Sham "Dignity" Amnesty Bill, and the Crucial Lebanon Factor, with Michael Knowles and Ana Kasparian | Ep. 1292
Michael Knowles and Ana Kasparian dissect the deceptive "Dignity Act" amnesty bill, arguing it contradicts Trump's deportation promises while ignoring polls showing majority support for enforcement. They critique media failures regarding Michael J. Fox and Leah Gazin's LGBTQ acronym expansion, then pivot to the Iran-Lebanon conflict, alleging White House manipulation of ceasefire terms and conspiracy theories linking Epstein to Mossad blackmail. Ultimately, they call for a cross-partisan coalition to challenge AIPAC's $4 billion annual influence, warning that automatic draft registration risks sending Americans to wars serving foreign interests rather than U.S. security. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Rallying Support for the Dignity Act00:04:58
The children are very good at dressing.
I will go to my U-Bus.
They have a photo of the content of the photo of the photo.
What do you mean?
This is the time.
Hello, photo of the photo.
I will go to the photo of the photo.
I will go to the photo of Yeah,
that's what we're going to do.
We're going to go to the Megyn Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111, every weekday at noon East.
I'm Megan Kelly.
Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
Big developments today with the shaky ceasefire with Iran.
We're going to get to that in our second hour with Anna Kasparian.
But with foreign news dominating, some of the big stories here at home are getting short shrift.
And it's important to focus on them because they're trying to pull a fast one on us right now in the U.S. Congress.
One of them is this story the growing controversy over the Dignity Act bill that's currently being debated in the House of Representatives.
You could call it a betrayal bill.
That's another name for it.
The legislation is causing uproar for many of the strongest voices from the America First community, which has already gotten screwed, because if it is passed into law, the so called Dignity Act would make it easier for illegals to stay in the country, millions of them.
Now, none of this is particularly surprising, but here's where the story gets interesting.
The Dignity Act has support from a number of Republicans.
In fact, it was co introduced back in July of last year by Republican Congresswoman Maria Salazar, who's from the Miami area.
She's the daughter of Cuban immigrants.
And the original list of co sponsors includes 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats.
What are the Republicans doing co sponsoring an amnesty bill?
The legislation calls for stricter border enforcement in parallel.
Okay, they always do this.
This is what the Republicans who are pro amnesty always stick in.
Oh, we're going to make it tougher, we're going to enforce the border.
And that's really like the price we're going to pay for amnesty.
That's never the way it works.
What ends up happening is you get the amnesty without the tougher border.
You know, the next time you get a Democrat in the White House, the border opens back up.
Even with this president in the White House, where's our wall?
This is no time to be talking about amnesty.
What are we doing?
Why are we doing this?
The legislation calls for stricter border enforcement, as I said, in parallel with a legal process for illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications to stay in America without fear of deportation.
I don't care about them being in fear of deportation.
You know who's not in fear of deportation?
Americans.
Like, why should I?
Why do I have to worry about their fear?
Then go home.
Go back to Ecuador.
You won't be deported.
You're good.
Like, this is a far left concern.
Why are we having Republicans making this their agenda front and center, Congressman Salazar?
The quote, dignity program would give illegals seven years of Temporary legal status, so long as they've been in this country for five years.
They had to have gotten here before 2021, pass a criminal background check for like most crimes, but not all crimes, repay back taxes, which they'll never do, and pay $7,000 in restitution.
I guarantee you it'll be a situation where like you have to promise you'll do it and then they won't do it.
Supporters of the bill really want us to know that individuals in the Dignity Program would not be eligible for federal benefits or be on a path to citizenship, though they'd be here legally forever.
Okay.
Here's Congresswoman Salazar trying to sell the legislation.
What does the word dignity mean to you?
To me, it means not having to live in the shadows.
It means being proud to contribute to the economy and be respected for it.
That's what 10 million illegal immigrants deserve.
Let them work legally and generate over 100.
Billion in revenue for our Treasury.
No path to citizenship, no right to vote in our elections, and no access to federal programs.
It's called the Dignity Act, where they can work and live without fear.
Not All Beef Is Created Equal00:02:04
It's the right thing to do, it's the Christian thing to do, it's the American thing to do.
So let's do it.
Now, there's been no movement recently on the bill in Congress, no movement until recently.
And now it's back in the news because Congresswoman Salazar announced late last month that she and other supporters were going on a nationwide dignity tour.
To rally support for its passage.
I mean, she means it.
She's not phoning it in.
Now, that's got many America First supporters outraged who say it flies in the face of President Trump's campaign promise to not only not provide amnesty, but to conduct mass deportations of illegals.
The days of doing this shit with the heartstrings are supposed to be over.
One of those conservatives is our first guest, Michael Knowles.
He's hosted The Michael Knowles Show.
If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider Riverbend Ranch.
Their steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body.
Beef is a complete protein, and it contains all nine essential amino acids that your body needs to function.
It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking.
But here's the key not all beef is created equal.
The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's raised and where it comes from, and that is where Riverbend Ranch stands apart.
For more than 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been building an elite black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness.
All Riverbend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the USA.
They never use growth hormones or antibiotics, and the beef is processed at the ranch in their award winning USDA inspected facility.
No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy, flavorful beef shipped directly to your home.
Order today at riverbendranch.com and use the promo code MAGAN.
for twenty dollars off your first order.
The Open Border Political Strategy00:15:26
Michael, welcome back.
Great to see you.
She's not trying to hide it.
Even though she's a Republican, she's going to go on a nationwide tour trying to sell it.
I mean, I got to say, I think America Firsters have had about enough.
First, they were told no one's interested in Epstein and that we weren't going to be seeing any files.
And they passed a legislation with a huge hole in it that you could drive a truck through.
Okay, fine.
Then they were told the promise not to start a Middle East war didn't apply to Iran, which last time I checked is in the Middle East.
And now we have a Republican.
Co sponsoring and going on a nationwide tour to push an amnesty bill, which she says is not amnesty.
She's very, very angry at that word.
But you tell me what it is when you allow millions of illegals to stay here forever with impunity.
Well, Megan, I think your summary of the bill was totally right with one slight correction.
This woman, Maria Salazar, a nominal Republican, is now calling this the Dignity Act.
But the actual name of the bill is the Dignidad Act.
Act.
They couldn't even put the bill in English.
They put the bill in Spanish.
And so I have my own alternative legislation that I am proposing.
The legislation is the All New Denizens Actually Leave En Masse bill or the On Delay bill.
So I hope that the Congress takes up the On Delay Act of 2026 because the Dignity Dot Act is completely unacceptable.
