Truth vs. NEW$. Inc. Part 1 (23 February 2026) with Don Grahn, Joachim Hagopian, and Brian Davidson
Don Grahn, Joachim Hagopian, and Brian Davidson dissect Mexico’s cartel escalation after U.S.-backed forces killed El Mancho in Tapalpa, sparking retaliatory attacks—burned cars, hostage-taking, and tourist zone chaos—while warning of potential 100,000-troop deployments and economic fallout. They then pivot to an imminent U.S.-Iran war, citing Iran’s 3,000+ missiles (ranging from 300 km Fateh-110s to 2,000 km Karamshar IVs), China’s real-time battlefield intel, and predicted losses of five to ten U.S. ships and 10,000–20,000 troops, questioning Trump’s strategic competence amid possible domestic distractions like Epstein files or alien disclosures. The episode ties these conflicts to Israel’s contested legitimacy, critiquing Netanyahu’s ancestry claims while framing Gaza’s displacement as a geopolitical betrayal, ultimately exposing how U.S. interventions fuel global instability under the guise of security. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome folks to Truth Versus News Incorporated here on February the 23rd, 2026.
That's a Monday in Seattle and around the world and I'm very proud of three of the top people in the world to share and present the news that you ain't going to hear anywhere else.
And I will say I have to take a little time out here to introduce one person, especially Jim Fetcher.
Jim, something else, the last story we're going to have here is about Jim Petzer story.
And it's a well-deserved story.
And one little line out of that story says that Jim Peter has paid his dues exposing government corruption, setting a powerful example for those who believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
We have much to learn from his experience in history.
That's for sure.
And I'm so proud to have him as my very best friend and associate for 20 years or more.
This Brian Davidson here, and he's a top private investigator out of Texas who knows the facts and can relate all the details.
And what Kim Gopian has disappeared from you, he went back to hiding in Bali, I guess.
But he is a very foremost person.
We write tremendous articles about things that you ain't going to hear nowhere else.
So stay tuned to the very end of this show, folks.
And let's get going, Jim.
Anything you want to talk about besides the hot stuff that's going on in Mexico and around the world?
The president's going to make his big annual speech tomorrow, and I guess there's a whole lot of stuff going on that we should know about that ain't very good like down the south in Mexico.
Yeah.
Let's hope Joaquin's able to rejoin us.
Yes, we begin with some developments just south of the border that are pretty disturbing.
Mexican special forces backed by U.S. Intel kill El Mancho and his cartel has gone wild.
All kinds of attacks, cars burning, hotels raided, hostages taken.
Jalesco.
Mexican Special Forces killed Nomesco Ruben Osiguera Cervantes El Mancho during a raid in Tapalpa, Jalasco Sunday morning.
He was wounded in the firefight, died while being airlifted to Mexico City.
The defense ministry confirmed decapitating what had become the most violent criminal organization in the Americas and a major source of fentanyl flooding North America.
More about it.
Chaos.
Violence erupts in popular Mexican resort town after top cartel leader El Mancho killed.
One of Mexico's most powerful cartel leaders, Domenzco Osegra Cervantes, aka El Mancho, was killed by the Army today.
Mexican drug law Domesco Osagra, commonly known as El Mancho, has been killed in a military raid.
Mexican officials said Sunday, as the country's government has been ramping up pressure on cartels after U.S. intervention threats.
Mexico's ministry said a shootout in the western state of Jalesco left him seriously injured and that he died during an air transfer to Mexico City, noting U.S. authorities have provided complimentary information, no doubt intel, about his location.
Some reports indicated the notorious cartel leader died during a joint op between U.S. and Mexican forces at this time.
That has not been confirmed, or whether the U.S. played a role in killing him in retaliation.
Members of the brutal Jalesco New Generation cartel are going berserk.
Tourists have been warned to shelter in place as these violent narco-terrorists wreck havoc across the big city of Guadalupe and the popular vacation spot, Puerto Velarte.
Here we have U.S. Consulate Guadalajara telling personnel to shut her in place, shelter in place, as authorities respond to fast-moving security incidents.
Here's yet another report about it.
California is trapped as cartel unleashes hell near U.S. border of a drug kingman's killing prey for us.
This made the New York Post.
Californians have been trapped in Mexico as cartel violence engulfed a popular tourist city and spilled toward the U.S. border.
Americans in Puerto Vallarta were urged to stay indoors as narco gangs went on a bloody rampage after Jalesco new generation cartel leader Nasemho Elmencha Seguera Cervantes was killed in a military raid Sunday.
Carnage spread the West Coast through Sunday.
Reports of attacking closer to the states in Baja, California.
Gunfire erupted at the Guadalajara International Airport.
Cars and businesses were set on fire across the country in Cozumel, Palaea del Carmel, Talum, and Cancun on the east side, where I myself have visited several of those towns.
Cartels Lashing Out00:08:12
Joachim, your thoughts?
W6 people died, Delamaro.
W6.
