That's what I'd like.
I'd like to know when that's possible.
So now let's get into Kimmel and actual freedom of speech.
The fact that people think that this is an Epstein distraction or that the FCC actually stepped in, they didn't.
Okay, they didn't.
Had they stepped in, I'd be all over it.
I don't think that the FCC should be in the regulatory mode to stop any kind of speech, whether it's from a comedian, news, a channel.
Now, at the same time, to be over the public airwaves, the FCC does have the standards and practices of the nudity clauses, right?
Of the thing that Carlin railed against, the seven dirty words.
That's all been there for a very long time.
There's been some shifts, but it's been there.
They give you a license to operate.
There is a weird FCC license.
I want to read verbatim what this guy said from the FCC after essentially, you know, Kimmel knew on Monday, I think it was, after the Kirk murder, that obviously the guy that they arrested was not a MAGA guy and tried to make it into a joke.
All right, maybe you should have just left it alone.
That doesn't involve the FCC to me.
All right, that were bosses saying, oh, we got to get rid of this.
This looks terrible right now.
And I always knew he was coming back.
And, you know, the Colbert thing, that wasn't the government either.
You're going to see a lot of these guys end up losing their jobs in the next couple of years and shifting to something else because late night is dead.
But I want to read what the FCC guy said.
All right.
And I don't necessarily disagree with any of it because none of it's been put into action.
I don't know what that action would be, but let's do it here.
Okay.
After Jimmy Kimmel's show was suspended, the key question is: does the FCC have the power to regulate speech?
But then they tell you that no one got their speech regulated by the FCC whatsoever.
Okay, so here's the whole controversy.
Hours before ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, pulled Jimmy Kimmel off the air, Carr appeared on conservative.
This car guy is an FCC representative.
Okay, just he's part of the panel.
Appeared on conservative commentator Benny Johnson's podcast saying the broadcasters are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication.
Okay?
I don't necessarily disagree with that because they are.
Because I'm not NBC, ABC, Fox News.
Or not, I wouldn't even say Fox News, Fox in general, because Fox News is part of cable.
The FCC isn't regulating cable.
Okay.
They're regulating the public airwaves that you can still get for free with an antenna, which still exists in this country.
Just letting all the cord cutters out there.
You can go get yourself a modern antenna and depending on where you live, you probably get like 50 to 100 channels.
And a lot of them are repeats, right?
All local channels, PBS.
And I don't know if PBS is even going to be on the broadcast waves anymore because that was supposed to be public broadcasting, right?
But it's no longer funded by the government.
But again, we'll see if that really sticks as well.
We've seen so much of the rhetoric go back and forth and the action not really being taken.
Okay.
So then he says, they have a license granted by us at the FCC that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest, Carr told Johnson.
I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.
These companies can find a way to change conduct, take actions, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
Carr likened Kimmel's comments to news distortion, which is against FCC's rules for broadcasters.
Now, here's the thing.
Whatever Kimmel said, news distortion.
I mean, the networks have been lying to us for decades, purposely, again and again.
And it's only gotten worse.
And if like Jimmy Kimmel's the biggest concern, I'm not in that camp.
All right.
But if Jimmy Kimmel is getting fired or suspended because of what he said, and the networks are like, oh my God, this is a show.
Think about this.
Okay.
Roseanne Barr.
And I don't like the whataboutisms.
But these things aren't even about money anymore.
It used to be if you had like the number one show out there and they started saying things about you that you were doing in your private slash public life that had nothing to do with the show.
And I'll go all the way back to Charlie Sheen getting involved in 9-11 Truth and almost voicing Loose Change, being attacked by Bill O'Reilly and others.
I mentioned O'Reilly because he was one of the real rabbit attack dogs.
Did he get fired from his show in that time period?
He was saying some of the most controversial stuff you could say.
Well, it didn't have anything to do with the show.
And he was showing up to work and it was still number one.
It was making everybody money.
So nobody cared.
Okay, at least not on that level.
It was only when Charlie Sheen got re-addicted to drugs, started going out into the public arena, not just saying the craziest of things, but directly attacking those like Chuck Lorry that were on the show and being totally sporadic for him to get fired.
Did anybody think that that was a free speech issue then?
Of course not, because it wasn't.
And then you get to Roseanne, number one show out there at the time.
She doesn't say anything, anything on the actual show, on the actual network.
She cracks a joke about somebody she thinks looks like someone from Planet of the Apes, doesn't even really realize that the woman is black, okay?
And they make it into a racial issue.
And immediately that show is, she's donezo, off the air, had nothing to do with the show.
Now, you could say that's freedom of speech, but see how far we've taken it into like this social credit score territory.
And now you're going to make Kimmel into some kind of hero for freedom of speech.
Sorry, you're not, bro.
You have the right to say anything you want, okay?
And the FCC should not be stepping in, say, we don't like what you say.
At the same time, I would love to have the FCC make these people more accountable, right?
There is a thing called defamation.
And that is out there.
And every once in a while, you see it, but you don't see it in that arena as much, or if ever.
Okay?
So to me, you know, the idea that Kimmel is some kind of martyr for free speech is ridiculous.
It's utterly ridiculous.
He's not guaranteed a job.
And quite frankly, he's probably not going to have one.
Not only because there are way funnier options out there, et cetera.
The business is over of late night.
They've propped it up long enough.
The culture has shifted.
It's on its way out.
People are already shifting to other things.
Folks, that's going to about wrap this one up.
I do want to say it again because I need you now more than ever, more than ever.
If you leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me.
Ooh, ooh, ooh.
Sorry, I'm a bit of a cornball.
$5, $10, $15.
It does mean the world to me.
It's the only way that I'm going to be able to keep doing this show.
Hopefully, like, you know, on a daily basis for the most part.
Was away out in D.C., then got really, really sick.
But we're still pumping out content because of you guys.
So big donors, I need you now more than ever.
Please consider the other links down below, including the PayPal.
Again, I want to thank MarigoldResources.com for helping me out.
If you've got a business, you're buying, selling, you need some advice, marigoldresources.com is the place for you.
Remember, you can also support, and we're going to just put it right in the live stream chat again by retweeting this and saying to YouTube, hey, remonetize Jason Burmese.
Because look, we're going to do it.
We're going to do it live.
We have asked to be remonetized.
Let's go back to my channel's content.
Let's go back to, where is it?
Where's my dashboard?
I don't want analytics.
How do I?
All right, hold on.
Usually there's a dashboard on top.
Let's hope things aren't bad.
There it is.
There's the dashboard.
And there's the urn.
We're under review, baby.
As of last night.
So if you can, say at Team YouTube, it's time to remonetize the Jason Burmes channel.