And by the way, this woman, Salazar, is now saying that this is not an amnesty bill in any way.
She's attacking.
Even some of her colleagues in Congress, like Brandon Gill, who has led the fight against this in Congress, she's saying that he's lying about the legislation.
The bill would literally give not only amnesty, but a pathway to citizenship for untold numbers of so called dreamers.
The dreamers, a term coined under the Obama administration, referring to illegal aliens who are brought to this country at a younger age.
The dreamers at this point are not doe eyed six year olds.
50 years old at this point, okay?
And so that notion is totally ridiculous.
And then this woman on camera actually said, when she was trying to sell this to the pro amnesty, pro pathway to citizenship people, she said, look, don't worry.
Future legislators are going to come along and give these people a pathway to citizenship.
What we need to do right now is give them peace.
In other words, we need to buy time right now.
We need to stop them from being deported.
So this is the first step to a pathway to citizenship.
Now she's coming out saying it won't give a pathway to citizenship.
She's lying to the public.
Donald Trump won his election.
For a lot of reasons.
One of the top reasons that he won, not only the election, but the popular vote, is on mass deportations.
Mass deportations are a mainstream popular political issue.
So, what do these jokers, these Republicans in Congress say?
They come around and they say, I know what we'll do after winning the first popular election in 20 years.
Let's give illegals mass amnesty.
It makes you just put your head in your hands and you think, leave it to these people to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Yeah, what, what, who do they think wants this in the Republican Party?
We went back and looked at the polls in 2024.
Okay, they showed 62% of registered voters favored a national program to deport all illegals.
That was CBS News.
Axios, 51% of Americans, including 42% of Democrats, would support mass deportations of illegals.
Even as of last April, 2025, CNN was reporting 56% of Americans were in favor of mass deportations for everyone here illegally.
Then I asked my team to go back and check it.
After the nonsense in Minneapolis with Renee Goode and Alex Pretty.
And Harry Anton did a SOT suggesting that the numbers had gone down.
But then we checked February 26th via Reuters, and it said as of February 26th, 60% of Americans, including a fifth of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats, think immigration agents have gone too far.
But some 61% of respondents, including 92% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats, said they support deporting unauthorized immigrants, illegals.
And similar information.
Reported in Politico via McLaughlin on April 1st.
So there still is support, majority support for deporting all of these illegals.
I don't get how you find 20 Republicans who want to forge ahead with this kind of agenda, which the president is not going to sign.
He's not dumb.
So what is this?
Just to create a talking point for the Democrats right before the midterms?
Yeah, I think it comes from a couple of places.
One, some of these Republicans are just I mean, they're fake Republicans.
In fairness to them, some of them come from swing districts, so I guess they're trying to appeal to Democrats.
But the other constituency in the Republican Party that does want this is a lot of the donor class.
That's what this is about.
Basically, no Republican voters want this.
They actually want the opposite of this.
But some Republican donors want it because they benefit from the slave labor that we get from mass migration.
This has always been the Faustian bargain when it comes to the open border.
The Democrats want the open border because they think, and with Justification that it will give them a permanent electoral majority.
And then some of the business Republicans want it because it gives them slave labor.
And so they use this woman as their puppet to go out there and say that this is all about dignity.
Hey, what about the dignity of Americans?
What about the dignity of citizens and voters who want the most basic political right?
That is to say, to determine who it comes into and who leaves their political community.
This is pretty basic stuff.
It's so outrageous that the one line that they all keep using too is that they say, If the Democrats win again, and historically speaking, they probably will win in the midterms, at least in the House.
They say when the Democrats come in again, they're going to pass a mass amnesty.
So we need to get ahead of this issue.
And you say, hold on, you're telling me that the fear is Democrats are going to come in and give a mass amnesty.
So that's why the big brain 5D chess Republicans need to give a mass amnesty first?
How on earth does that make any sense?
The Democrats are not, I don't think they're dumb enough to pass a mass amnesty, even if they get control again.
That doesn't speak to border security at all.
I mean, they have to see the same polls we're seeing.
Like, they couldn't possibly do such a thing without doing something about the border.
And, like, so that vitiates that argument.
But what the only thing I can think of when I look at this bill is some of the border protections are good.
Like, the first one implements nationwide mandatory e verify.
Yes, that should be happening right now.
The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and we haven't done that.
And there's a reason we haven't done that.
It's because Republicans, the dirty little secret, including right up to the one in the White House, do favor allowing some portion of illegals to continue staying here and working here.
Like in the hotel industry, the president says, or on farms.
And that's why they don't pass an immediate requirement that E Verify be implemented.
At the federal level, all across the country, they won't do it.
That would actually get rid of the illegals really fast because they couldn't work.
They could not work without proving that they were U.S. citizens.
They won't do that, but this bill purports to do that.
It requires DNA testing for family verification, increases penalties for illegal border crossers, enacts strongest penalties possible for child sex traffickers on asylum, ends catch and relief, builds humanitarian campuses near the southern border to process asylum seekers in federal custody, expedites asylum processing determinations within 60 days.
Increases penalties for asylum fraud.
I mean, frankly, we should just be not doing asylum anyway.
The country's full.
Go home, the country's full.
We're going to, I guess, keep pretending that we want more people because they, having traversed through seven different other countries where they didn't ask for asylum, now need it when they get to America.
But in any event, there are some good things in here.
And this is supposed to be the carrot, Michael, to get people like you and me into this thing without realizing that they always do this.
They always say this.
All those things I just mentioned that I like, like e verify, will be stripped out of it.
The Democrats will never vote for that.
P.S. Neither will a lot of Republicans.
This is just to make us say, oh, okay, I'm open minded to it, to get the amnesty.
And then we'll let in a bunch more illegals.
And in about 10 years, there'll be a new push for more amnesty.
To your point, Megan, especially on asylum, we need to establish right off the bat, and a lot of people don't know this the asylum claims are basically all nonsense.
The people who are coming across the border illegally are economic migrants.
Totally.
Some of them are making asylum claims.
Virtually all of them are disingenuous.
But to your point, If this were really chiefly about political asylum from some country in which they're being politically oppressed, they could stop in any of the countries along the way.
And they don't want to do it.
They want to come here because we're a rich country and we provide massive welfare benefits.
You know, this Dignidad Act says that the illegal aliens will have no access to federal programs.
That's bogus too, because even if they technically don't have access to the federal programs, they have access to the state programs and the state programs are funded by the federal government.
They're funded by your taxpayer dollars.
So even that is a bogus argument because money is fungible.