Very good, Don.
Thanks for the ad.
Joaquim.
Well, this is kind of a new story that I'm waking up to here.
I'm wondering, okay, there is U.S. government involvement in the killing of this, you know, drug cartel leader, Mecho, I guess.
Is that true that the U.S. government is?
They are confirming it, but at the very least, the U.S. appears to have provided the intel where he could be found.
Okay.
I'm not obviously, none of us can be against trying to neutralize and get rid of, eliminate, finally, after decade after decade of total flourishing of drugs and pouring into the United States.
So obviously, we all have to be in unity that we need to do something just south of our border where this has been going on forever.
So that is not a bad thing, I don't think, to have, you know, like DEA and our forces, even military forces jointly involved, although I don't know if they're being committed yet.
But what we don't want is a war on our border that's going to go on forever and interfere and endanger, obviously, Southern California.
In fact, the whole long border, what is it, like a 1500 mile border or something like that that we share, I mean, 1200 miles, something like that, with three states like that, four states, I think.
Yeah, four states.
So we don't want that where we're making war, you know, with Mexico and a long-term thing that really causes so much havoc to our country as well as theirs.
So I hope this is going to be short.
It's all very new.
And so we don't really know a lot of information at this early stage.
But if it ends up a long, drawn-out campaign, it's going to be really terrible for both America and Mexico.
And I mean, with the expansionist belligerence of the Trump foreign policy all over the world, and then on this at our border, this could be really, really troublesome for how we are dealing with the rest of the world, actually.
I agree because I think it's too late.
It's already begun.
And it's going to require massive military involvement.
Armored personnel carry tanks, Apache gunships.
The cartels have Stinger missiles.
They got any tank weapons.
It's going to be a mess.
I think it would require 100,000 troops to deal with this.
So I think Pandora's box has been opened on our border.
Brian.
Well, it certainly does raise the sovereignty issue.
You know, Mexico has always resisted our presence on their soil.
And obviously the cartels don't much like it.
I guess the cartels are showing here that they can lash out against tourists, lash out against the Mexican government, and lash out against anybody if we go in there and start messing around with this.
I mean, what these articles indicate is that the U.S. intelligence played a role, that SEAL training was reported down in Mexico, and that FBI involvement that ought to be policing American soil is now beginning to spill over into Mexico.
Now, at what point do we become Team America World Police when we're willing to cross borders to change and fix problems that affect us at a distance?
If we had stronger borders, this wouldn't be such a problem.
And the escalation risk here is that cartels are not political platforms.
They're economic war machines.
And, you know, when you corner a cartel, they're going to commit violence.
They're going to disrupt everything they possibly can.
And they're going to result in every form of psychological intimidation that they possibly can.
So I guess what they're saying is that they've been disrupted.
And now it comes down to, so now we're going to burn vehicles, shut down airports, and basically turn resort towns into shelter in place.
That's economic warfare, but that's not economic warfare against America.
That's economic warfare against Mexico.
And if their tourism section destabilizes, that's going to affect the Mexican gross domestic product, any foreign investment that goes there.
Certainly, it's going to affect the U.S. travel industry, which I suspect is a nice chunk of change for them, and all the cross-border supply chains.
So, you know, when you combine a decapitation strike with sort of a coordinated retaliatory disruption system at hubs and airports, you're not just seeing cartel violence.
You're seeing a test of whether or not the Mexican government actually has any control.
And that would be my analytical view of it at this particular time.
But what I'm concerned about here is: oh, okay, Mexico's got a problem with, look, we just started a war with Venezuela based on what, oh, drugs is it?
This goes back to Reagan, where we had the war on drugs.
We had the cocaine crack industry problem with the CIA.
It's always been the CIA.
Think about Afghanistan and the poppy fields.
So what are we doing?
Are we trying to do a takeover of the cartels?
Are we trying to just decapitate them so that we can go in and control it?
What are we really up to?
Because I guarantee you, it's not about, oh, we've got to protect the kids from drugs.
That doesn't seem to be the deep state's real concern.
I think this is more of an excuse for a hostile takeover of some very powerful resources down in Mexico.
And, you know, I think I would ask the question of Donald Trump right now.
Are you really interested in cartel retaliation, more cross-border violence?
Is that going to help out?
I mean, the domestic blowback, if this thing spills across the border, is going to get really ugly.
I'd like to add one thing here, too.
Yes.
We don't even know.
We can estimate the military advances that these drug cartels have made in recent years.
And my understanding is that they are just like a sovereign nation with their military.
That they bought on the black market so many weapons from America, basically.
So we don't even know what we are really up against.
If we go head to head with the Mexican drug cartels, especially if they are working integratingly together against the United States, this could just blow up in our face and really wreak havoc for a lot of Americans on that border.
Deployment Decisions00:09:27
This could be real dynamite ready to explode.
We don't even know, but it could be very, very dangerous.
I agree.
And I think it is going to happen.
And it's going to require conscription and you're going to have drab protesters who don't want to fight the drug cartels.
It's going to be a very big deal and very disruptive to American society, I predict.
Meanwhile, Scott Ritter explains war with Iran is imminent.
He does a very nice job of laying out the background.
But for our purpose, I want to take us up to where he explains that there's a point at which the deployment is so massive that it becomes irrevocable that we're committed to war no matter what happens thereafter.
I believe we have reached that point.
Let me bring us to where some of the USP is still building up missile response while projecting military power that's capable of suppressing Iran's ballistic missile strike capability and suppressing the defense forces.
You know, back in 1990, I was brought into an ad hoc planning cell working for the Commandant of the Marine Corps to come up with amphibious warfare options against Iraq.
But we were working with the JCS and we were plugged in.
And so we were monitoring the flow of military equipment.
And one of the questions we were asking ourselves in October was, you know, from a planning perspective, is this pie-in-the-sky planning that we're doing or is this real world planning?
Because there's a difference between briefing somebody on hypotheticals and actually having to be constrained by the discipline of reality, you know, because other assets are being competed for, et cetera.
And we were told that the point came in October.
There's something called the tip fiddle.
You can look it up.
It's troop phase deployment.
It's a long acronym, but basically it's how we phase the deployment of troops and logistics into a zone to prepare for war.
And when you're doing a war on the scope and scale that we were planning against Iraq, there came a point in the tip fiddle where once you commit resources forward, it's over.
The decision has been made.
And the decision was made in mid-October that we were going to go to war in January, and it was never going to change, no matter what diplomacy happened, et cetera, because too much resources have been put forward.
I'm of the opinion that if these aircraft actually settle in and we begin to get the fuel and munitions brought in, coupled with the air defense systems, that we'll have reached the equivalent of that tip fiddle moment of commitment.
And that sometime in the next week, there will be no going back, regardless of whatever.
Iran could come in and declare, you know, whatever they wanted to declare, it will be, we're going to war with Iran.
The political decision has been made.
As long as those green lights go off, and right now the military is getting its own position with carrier battle groups, with tomahawk delivery systems, with this new strike capability that we will initiate a conflict with Iran that's designed to retard, it can't completely eliminate, but retard their ballistic missile retaliation capability.
And we're going to do it with an air cam campaign designed not to provide Iran any window of opportunity for mass launches.
They may be able to sneak a launcher out and fire one or two missiles, but they won't be able to do mass launches because we'll be on them with the airplane that we're playing.
So I think war is inevitable.
I think the decision is already, the political decision has definitely been made.
We just need the military to greenlight the last aspects of it.
It's a regime change operation, which means it's more than just traditional.
You talked about war gaming.
Traditional war games didn't have this regime change component plugged in.
This is a war game not about the physical occupation of Iran by American boots on the ground.
This is a war game about empowerment of domestic opposition to remove.
And people, The Nima Rosami, who is an Iranian, who is just in Iran, he thinks they have a snowball's chance in hell.
I tend to agree with him, except I'll just point out that most populations are passive.
And if you get a situation where the Iranian government is eliminated, eliminated, and now you have to fall back on redundancy capability that has yet to manifest itself, where security forces are stymied, suppressed, destroyed, humiliated.
And you wake up one morning thinking you're going to go do a demonstration in downtown Tehran expressing your support for the Iranian government, only to look out in the streets and see white pickup trucks with PJ militants and Baluch militants and Mujaddin el-Kaq roaming the streets, taking over the street corners.
You're going to stay in your house.
And that, I think, is the goal and objective.
Look at ISIS, at the way ISIS rolled through Mosul and Iraq.
When the Iraqi army collapsed, ISIS rapidly took control of population centers, not because they outnumbered the population, but because they intimidated the population.
And I think this is the strategic objective of the United States, is to create the conditions where these various militant factions can take over Iranian cities, remove the Iranian government, declare the Islamic Republic dead, and then the United States will move in with Jared Kushner's hand-picked new government of Iran to take over.
Whether they'll succeed or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't call it far-fetched fantasy.
I don't think it'll happen.
Meanwhile, Iran is prepared for a doomsday scenario.
Tehran activates Ghost Protocol, hiding its commanders deep underground, beyond any U.S. reach.
With leadership dispersed, troops are ordered to fight blind.
And for Washington, the nightmare begins.
From every Middle Eastern capital to U.S. bases and even Europe, no target is off-limits.
Over 3,000 ballistic and cruise missiles now lock onto Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Doha, and beyond.
The drums of war are echoing louder across the Middle East, and Iran declares it is fully prepared for whatever unfolds next.
As tensions with the United States surge, Iran's most powerful military force has slipped into a silent battle-ready posture.
Iranian commanders have reportedly ordered their elite units to keep fighting, even if the lights go out and communications are cut.
According to Sputnik, Tehran's leadership has dispersed, command structures have been hardened, and missile units placed on instant standby.