And I think these people Are smart enough to know that.
I think the more charitable read is that they're just being deceitful here rather than anything else.
And yes, I recognize it's very easy with my microphone from my nice little pundit chair to say that we should deport all of them.
It's a harder political action to effect.
I get that.
And there are going to be lots of constituencies who don't want it, certainly in the donor class and in real estate and the farmers and all the rest of it, but also even among rank and file voters who are going to react to the avalanche.
Of dishonest and bad looking news images and stories.
I get that it's a difficult political issue.
I guess my point would be this.
If you're going to spend political capital on any issue, this is the one to spend it on because not only is it what people voted for, but two, the mass migration presents an existential threat to the country and also, specifically, just talking to the self interest of Republican legislators, it poses an existential threat to the Republican Party.
That's why the Democrats are posing it.
So I say, I sympathize.
I get it.
I know that this is politically very difficult to do and it requires a lot of political capital.
This is the best investment of your political capital that you can make in the medium term and certainly in the long term.
Look at what's happening right now in the Republican Party.
It's very divided.
You know, the MAGA wing of the party is behind Trump and backs this war, supposedly.
So do the neocons.
And the rest of the party that considers itself America first does not.
The polls show that.
What do they need to demoralize them further right before the midterms other than a big amnesty bill co sponsored?
By Republicans.
I mean, honestly, Michael, like if you were a Democrat sitting at home thinking, how can I further demoralize the Trump constituencies?
What could I do to make sure they don't show up in November, that they feel as down as possible on the Republican Party?
I don't need them to vote Democrat.
I know they're not going to vote for us, but I sure would like to get them to stay home as a middle finger to their own party in November.
This is the perfect thing.
The secret meetings of Democrats would all say, This is brilliant, and we'll get this idiot from Florida to co sponsor it.
Of course.
I mean, to your point, I think the Iran strikes are a major hot potato.
And so the key to that is going to be it's got to wrap up quickly.
You know, President Trump said at the beginning of it he thought it would take about four to six weeks.
And to his credit, the guy actually had a pretty good calculation on this because the ceasefire, such as it is, we'll see if it holds, did kick in about halfway through the fifth week.
So that would be great if we can move off it.
Yes, some polls show.
90% support among a certain wing of the Republican Party, even 100% support among parts of the Republican Party.
I do think that support is kind of soft.
There are a lot of people who don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Plenty of people hate the mullahs.
Fair enough.
The mullahs have been anti American for 50 years now.
But this is not going to be the kind of galvanizing issue that gets Republicans out to the polls in November.
So it has to wrap up quickly.
I hope and trust it will wrap up quickly.
I'm looking at the negotiating team.
I'm really pleased to see that the vice president is leading the negotiating team.
You know, that could all be great, coupled with.
Oil prices not spiking to $200 a barrel.
Right now, they're still under $100, $90 a barrel.
You saw the price of eggs just totally cratered, like 60%.
These are all good signs.
Record lows.
Yeah, I mean, these are the kinds of things where you say, okay, great.
We won't give Democrats the economic talking point.
If we can wrap this war up quickly, we won't give them a foreign policy talking point that you know that they're salivating for.
So you say, okay, great.
What are those bread and butter issues that the Republican primary voters need to impel them to go out in in November, you say, well, immigration is one of the biggest issues.
Hold on.
You're going to give Democrats the biggest win they could imagine, even just a talking point win.
Like, where is your head at?
And I, well, I actually have an answer of where their heads are at, but I won't say it on air because, you know, I try not to go blue.
But it's just totally bizarre.
And so, my recommendation to the dozen Republican congressmen who are still promoting this thing knock it off, stop it, take the L. You lost.
This bill sucks.
It's terrible in every way.
You're dangling the carrot of border security in exchange for mass amnesty?
Guess what?
We've heard that song before.
That's exactly what the Democrats did to Reagan in the 80s.
And to quote George W. Bush, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, hey, hey, the point is you're not going to fool me again.
You know that we're going to get the mass amnesty.
We're not going to get the border security.
So knock it off.
You guys lost.
You tried to pull a fast one.
Maybe you got duped.
Maybe you're just too ignorant.
Whatever it is, stop going on TV to sell this thing.
Keep your traps shut.
Focus on the issues that the Americans want, which coincidentally is the exact opposite of this bill.
We did it for the young people listening to this.
We did it under Reagan.
Reagan fell for this and allowed mass amnesty to the tune of 3 million or so people.
And they just kept coming across the border.
It didn't solve anything.
It just waved the magic wand and gave amnesty legal status to millions of illegals and turned out to be an incentive for more to come.
So the border, by the way, is closed right now.
It's closed.
All we really need to do is keep Trump's policies in place and build a wall so that the next president can't reopen.
The border.
There doesn't seem to be any money in the budget for that.
There does seem to be lots of money in the budget for defense, but no border wall, which is another form of defense.
This is unnecessary.
What is necessary is to actually start deporting people again.
Federal Inaction on the Border Wall00:13:57
And Michael, you and I both know that agenda is stymied because of what happened in Minneapolis.
You know, we had an internal debate within the party on whether we should do them all or we should do just worst, not even just worst first.
It's like worst only.
And the worst only crowd won.
And I understand it politically.
I mean, we don't favor it, but I understand it because Trump's poll numbers were taking a nosedive in the wake of the nonstop coverage of Minneapolis and putting the little boy on the air as though, you know, we're just so evil and we're separating.
And meanwhile, that was that dad's fault.
That boy could have stayed with his mom.
The dad said, I'm taking him with me.
Yeah.
And then finally, when they tracked him down, they said, Do you want him to stay with mom or come with you?
And he said, Come with me.
So, okay, whatever.
The media is always going to lie.
In any event, it's settled on the worst only.
And now, even that has just gone completely quiet.
It's like, I have no idea whether we're even still pursuing that.
It doesn't seem to be center stage anymore.
And to your point, we don't seem to be expending the political capital the president has left on pushing that agenda as opposed to foreign relations and military.
Yeah.
I think the key is going to have to be if you recognize that in Minneapolis, the Dems were able to score an optics victory.
Notice it's always Minneapolis, by the way.
There were mass deportations going on all around the country.
Really?
Minneapolis and Minnesota generally were trying to make a big show about this.
They did this with the George Floyd riots five years ago, and they did it again successfully.
You had Tim Walz calling for open insurrection.
He was invoking 1863.
Same thing goes for Jacob Fry when he was able to speak English instead of whatever the Star Wars language was that he tries to spittle out of his mouth.