Reports estimate that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps currently fields nearly 190,000 active personnel, standing ready for conflict.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps commands the nation's most powerful missile forces, along with elite units operating well beyond its borders.
Reports suggest Tehran has strategically dispersed segments of its leadership to minimize vulnerability to potential strikes.
Analysts, quoted by Sputnik, warned that a direct Iran-U.S. confrontation could quickly engulf much of the Middle East.
Israeli defense analyst Yuri Bacharov told Sputnik that Iran's arsenal includes more than 3,000 ballistic and cruise missiles.
He explained that these weapons could reach every major Middle Eastern capital and even extend into parts of Europe.
Bacharov further noted that dozens of U.S. military bases across the region lie well within Iran's missile range.
He cautioned that this extensive reach would make any war far deadlier and nearly impossible to contain.
Sejil is Iran's solid-fuel two-stage missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers and rapid launch readiness.
Ahmad is a liquid-fuel missile reaching 1,700 kilometers, carrying a 750-kilo warhead with precision-guided accuracy.
GAD-110 is a medium-range liquid fuel with improved targeting over the older Shahab series.
Khyber Sheikhan is a solid fuel maneuverable and built for pinpoint precision strikes up to 1,450 kilometers away.
Karamshar IV, also called Khyber, is a 2,000-kilometer giant carrying a heavy 1,500-kilo payload with advanced guidance systems.
And the Fateh 110 is a short-range solid-fuel missile designed for fast tactical battlefield strikes up to 300 kilometers.
They have the weaponry.
Larry Johnson wants to ask: will Trump start World War III today as Huckabee declares Israel's right to own the Middle East?
China's Satellite Radar Threat00:15:30
Frankly, I think he's going to make the declaration at his State of the Union tomorrow night.
Trump has canceled his trip to northern Italy.
He planned to attend the Winter Olympics.
According to an Italian newspaper, he called off the visit.
He was scheduled for the ice hockey final between the U.S. and Canada, which the U.S. won.
He's going to be holding an important meeting with the commander of the U.S. Air Force, changed his plans.
Larry Johnson, Trump's problems with the Middle East are growing.
He's pointing out that there's resistance in the United States.
70% of Americans do not want the United States to go to war with Iran.
I think that a key consideration is that China is providing satellite battlefield reports on the disposition of American forces that Iran will know immediately when a launch has been initiated and will retaliate full-blown.
They're not going to wait for the American missiles to hit.
They will launch knowing they're under attack and that will beat the Americans to the bunch.
I think that is the way it'll fall out and it's going to be devastating for America.
I'm predicting the loss of five to ten ships, 10,000 to 20,000 troops, and Israel decimated.
Joaquin, your thoughts?
Yeah, I ran across, I think, some kind of defense website, a U.S. defense website was claiming that the S-300s air defense systems that Iran has are without radar.
Well, that's because China is providing in real time the complete picture of the Middle East radar, you know, directly to the military of Iran.
So I don't even think that's really a they've already covered that, you know, as far as the defense system of Iran.
They're not going to be surprised like in June with the decapitation strike.
They have been preparing for many, many months now.
And then for many years, actually, for the ultimate war against Israel, they knew this war was coming 15, 20 years ago.
They knew this war would be coming.
And so, yeah, they prepared for the long haul.
And they have the technology, they have the scientists, they have the military, they have the military production facilities that are capable of sustaining a longer-term war.
And the question is, U.S. does not have the sustainability capability of fighting a war half a world away, or a little less, obviously, but you don't even have a supply line.
Plus, look at Trump and how he's operated militarily with foreign countries in the last, you know, quite a while now.
He has no plan.
He goes in there, gangbusters with the decapitation strike, and then without a plan, without a strategic military plan of operation, he fumbles.
And that's what we're going to see with Iran.
I mean, in the long term, there is no way that the U.S. can beat Iran.
And we know also, of course, that China's actively involved, not only with the radar, but they got their ships, the Navy ships, destroyers all ready to go.
And they will be active.
They will be also anti-missile defense and probably go on the offensive as well.
And Russia has submarines there.
This is, and they're not going to both stand by.
China cannot afford to have the oil shipments.
And the whole world economically cannot afford the outcome where oil and fuel prices, energy prices go out.
Already, Americans are struggling just to pay for the utility bills to keep themselves warm this winter.
So if this war proceeds, which it, you know, let's face it, we all know you don't amass that kind of military strength in an area, a concentrated area so far away from your homeland, and then never have the war.
That is not going to happen, as Scott was saying.
You know, it's been built up over many months and it's reached the point where it's a point of no return.
This war will happen.
We know that.
We've been saying that a while.
And they think that they're giving them this extra time to prepare all these military posts throughout the Middle East.
Of course they're going to be targeted.
Whereas I think Iran is prepared with so many hidden forces, hidden weapons that are underground.
I mean, the U.S. doesn't even know where all of their hidden resources are militarily.
And I think that the United States is not equivalent to that with their hidden forces.
I know they're doing a lot of movements and they're vacating certain posts, but I really think this is just, and then, you know, we just talked about a war with Mexico.
I mean, my God, I mean, the U.S. economy is bottoming out and Americans are losing basically the whole standard of living is going, it's going, going, gone.
And, you know, it's just a no-win situation.
But I keep saying, you know, Trump is backed up into the corner with basically the sexual blackmail as a pedophile.
And he knows the only way to take the heat off and stay in power is to be a wartime president and have a few war fronts going actively at the same time.
And of course, Ukraine is still going on.
You know, I mean, this is just a recipe for complete disaster and the downfall of the United States.
But the sad, sad tragedy is this has all been planned.
This is all basically City of London, the resources of the world that control so much politically with the puppetry of all governments.
They planned this a long time ago.
So, yeah, that's the tragedy of this whole thing.
The whole world is going to suffer for a handful that wants to depopulate our planet.
And as Colonel McGregor said, we run out of missiles before they run out of missiles, and then we're just sitting docks.
Brian, your thoughts?
War of attrition.
Well, this, you know, I think America has still in our minds the Gulf War and where we just went in there and, you know, absolutely toppled Iraq overnight.
I can tell you one thing, Iran is not Iraq.
And I think that's what Ritter was really saying in his monologue there.
But if you strip it around, strip it down, we've got some fundamental interests in the Middle East that are driving this thing that are going to guarantee that it's going to take place.
And Joachim's correct.
We don't go over there and get all beefed up and all ready to go if we're not going to make sure that there's a tipping point where it's going to be able to happen.
And so expecting Mossad style, Israeli style, IDF style false flag if we don't get it.
But if we don't get it, we'll get it at exactly the right time.
Our interests over in the Middle East, obviously energy stability is the number one thing with the oil markets and the shipping lanes.
And then, of course, in theory, we want to protect U.S. troops and bases that are already settled over there.
There's no doubt.
Everybody knows that we are there to protect Israel.
And that's our official political commitment.
Although I think the Tucker Carlson Mike Huckabee interview is going to start opening up some eyes in terms of that.
We want to, you know, think about how many Netflix movies you've seen or HBO movies you've seen where there's, you know, the bad counterterrorist with dark skin that needs to be contained.
You know, we obviously always set up the boogeyman over there and Iran is sort of an easy boogeyman.
And then, of course, the other side of it is we're trying to prevent this great power expansion between Russia and China because that could threaten American hegemony.
And I don't think Trump really wants a large-scale ground war entanglement.
That's going to be a disaster for him.
Although Joachim might be right, it might be enough to take the focus off the Epstein files if the aliens don't do it first.
So if Scott Ritter's right, this is going to be a military, a missile suppression campaign that's going to be followed by retaliation, but then Iran's going to back off because they don't want to get into a full sale scale thing.
The first vulnerable asset, obviously, is going to be the oil infrastructure and then the export terminals that are part of the United Arab Emirates.
The Straits of Hormuz has a bunch of shipping lanes that are really important.
And, you know, let's think about it.
Iran doesn't need to really win.
It only needs to disrupt the oil flow for two to three weeks before the pressure is going to be on Trump.
When the oil spikes, the markets begin to panic and inflation surges.
So I think that they can hold out.
But it doesn't change the fact that a short war is going to create enough shock to cause long-term energy volatility that's going to harm U.S. interests.
As for the Israeli security containment, you know, clearly you have the tail wagging the dog question.
And if Iran does retaliate heavily against Israel, the U.S. will inevitably be drawn deeper into it.
And then the air defense resupply is going to have to accelerate, which is good for the military-industrial complex, as is the naval expansion that's going to come with it.
And then the regional partners that we have that are sort of on the fence in the Middle East are going to have to choose sides, which right now is probably a very difficult thing because everybody knows now about the Greater Israel project.
And I can guarantee you that all the countries that are going to lose land and territory as a result of their projected expansion are going to figure out a way to come together.
And so if we get involved in this war thing over there, that's going to be a good way for them to come together against the great American enemy.
And so this is bad for everybody at this particular time and even more scary for Israel.
But Israel obviously believes that it can pull off the near-suicide option called the Masada complex.
We're such big victims.
We're going to commit suicide before we take destruction.
That's a distinct Israeli thing.
And this might be their psychopathy that drives it.
If it's short, then we're going to benefit politically, but risk that the regime survives.
And, you know, it's going to be good for the military industrial complex.
If it's long, it's going to be oil shock.
It's going to be casualties.
It's going to be maritime disruption.
It's going to get really ugly.
So, but just remember one thing.
And I think Ritter was a little bit wrong about this.
You know, external attack strengthens the internal, the existent regimes resolve.
And it gets the people more on the side of let's defend ourselves where Iran than it does to get them to say, oh, the Americans are attacking us.
Let's go join them.
We all want to be like the Americans.
I don't see that happening.