And so, yeah, it was an op and it worked to some degree.
So then what do you have to do?
The best thing that you could possibly do politically in that case is to maybe try to counter some of the theatrics that you're going to get from the Democrats.
And just deport these people.
The formal numbers we got out of the White House by the end of the year were, what, 700,000 plus formal deportations and then over a million self deportations.
And of course, self deportations is going to be a little trickier to track.
However, we do have it from multiple data sets, and there wasn't an effort to say, look, if you're going to have to live in the shadows, if you're not going to have access to these welfare programs, if ICE is going to be around the corner, maybe it makes sense for you to leave the country now.
And by the way, we'll give you $1,000 on the way out.
If anywhere near those numbers are right, then that's a good start.
The problem, of course, is that.
Even if they deported 3 million people per year, you've got something like 20 million illegal aliens in the country.
I totally recognize how brutal this problem has become, mostly because of Democrats, but also with the help of some subversive Republicans, like people such as Maria Salazar.
But regardless of what it is, you just need to, at least quietly, keep the pressure up.
Keep deporting these people.
It is the most important long-term political issue for the Republican Party and for the health of the United States.
I'm not saying that you have to totally ignore foreign affairs or ignore economic issues or any of the rest of it.
You got to juggle a lot of different spinning plates.
But you cannot neglect this issue.
This is the issue.
This is the issue when Trump came down the golden escalator in 2015.
It was the issue that won the popular vote in 2024.
And we cannot allow ourselves to put it on the back burner.
Trump has endorsed this woman post her submission of this bill, but the White House says he is not pro amnesty.
And, you know, we have to hold him to that.
That absolutely has to remain his position, or there will be just a complete revolt.
I mean, there'll be no Republicans left.
It just, there's no way he can sign this bill.
Moving on, this guy was not an illegal, but he was front and center in the news for a month until Charlie Kirk's assassination knocked him off the front page.
The man who's accused of butchering.
Irina Zarutska, the 23 year old Ukrainian refugee on the Charlotte, North Carolina light rail, has been found incompetent to stand trial.
Michael, this is the ultimate insult.
He's obviously not mentally all there.
That's been clear for years.
He nonetheless has been allowed to rain terror down on the citizens of Charlotte for years.
And these far left woke judges, magistrate judges, and district judges there, have been sending him in and out of the courts like a revolving door.
With no thought for the safety of anyone, least of all Irina.
And now that he takes out a knife and kills her on the light rail in a video that has haunted us all, now we have a judge declare him incompetent to face the charges.
This is, I mean, it's truly the ultimate FU from a system that gave so many FUs and that is directly responsible for what happened to poor Irina.
On that train.
Your thoughts?
I wish we could just say that this were incompetence or an unfortunate flaw in our justice system.
It's not.
Now, obviously, the guy should be in prison for the rest of his life or executed by the state.
If he can't be because he's not fit to stand trial, he needs to be permanently institutionalized.
But we don't really do that so much anymore.
So, what do we do with criminals such as he?
We just let them out on the street to go kill more people.
That would be.
An incompetence and a flaw that we would have to address.
But unfortunately, it's more than that.
And we know it because we can couple this with the mural scandal that took place up in Rhode Island, I think it was.
There was a mural that went up for Irina Zarutska, this poor woman who was murdered in what appears to be a racially motivated crime.
It sounded like when he was leaving the train, he said, I got a white woman.
And because of that, the mayor and a member of Congress up there said that the mural had to come down because it was divisive.
Divisive.
Think about this, Megan.
This woman, Irina Zarutska, checks virtually every box that the Democrats say they like.
She's an immigrant.
She's a woman.
She's young.
She's victimized.
From Ukraine.
They love Ukraine, too.
They love Ukraine.
She's Ukrainian.
She's top of the list.
But they don't like this woman.
In fact, they want to do everything they can to defend her killer because she's a white woman.
That's really what it comes down to.
It's cliche and trite to say, but had the races been reversed, of course, this would be an international news story.
And so, what the Democrats are doing is expressing overtly an antipathy for white people.
And they're saying that if the crime doesn't match our racial criteria, we're going to let the criminals off the hook, and we're not even going to let you talk about it.
The aspect of the Irina Zarutska mural that has gone largely undiscussed, but it's the cherry on top of the Irony Sunday, is that the libs are the ones who tell us that we need free artistic expression.
You can never limit art.
You know, art is whatever we all feel, and it needs to be everywhere.
fund the arts.
Not this art, though.
Not art that pays honor to a woman who was murdered in cold blood.
No, no, no.
The left is all for censorship of art when it comes to something that contradicts their narrative.
So look, they hate this woman.
They hate what her death represents.
They want to defend her murderer, and they're going to let her murderer off the hook, and her murderers, statistically speaking, probably going to go victimize somebody else.
This is so wrong.
Like, it is so hard, by the way, to get like a not guilty verdict at trial.
Like, if they would let him use an insanity defense, it's next to impossible to actually get a not guilty verdict.
Like, the instruction on it is next to impossible.
And now this guy's gonna get out of it altogether.
I feel like these same woke judges understood that.
So, finally, gave him the declaration he should have gotten long ago.
The summer before he killed her, there was a question about whether he'd get tagged with this, and they ordered a psych evaluation, and it wasn't done.
He was allowed, he was just sent back out into Charlotte, North Carolina to kill again or to kill and to hurt another person.
And he did.
So now, now that he's actually going to have to face potential accountability, they finally give him an evaluation to say, oh, he's incompetent to stand trial, which means incapable to proceed, is what they've said in the state courts, not competent to stand trial.
That now a judge has to determine whether to accept the report's finding.
Per North Carolina state law, a defendant is considered incapable to proceed if he cannot comprehend the nature of the charges, understand his role in the court proceedings, or assist in his defense.
To restore capacity, a defendant is often treated with medication and other treatment in order to get him deemed competent.
We'll see whether they do any of that.
His mother told the New York Post that he is schizophrenic, saying she struggled to have him committed a long time ago and blamed the justice system.
He'd been arrested 33 times, Michael.
He'd been criminally charged on 14 of those occasions.
He was free on cashless bail after a magistrate released him with a written promise to show up for court after placing a bogus 911 call.
That's when he killed Arena.
And you know what?
I believe every word that she says that she did try to have him committed and that this system said, no, no, no.
They had no interest.
They don't create the beds.
And these blue run cities, these Democrat run cities, find institutionalization inhumane.
They'd rather.
The arenas of the world get killed.
And then this guy could wind up with his body in the electric chair, too.
How's that humane?
You allow these people to run around murdering people.