I think it's all going to turn really bad for U.S. interests over there, unless we've already bought all the resources we need inside Iran and inside the other countries to help Israel out, which is a real possibility with the NGO work that we've been setting the stage for over the past 30 years.
Two quick points.
Yeah.
One, Iran never, never, ever has posed a military threat to the United States.
Never, never.
And yet they are plunging forward, forcing this.
The second point is those Gulf state countries that have been in the pocket basically of U.S. money dollars in, you know, they're going to get wiped out.
Some of those they're going to, those regimes, the royal family regimes of the Gulf states, they're going to be up and very unstable too, because they're going to get attacked because not all of them are going to be directly overtly supporting Iran in this war.
You know, they are kowtowing to America in power and helping out.
So that's a whole other issue that we don't know who's going to survive even amongst those oil-rich royal states because that is a very volatile talking about economy and fuel prices and all the rest.
You know, it's just, it's a time bomb ready to go off and no one wins.
Lived Connection to Khazar Judaism00:10:14
No one wins.
Pearl Harbor.
But I'm going to answer.
You know, we didn't pose a threat in Ukraine from Russia either, but yet we still managed to pull that one off.
America, especially when combined with Israel with this victory through deception campaign, we do what we want, even if we have to stage a false flag to get it done.
It's not going to slow us down.
If we want to do it, it doesn't care how peaceful or wonderful.
There could be a bunch of Buddhists, you know, chanting peace and love.
If we want to do it, we're going to do it because we're America and even more so with Israel.
And I'm not justifying it.
I'm just saying that's a fact.
There ain't nothing we, there's nothing.
And as a belligerent, we are hated around the world.
That's the result.
Go ahead, Jim.
I know you want to talk.
Trump is such a grandstander, I'm convinced.
He's going to announce the attack on Iran tomorrow night at the State of the Union.
And just as Pearl only lasted a few hours, in a few hours, Israel is going to be decimated.
Our ships are going to be sunk and we're going to have lost all those bases in the Middle East.
Mark my words.
Iran is ready for this.
They are ready.
There's not a chance they're going to back down.
There's no compromise.
It's going to happen.
Meanwhile, Tucker obliterates Israeli stooge Mike Huckabee.
He had an interview that has just been sent.
Okay, I'm going to show you a video of Tucker Carlson, and he literally puts a rock.
Okay, up Mike Huckabee's ask.
They are discussing whether the Jews of today have a right to the land.
So this is a small population of people.
They have connection to this land historically, biblically.
Do they?
Yes, they do.
If Bibi's family, we know they lived in Eastern Europe.
There's no evidence they ever lived here.
He's not religious.
But in what central city?
Do you have his family tree?
No, we don't.
Do you?
He doesn't.
So no one does.
That's the point.
So how do we know that he has any connection to the friend at all?
And if there has been a practice of Judaism and a connection to the language, the Bible, the land.
His ancestors didn't.
He doesn't practice Judaism in any rigorous way.
His ancestors didn't live here.
They didn't speak the language, and there's no evidence they ever lived here.
So on what basis does he ever write?
He very much speaks the language.
He has fought for the land.
His family has fought for the land.
He's not dodging of the land.
No, I hear the obvious question, which is where does this right come from?
And the reason it's meaningful is because there are a lot of people in the territory that Israel controls today, particularly in the West Bank, who, through genetic testing, we can know their families have been here for thousands of years.
We don't know whether they practiced Judaism, whether they were Samaritans.
What Taka is saying is that the Khazar dynasty in the Ukraine region, there was a mass conversion to Judaism.
And these are the people today who claim they're from that land.
You notice how Netanyahu and all the other people in the Kadnessi, they all seem to have Eastern European ancestry.
That's where he's come from.
That's what Taka is saying.
But let's keep going.
Pre-Islam.
We don't know that.
A lot of them we know have been Christians for 2,000 years.
They have less of a right to the land than someone whose ancestors, the only thing we know about them is they lived in Latvia or Poland.
They're Eastern European.
How does that work?
They're Jewish.
by what definition they're jewish by their but how do we know they have any connection They're Jewish by their faith.
They're Jewish by the connection to the language, Jewish.
The point Tucker here is saying Netanyahu is a very secular guy.
He doesn't really believe in the practices.
He doesn't believe in the Torah.
So what makes him Jewish?
By the connection to the Torah?
But how do we know that Bibi, specifically Bibi's ancestors, ever lived here?
How do we know that?
I'm not sure if I understand your question.
How do we know if the prime minister of Israel's ancestors ever lived?
Maybe I could ask you, how do we know they didn't?
That's his defense.
How do we know he didn't?
That's how you know this guy is a fraud.
Now they're going to talk about the genocide in Gaza.
Let's see what he has to say.
Had been killed after October 8th.
Well, I say not none of them.
I'm glad Mohamed Sinwar was killed.
I'm glad that some of those warriors, the people who masterminded and carried out the atrocities occurred.
14-old Hamas operatives.
How do you feel about their deaths?
If they participated in that, then God help them.
I'm telling you, Tucker.
I don't know that you have 14 years old.
No, but I'm telling you that when someone commits the acts of atrocity and then they hold hostages, if these were your children being held hostage in Gaza, what would you do to get them out?
I wouldn't want to kill 14-year-olds.
I'll tell you that.
Let me ask you something.
Would you do whatever it took to get your kids back if they were being tortured, raped, starved?
We would not kill children, period.
I would think that, but you are bound by international law.
Why is this Muppet being ignorant on purpose?
Well, I'm just telling you, and I would never make excuses for killing.
Because you can't do any better.
Tucker, there's more to it.
There's this guy around the block.
This guy's kind of interesting.
Yeah.
Here's what he says.
As a proof of America's friendship.
So yeah, he was advocating 15 years ago that America should free this traitorous spy as proof of America's friendship to Israel.
Hey, let's prove to them how friendly we are to them by freeing the guy that betrayed us on behalf of them because that's what friends do, right?
Hey, well, we're at it.
Maybe we should free Galen and send her back over there just to prove to them how friendly we are to them because they're such a good friend to us, right?
He's got it right.
Meanwhile, Anthony Aguilar called for Huckabee to be fired.
This is a guy who actually has been speaking the truth, contrary to Huckabee, but he's been savagely attacked.
Over the past eight months, in my outspokenness and revelations of the war crimes and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, of which the United States is complicit.
Today, on the 20th of February, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, the Honorable Mike Huckabee, posted a six-minute clip from his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, specifically addressing me by name.
Mind you, this is the same interview of which when Tucker Carlson left Israel, he was detained and questioned as to what his conversation with Ambassador Huckabee detailed.
There's more hundreds of new Israeli-based propaganda ex accounts are showing up.
They're doing their absolute best to propagandize to try to salvage the reputation of Israel.
Frankly, it's too late.
It cannot be done.
Joaquin, your thoughts.
No, I'm afraid the whole world almost hates the United States and Israel.
And they probably hate Israel a little more even than the United States, even though they both deserve a lot of negative resentment for what they've done to the world.
Israel's never been our friend.
I won't go through the whole laundry list of them betraying America.
It's too long for the program, actually.
But Israel, and we're probably going to see if Trump delays much longer, we're going to see a false flag committed by Israel to force America in.
But anyway, you know, we'll get back to just one little point on the history.
Yes, 95% or 6% of all the Israeli citizens are Ashkenazi, i.e., Khazarian from Khazar, ancient Khazar.
That's where they come from.
Eastern Europe, you know, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, right in that region of the world.
That's where they come from.
They have no Semitic blood whatsoever.
So they made a false claim as Zionist from the very beginning, and they have no birthright, no religious right, no any right to go in there and be a terrorist for the entire world.
And that's what they've served as-a terrorist against the entire world peace.
So, you know, I get so tired of these Zionist types, like that ambassador we got.
What up?
Anyway, and that Colonel Aguilar, yeah, he's another West Pointer that I say, yeah, this guy's right on.
Everything he has brought up in the past with uncovering the horror that's going on there in Gaza as a basically paid to work as a civilian capacity after his military career.
So he's a very honorable man.
So of course, you know, he's attacked by the ambassador, of course, just like Tucker Carlson gets harassed for hours being interrogated by these Nazis there in Israel.
So, yeah, it's a bad situation.
It's getting worse.
Brian, your thoughts.
Yeah, I was working when the Tucker Carlson-Mike Huckabee interview came out, and I listened to it.
Mixed Bloodlines Debate00:10:03
And I could immediately tell that number one, Carlson was underprepared.
And number two, Mike Huckabee was even dumber than a brick.
Although he might be a good politician or ambassador or Baptist preacher, whatever that means.
The problem with the interview was that it was a little bit confusing because really what was taking place was that Carlson was mixing three very important questions together in sort of his rhetorical posture.
The question of biblical covenant and land theology was brought up, and then the modern political state legitimacy question was sort of sewn into it.
And then even worse and even more distinct and distracting was the U.S. foreign policy obligations.
But those were actually the three arguments that were mixed together.
And that's why it sounded more like a muddled mess.
As for the biblical theological question, in AD 70, the Jews were destroyed.
The temple was destroyed.
As Jesus predicted, not one stone was left upon another, which means that the temple records were destroyed, which means that the genealogical records were destroyed, and then the people were scattered to the winds of the earth.
And that matters theologically.
It was all destroyed exactly as Jesus said it was going to be.
So their temple-centered worship was destroyed.
And so what they do, they built the Torah, their commentary on the Bible, and they built that sort of as their survival mechanism.
But, you know, I can tell you this: just because you're 20 generations away from something doesn't necessarily mean that all your genealogical continuity completely vanishes, because there obviously was a surviving instinct built into that bloodline that helped them to survive.