It doesn't end well for them either.
Institutionalization is the kinder, gentler option.
Of course it is.
And yet, in recent decades, more than recent decades, we just refuse to do it.
And so, my confidence that society will actually, in the long run, be kept safe from this guy and guys like him is basically zero.
This harms everybody involved, which is true of most Democrat policies.
I mean, just even getting back to the border, you know, when the Dems are promoting the open border, the first focus should be on our country and the American citizens who are victimized by mass migration.
But it's worth pointing out as a side note that Amnesty International Infusion found that 60 to 80% of women and girls who cross the border illegally are sexually assaulted on the way.
So it's not exactly great for them either.
You know, this is completely deleterious to everybody involved.
And, uh, which is why it's a good hunch that the Democrats will support it.
Unfortunately, in, in both cases, law and order and in mass migration, being followed by some squish Republicans as well.
He was charged federally in addition to at the state level.
And there is some promising news in that the U.S. Attorney for this district in Charlotte said that this man, DeCarlos Brown, is in federal custody on a federal indictment.
The state proceedings, including any competency finding in the state proceedings, are completely separate.
So it certainly sounds like the federal government is not going to just sit by and let this guy get any sort of a pass, though these same evaluations will have to happen.
At the federal level, he's been ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination as part of the federal court case that's just coming in.
However, court filings from March 6th indicate the examination is not yet completed.
The evaluation period has been extended.
So we'll see.
We'll see whether we can get a better result at the federal level.
Like, if this guy was fine to put back out on the streets after that bogus 911 call a year ago, not even a year ago, he should be fine to stand trial.
I mean, come on, this is not somebody who was obviously.
Incompetent to the place where, like, they had to lock him up immediately last summer.
So, what happened?
Maybe we need to test the assertions of incompetence a little bit more robustly.
Speaking of incompetence.
Speaking of incompetence.
On the federal level, as we say, well, thank goodness, at least there is a chance that justice will be served at the federal level.
Well, this is a reminder for the people, especially the squish Republicans who don't like it when the Trump administration goes in and actually exercises political power.
Guys, that's our last.
Option.
We don't live in a yeoman republic or some kind of confederacy here.
This hands off approach that so many Republicans have taken for political power in recent decades doesn't work.
The blue cities, the blue states have made clear they want these killers on the streets.
They don't want to enforce the law.
They're always going to take the side of the criminals over the innocent.
And so the only option is for Republicans, one, to win elections, and two, to actually wield the political power that they are happily given on some occasions.
I really hope that we can get.
The federal government to step in here and see justice be served.
And that will be even more of an argument for the federal government to come in with a heavy hand and correct the problems that have festered at the state and local level for at least the happy time that we still have power.
As I was saying, speaking of incompetent, that brings me to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC.
And to the point you were making about the racial dynamic, as we know, one of the reasons Republicans are in power now is because the left is obsessed with identity politics.
Justice and Republican Political Power00:05:38
And the American electorate has had enough of that.
I do think even many Democrats are over it.
They're just over it.
They're overseeing their kids put through it, themselves put through it at work and so on.
And yet their standard bearers, like the MSNBC primetime hosts, will let go of that stuff with their cold, dead hands.
So, Lawrence O'Donnell, in the midst of this war in Iran, in which there's plenty to discuss, debate, criticize, you could take your pick if you're a detractor of the president's, like Lawrence O'Donnell is.
He went here.
This is what he did.
Take a listen to SOT 11.
That brilliant rescue was described by the Secretary of Defense and by General Dan Kane, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a long standing American military rule of never leaving anyone behind.
We leave no man behind.
That is, of course, the old school version of the idea back when only men flew American military planes.
General Dan Kane, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it this way.
We leave no one behind.
The general knows, unlike Pete Hegseth, that that could have been a woman they were trying to rescue, and it might be a woman the next time.
So, Michael Null, that was a woke chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying no one, and that was a sexist pig secretary of war saying no man left behind.
That's the issue in the eyes of Lawrence O'Donnell.
Lawrence O'Donnell has become that meme.
You know the giant transvestite from the bodega?
The bodega owner says, Oh, come on up here, sir.
He says, Actually, it's ma'am.
His big giant.
Lawrence O'Donnell is that guy who says, Actually, Mr. Secretary, it's ma'am.
This is a really great mark for the U.S. military and for the Trump administration on this rescue mission.
This rescue mission for the guy who goes down on Good Friday and he's rescued on Easter Sunday, this thing was pulled off so flawlessly in Iran, so improbably, that the only thing that The libs could find to criticize is leave no man behind, which I think most of us actually support.
By the way, man is a gender neutral noun.
It can be.
In the beginning, God created man, both male and female created he them.
So Lawrence O'Donnell seems to be flunking on mere English language as well.
But on top of that, yes, you think if I were in the White House right now, I would be feeling very good about myself because when it comes to Iran, I argued against strikes on Iran before it happened.
I am very much an Iran skeptic.
If the New York Times reporting is to be believed, which of course is a big if, it seems like there were a lot of big figures, not just some of the advisors, but including the Secretary of State and the Vice President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the CIA Director, who all urged a little caution on Iran.
So I'm not coming out here as some belligerent war hawk or anything like that.
But I think, all right, if this is the best the Libs have to attack this mission five and a half weeks in, the White House must be feeling pretty good.
And especially if they can wrap it up by week six or so, and the best they have is Lawrence O'Donnell saying, well, I just don't like it.
The word that the Secretary of War used on the historically successful mission.
You know, those are pretty good marks, and then we can move on to the issues that people are really focused on.
Well, I mean, I wish it were that simple that the public does not approve of this war.
Only 30%, the low 30s, approves of the war, and it includes a lot of Republicans who are against it, too.
If only Lawrence O'Donnell were our biggest problem, that'd be fine.
That'd be the good old days, Michael.
I've missed the good old days when we just had to worry about Lawrence O'Donnell's inane comments and not.
Share some of the disdain for the war ourselves, like I know.
Well, this is, you know, the fear if this continues into May, June, July, I mean, the Republicans certainly can kiss the House of Representatives goodbye, but they might kiss the Senate goodbye.
I mean, it really could be pretty catastrophic.
And so I think, given that we're about five and a half weeks into this thing, and all in all, it hasn't descended into a quagmire yet, we're not looking at a 10 year occupation, hopefully.
I would just say, This is a good opportunity, assuming the negotiation team does a good job.
Guys, let Lawrence O'Donnell be the CODA.
That's great.
That's a win.
I'll take it.
Because I agree with you, Megan.
The political risk involved in an ongoing military operation is very high.
And I do fear that some of that support is soft.
I fear that the 90% support, I don't think it'll drop 90 to 98 to, or sorry, 90 to 88.
Yeah, yeah.
I think if this goes on two months, three months, four months, I think it would drop precipitously.
Yep, I agree.
And that's one of the reasons why they need to get Israel in hand because right now they're bombing the hell out of Lebanon.
And Iran's claiming that was part of the deal.
And Israel and the United States is claiming it wasn't.
Lebanon's not in the deal.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And there's no traffic going in the Strait of Hormuz.
And the ceasefire is sort of, I don't know.
We're not sure if it's on or off because of this.
So it's not great.
We need to get them in hand because we do need a ceasefire.
The ceasefire was a good negotiation.
Like that was a very good development that we'd like to see hold.
More on that coming up in just a bit.
Decoding the Ceasefire Deal Confusion00:10:41
While we're on the subject of deranged leftists who.
Will get some of us off the couch, even if we're feeling somewhat dejected.
Let's go up to our evil top hat.
That's a Michael Knowles creation.
That saying, I always give you credit when I say it.
Our evil top hat is once again up to evil, where the new Democratic Party up there, this MP, she's a member of parliament, Leah Gazin, has added more letters to the LGBTQ.
Acronym that already exists.
And I'd never heard this before.
There is a translation coming, but listen to this nutcase.
When the budget was released, I was shocked to find out that Prime Minister Carney is cutting $7 billion between Indigenous Services Canada and Crown Indigenous Relations.
They provided zero dollars to deal with the ongoing genocide of MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA.
This is abhorrent.
This is callous.
This is callous because the very Liberal government that has stripped organizations of life-sustaining funding has now promised, committed $13 billion, $13 billion on military spending.
Who is paying for it?
Indigenous women across this country, Indigenous women, girls, 2S, LGBTQQIA+, Are not safe.
In fact, rates of violence are increasing.
And what is the Prime Minister doing?
He is turning a blind eye on this violence.
I wish we could turn a blind ear, a deaf ear.
Here, your colleague Matt Walsh gave us the explainer on X to quote him exactly.
He writes For those who don't speak woke retard, I looked it up, and apparently MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA means missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and two spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.
Queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual, he goes on.
So apparently, they've added murdered people into the LGBT community.
Murdered is now a queer identity.
This is the kind of innovation we get from Canada.
It's the ultimate victimhood, for sure.
I'm actually surprised it took this long.
When the woman was speaking, I wondered if that was the liberal version of glossolalia.
Is that like lib speak?
You know, Pentecostals have the glossolalia, the tongue speaking.
But I think that was the lib version.
And so my colleague Matt is typically subtle.
And when he gave his definition, I had to look up not just what the words meant, but what the letters literally meant, but what was meant by even stating them.
Why would you include murdered and missing women, girls, gay, two spirit?
Two spirit, which by the way, is a term that the left says was. was an ancient indigenous term to refer to people of multiple sexes.
That's not true.
It was actually coined by a lesbian in 1990 named Maya Laramie, who said it came to her in a dream at the indigenous lesbian conference.
So even that is a product, I think, of white liberal civilization in a kind of odd way in.
But so I looked it up.
I said, okay, well, how many of these people are missing and murdered?
And more importantly, who's doing the murdering?
If these people are being kidnapped, if they're being murdered, I think we got to focus on the murderers, don't we?
So I looked it up.
And it turns out, according to multiple studies and data sets, that 80 to 86% of the time, the people who are murdering and kidnapping the hamalama la la la people are spouses, friends, relatives, acquaintances.
In other words, the people who are murdering the LMNOP, et cetera, people are the LMNOP, et cetera, people.
It's people from within their own communities.
And so I say, well, that's bad.
I don't want anybody to get the second spirit.
Yeah, I don't care how many spirits you got.
I don't want you to be murdered for it.
But if you want to solve the problem, then I would not blame, as this woman does, this MP in America's Evil Top Hat, I wouldn't blame the white, colonial, patriarchal, it's not their fault.
You've got to blame the M. Night Shyamalan people.
So when you focus on those people, you say, well, do you want to stop them from being murdered?
No, they don't.
They just want to invade against, I don't know, Western hegemony.
It's amazing.
Like, as if that little line of letters wasn't long enough.
Now we've got to add in missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two spirits.
And by the way, somebody online was saying, best new password ever.
Super secure.
You'll never get into your email, is the problem.
But yeah, it would be good.
No one's hacking you, that's for sure.
True.
Okay, while we're on the subject of bizarre leftists, one more story about the media, and this one is CNN.
Now, this isn't a left right thing, but every once in a while this happens, and it's always just so embarrassing.
CNN.
Has had to apologize, Michael, for publishing an article remembering the life of Michael J. Fox, who is alive and well and very much not deceased.
How does this happen?
They've now had to apologize to him after sharing a tribute to the Back to the Future star on Wednesday, prompting fears he had died at age 64.
Yes, if you see remembering the life of, you are led to believe that life has ended.
They later took the article down, and a spokesperson told TMZ, which broke this news the package was published in error.
We have removed it from our platforms and sent our apologies to Michael J. Fox and his family.
It came after Fox's own representative debunked the report, telling TMZ, he's doing great.
He was at Paley Fest yesterday.
He was on stage and was giving interviews.
Again, very much alive.
So I don't know exactly.
I truly don't know how this happens because.
It's happened so often, like anybody responsible for pressing published on this, like in today's day and age with somebody who's relatively young, would know.
Like, let's make sure Twitter constantly leads us to believe this has happened when it has.
Like, don't go off Twitter.
As far as I know, he wasn't the subject of some hoax on Twitter, but how humiliating.
Well, I'll tell you exactly how it happens, Megan.
These people don't know anything.
And I think a lot of us understand that at a deep level, but then we're fools.
Because we turn on the TV and the people are wearing suits and ties and they're speaking in a very serious voice.
Or we open up the New York Times or the Washington Post and they have really nice fonts, you know, really nice serif fonts with real commanding, authoritative lettering.
I forget if it was the New York Times or the Washington Post just a week or so ago published a headline, a North American treaty organization, NATO, without America.
It was the Times, wasn't it?
And I said, the North American, I don't know about any North American treaty organization.
Are you referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
Are you referring to the main Western military alliance for the last 70 years that you, the New York Times, you couldn't even.
The whole premise of publishing an article like that is to say that NATO would be incoherent without America because it's the American treaty organization.
One, there's no evidence we're actually pulling out of NATO, so their first premise is wrong.