As for the YouTube commentators' discussion about the Khazars, you know, that's, I don't know how well that's proven, but I can tell you this: you take 2,000 years of history, and, you know, it's pretty easy to say that the bloodlines get pretty mixed up, and it's too hard to say who belongs to what tribe anymore at this particular point.
I can tell you this: the Levites never had their own land anyway.
So, if you got 12 tribes plus the Levites, they never had any right to the land either.
So, you know, it's strange.
And then, but, you know, I want you to, as a listener, you need to understand something.
There's a big difference between the truly biblical right and the modern right.
I mean, theologically, we understand that the covenant included land promises, but I'm a biblical guy.
So, I recognize Deuteronomy 28 and Deuteronomy 31 with the same strength and vigor that I recognize anything else.
I also recognize that in the book of Revelation, it's very clear that there is still room for, well, 10 or 11 of the tribes.
So, there is something to it.
I just can't really tell what it is.
So, I would say that the biblical question of covenant inheritance is certainly not the same question as modern geopolitical sovereignty.
And that's exactly why that interview got so confusing.
And then, of course, for the people who understand the modern state, they know the Balfour Declaration from 1917.
They know Theodore Herzl's political Zionism.
That was a completely secular movement that had absolutely nothing to do with religion.
And of course, then they revived the Hebrew language with this new sort of Kabbalistic alphabet and they brought it back from the dead, which was completely dishonest.
And I can guarantee you that the modern political Israel has nothing to do with the original Davidic monarchy in the southern kingdom who became known as the Jews when they were exiled to Babylon for 70 years before they returned under Ezra and Nehemiah and rebuilt the temple, which lasted until 8070.
So Netanyahu doesn't have a right to the land from an ancestry or biblical legitimacy ground whatsoever.
But you might argue, and this is, I think, what Huckabee was arguing, which was, well, you know, the UN 1947, you know, they gave them some international legal recognition.
So there is something there.
And let's face it, America is recognized as a geopolitical entity, even though we've got mixed breed blood from all over the world.
We have our own military.
We have our own identity.
And it has nothing to do with our DNA.
It's built on power, recognition, continuity, and governance.
And that's how every state functions.
So Tucker Carlson didn't really do a good job of carving it out and making the argument.
But Tucker was right about the genetic argument in the West Bank.
Palestinians have been there continuously.
They have deep roots.
They have certainly Christian roots.
And, you know, for them to be attacked and destroyed is a big deal.
And Tucker's right about the Gaza civilian casualty argument.
But let's face it, the International Criminal Court is a political entity.
And so the question is as to whether they are war criminals.
Well, that's a legal conclusion.
I hate to say it.
I would probably judge them that way, but it doesn't mean that that doesn't mean that I can dissolve and take away their birthday in terms of the UN in 1947.
It's all very volatile discussion points.
And I think it's a little, it's muddled.
It's very muddy, muddy water today because Israel is recognized.
They do have their own military.
They are operating as a theoretically independent political entity that's recognized worldwide.
And you can't just take that away because you can find some old arguments.
But what you can do is apply the criminal, the criminal label to them because that's exactly what they're doing.
Well, and you could also say the UN Charter never gave it to Israel.
Israel illegally took it and they dishonored all the Palestinian majority living there to just illegally take over.
So it wasn't even legitimized by the UN.
Yeah, I'm not arguing that, but the progressives even today would say, oh, the Americans took the land from the Indians.
They might be wrong completely.
But, you know, they're going to try to resurrect the argument.
The simple fact of the matter is we're America.
We're recognized.
We got power.
We got our own military.
We've got our own borders.
We've got our own constitution.
And that makes us a nation, whether or not what our blood looks like.
So somebody going back.
I assume that Truman is what did it too.
He supported them with a suitcase of cash.
Well, I like your critique, Brian.
Tucker got Huckabee to agree that the land belongs to the descendants of Abraham.
And Tucker suggested, well, then why don't we do a DNA test to see who are the descendants of Abraham?
And we know because John Hopkins has already done it that the present.
The present occupants of Israel are Kazarians.
They have no relationship whatsoever to Abraham.
None.
Zilts, zero.
That's what I'm saying.
They're wrong.
They're simply wrong.
The biblical promise was, I mean, go take a look.
Anybody can sit and open a Bible to Deuteronomy chapter 28 and Deuteronomy chapter 31 and see that the punishment for disobedience was total destruction and being scattered to the winds.
And you don't get the benefit of the promised land because of your genetic heritage.
You get it because of your covenant identity, which means obedience to God.
So there's no way that land was deeded to them eternally.
That's foolishness, foolishness.
It's somebody who does not understand their Bible at all.
Especially when they're secular.
They're not even Jewish in religion.
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, Don.
Take us out.
It sounds like we're right in the middle of.
Take us out.
Right in the middle of a hot show here on February 23rd, 2026.
Truth versus news.
Oh, boy.
And we're going to eat the past straight into everything else.
And hopefully, we're going to come back for a second hour today and have a little straighten out and a big space with the ending by Jim's head through.