But then their second one, you couldn't even look up the acronym.
You think, wow, these people, and you know it.
And the editors.
How did it get past the editors?
But you know this, Megan, because you read some story on one of these sites, and if it's about something you don't know anything about, so for me, I don't know, what do I know about what's going on in the Middle East or what's going on in some advanced sector of the economy?
I don't know anything, so I'm inclined to take their word for it.
But then I get to the New York Yankees, and I know a lot about the New York Yankees, or I get to a story about cigars or whatever I know about, ukuleles.
Something I know about, and I realize that what I'm reading is totally wrong.
And yet somehow I still get duped into believing that these guys know what they're talking about on the other side.
They don't know.
The most basic things.
So I'm really pleased to see that they're still ignorant and Michael J. Fox is alive.
Yeah, and he's still here.
Good for him.
Bad for CNN and bad on the New York Times for making that terrible error.
How humiliating.
Michael Knowles, a pleasure, my friend.
Great to see you.
Good to see you as always, Megan.
Thank you for having me.
All right, up next, Anna Kasparian is here.
You've been hearing me talk about Pure Talk a lot lately.
Pure Talk is veteran led, so helping veterans is their North Star.
You gotta love that.
They have donated over half a million bucks to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that's on the front lines of preventing veteran suicide.
And Pure Talk is creating American jobs.
With a US only workforce.
Good for them.
Yes, it would be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies, but they are committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers.
And PureTalk's service, they give you the same towers, same network, same 5G coverage as one of the big guys, has all that, but at a fraction of the price.
PureTalk supports veterans every single day and creates American jobs.
If you want to give it a shot, dial pound 250 and say Megan Kelly to switch to PureTalk.
Okay, that's pound 250.
Pound two five zero.
Say Megan Kelly, and that will switch you on over to Pure Talk, America's Wireless Company.
Pure Talk.
The boudoirs are always ready.
Then I will go to our Ubus meeting.
We will go to the Ubus meeting.
We will go to the Ubus meeting.
What do you mean?
This is the time.
Hello, Ubus.
I'm going to go to the Ubus meeting.
I'm going to go to the Ubus meeting.
When the time comes, the most important day in the world, is the time for a year old.
It's so fun.
The time for Vice President JD Vance is headed to Pakistan this weekend, where he will have his work cut out for him.
Israel's Bombing of Lebanon Amidst Truce00:15:19
He has been charged by the president with getting a deal that gets the Iranians to permanently end this war.
Mr. Trump and the Iranians agreeing to a ceasefire on Tuesday, and despite all the celebrations, it only lasts for two weeks.
That is, if it kind of really fully gets started.
I mean, there's still a lot of fighting going on involving Israel and Iran.
The ceasefire is fragile.
Well, that's a major understatement.
The Iranians say they've now opened the Strait of Hormuz as part of the deal.
You remember yesterday, they kind of said they were closing it.
And that dovetails with what we saw reported.
The New York Times reported that the waterway yesterday had its lowest ship traffic since the war started.
Zero oil or gas tankers made the crossing.
So, like, that's the main thing we wanted in the ceasefire.
We were going to stop bombing them and they were going to open the Strait.
But then they didn't open the Strait because our great, our super great and loyal partner, Israel, kept bombing Lebanon.
And the Iranians are like, hello, that's part of the deal.
They say that was included.
The Americans say, oh, no, that was never part of the deal.
Well, I'm not sure the Americans are telling the truth because the Pakistani prime minister who announced the deal said in his very first deal point that it included Lebanon.
And that guy's talking points were clearly drafted for him by the Trump White House.
That seemed obvious.
They deny it.
But his little draft of his talking points announcing the deal.
He erroneously tweeted it out and it said, like, from the Pakistani prime minister.
Now, obviously, the Pakistani prime minister, his people wouldn't have said, Pakistani prime minister.
They would have just said, this is from our prime minister.
And it looked very much like it had been generated by the Americans and the White House.
So it seems clear to me we did understand that Lebanon was part of the deal.
That's why it wound up as the very first bullet point.
In the Pakistani prime minister's announcement of the ceasefire, but then our super great and most important allies, Israel, started bombing or continued bombing Lebanon to the high heavens when they just got so excited that a ceasefire was happening like, and I mean negatively excited that they just started to carpet bomb Beirut.
Trump seems to have just kind of gone with, oh, okay, that wasn't part of the deal because he couldn't get Bibi to back down from it.
Like the bloodthirsty Netanyahu was like, oh no, I'm doing it.
I, I, Wasn't part of this and I didn't agree to it, and I'm bombing them to kingdom come.
All right, so now we're kind of pretending this is my own view.
The White House says it's official, I think it's not true.
We're kind of pretending that we agreed Lebanon would not be part of the ceasefire, and Iran is on the other side, like, screw you, people.
It was part of the deal, and the strait is closed.
Or maybe it's open.
Unclear.
The ceasefire is not going beautifully, but look, it's a noble goal.
We want it to take.
We hope it's successful.
And it's much, much better than eradicating a civilization for all time, as the president was threatening Tuesday morning.
This is what?
One day after Lebanon's health minister said more than 200 people had just been killed, more than 1,000 wounded by these Israeli strikes on Wednesday alone.
So, yes, we were very much like.
The bombing to stop Prime Minister Netanyahu.
I mean, this guy, it's truly like Mark Levin by another name.
He today announced that Israel will now open direct negotiations with Lebanon over disarming Hezbollah.
And, you know, look, Hezbollah hasn't always had the greatest control over Hezbollah.
So we'll see how that goes.
And establishing peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon.
Okay, that's not exactly how he sounded on camera 24 hours ago.
He was really.
Excited about the prospect to keep this thing going.
Just even despite announcing that they're going to talk with the Lebanese and Israeli officials telling Axios right now that Israel is not observing a ceasefire in Lebanon.
So it's like, okay, we'll talk, but we're going to continue bombing you to smithereens.
And here is what Netanyahu said yesterday.
There's a voiceover so you can hear it in English.
This is yesterday in Tel Aviv.
Listen to this, Sadiq.
Iran is weaker than ever and Israel is stronger than ever.
And that is the bottom line of.
This operation until this point.
And I'd like to stress we still have some goals to accomplish, and we will achieve these goals either through agreement and consensus or through renewal of the war because we are ready to do so whenever necessary.
Our finger is on the trigger.
As you all know, a temporary ceasefire came into effect tonight, a two week one between Iran and the U.S. in coordination with Israel.
No, they did not surprise us at the last moment.
And I would like To emphasize, this is not the end of the campaign.
It is merely a preparation on our way to achieve all of our goals.
So he'll decide when the end comes, not our president.
Joining us now is Anna Kasparian.
She's executive producer and host of The Young Turks.
Great to see you again, Anna.
What do you make of this back and forth and his latest statements?
Well, I think if Americans are serious about ending our involvement in these endless wars, we really have to rethink the U.S. alliance with Israel.
Because Israel's goals, I think it's become very clear, are different, very different from the objectives of the United States.
Israel wants to expand its borders.
That is precisely the reason why Israel invaded Lebanon days after they goaded the United States to fight its war for them against Iran.
Now, with the United States distracted, fighting Iran, that allows for the IDF to go in under the false premise of disarming Hezbollah.
The notion that Netanyahu is going to hold direct negotiations with the Lebanese, there's a little trick there that I want to decode for the audience because it's important.
So, in Lebanon right now, you have a government, the Lebanese government, which is incredibly weak and deferential to the Israelis.
Right now, the only thing stopping the Israelis from encroaching into Lebanese territory and annexing more land, which, by the way, Israel has been very clear that they plan on annexing southern Lebanon.
That's what this is really about.
It's not really about Hezbollah.
They want to annex southern Lebanon.
If you look at Israel's history, You will see that Israel has carried out multiple invasions into Lebanon, including in the 1980s, which led to the formation of Hezbollah as a resistance group.
So, Hezbollah is really the only challenge to Israel when it comes to annexing land in Lebanon.
So, Hezbollah is different from the government, right?
So, they are not in cahoots at all.
It's an established political party that has widespread support in southern Lebanon.
I want to be clear about that.
But they are willing to use, you know, Force, right?
Any force necessary in order to push back against the IDF's attempts at annexing land.
So the Israelis can have as many conversations with the Lebanese government as they want, but the Lebanese government has no control over Hezbollah.
And in fact, disarming Hezbollah would lead to a serious civil war in Lebanon.
It's impossible.
The Lebanese military is incredibly weak.
Hezbollah is actually stronger than the Lebanese military.
By the way, by design, So, if you look at these Middle Eastern countries and how leadership has changed or how regime changes have taken place, it's always in an effort to install a puppet government or a puppet regime that will be deferential to Israel and its expansionist policies.
Or they will do regime change in an effort to destabilize a country, which is what happened in Libya and also Syria.
I mean, I watch these maneuvers.
Like, we did Netanyahu's war for him.
We did what he wanted us to do.
And now, thank God, we're trying to end it.
And he clearly doesn't like that.
He's bombing the hell out of Lebanon, right as we say, we're trying to have a ceasefire here.
And the first bullet point of the proposed deal is includes Lebanon.
So, what does he do?
He unleashes hell on Lebanon.
He clearly is trying to queer the deal.
And I think, how dare you?
How dare you?
I mean, why isn't this just one phone call from President Trump to him to say, no, we're not going to go along with the lie that Lebanon wasn't part of the deal?
You are going to get your shit together and do what I tell you to because you're the junior partner in the deal.
I think there are multiple factors to look at.
And this is a big question that Tucker Carlson has been asking through his monologues.
And I'm glad he's asking these questions because it's really important that we Americans live in a sovereign country where our elected leaders represent our best interests.
What we've been seeing in regard to U.S. foreign policy is decisions being made that are not at all beneficial for the American people.
And certainly starting this war with Iran is a perfect example of it.
You know, first of all, let me just thank you for the interview you did yesterday with Piers Morgan because you hit the nail on the head.
There's no question that Trump was honestly manipulated by the Israelis, who put into his head this notion that a war against Iran would be easy, it would be simple, even though experts, I'm not even talking about experts, just ordinary people in the media who are paying close attention could have told Trump that Iran is going to close the Strait of Hormuz.
That is where their leverage is.
But he did it anyway.
And there is no easy military strategy to take control of the Strait of Hormuz.
If you pay close attention.
And just to interject, Israel reportedly told Trump, Netanyahu reportedly told Trump at that meeting that the Iranians would be so weakened by our initial strikes that they couldn't affect control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Completely wrong.
Keep going.
That is completely wrong.
Exactly.
And you know, here's the telling part of that entire conversation.
Okay, well, if Iran is so weakened, why don't you send the IDF in there?
Why are you trying to get the United States to send their service members in there?
Isn't that kind of strange?
So, and then after the war began, the Israelis were asked if they're going to send boots on the ground since they were urging the United States to send our service members on the ground.
And they said, no, no, we're not.
Just as was the case with Iraq.
So, look, I think that what we see with Israel is something very different than what we have in terms of our relationships with other countries on the globe, right?
Usually, our lawmakers will make decisions questioning war and peace, right?
Questions of war and peace.
They will make decisions that are, you know, taking into consideration what's in our best interest.
But when it comes to Israel, it's a completely different story.
And we have to ask ourselves, why?
Why does Israel have that type of influence over our government?
Because if they do, and if we have lawmakers and members of the executive branch looking out for a foreign country before they look out for us, we don't live in a sovereign country.
And I do think that the Israel lobby is part of this.
I do think that blackmail is part of this.
Okay.
As upset as people get when you say it, I mean, the Epstein cover up, I think it goes beyond just covering up for pedophiles.
I think that there is an actual system in place to blackmail people in positions of power to carry out the best interests of Israel.
I mean, you look at the Epstein files, Megan, please pay attention to the audience, you know, to DropSite's reporting on this because DropSite looked through.
All the documents that we have access to.
And they went beyond, like, oh, who's a pedophile?
Who's doing this?
No, no.
They wanted to see who Epstein is working for.
And Dropsite was able to draw direct links to the Israeli government.
Epstein was working for the Israeli government.
Now, was he a.
No, you're an anti Semite if you say that, Anna.
You're an anti Semite.
You hate Jewish people if you say that.
I guess the truth is anti Semitic, but I'm going to keep speaking the truth because it's important for Americans to know what's going on.
Yeah.
Wait, this is, you're kind of blowing my mind right now because I have heard some people suggest maybe there's some blackmail here.
Like, what got Trump to listen to BB Netanyahu to contradict his own campaign promises, repeated campaign promises, was explicit about no more Middle East wars, not just no more war, no more Middle East wars.
And yes, had said Iran can't get a nuclear weapon, but promised no wars and had already bombed Iran's nuclear facilities.
So, what was it?
That persuaded him to do this.
And I heard Joe Kent tell Tucker maybe there was some sort of a blackmail situation.
It was like he was maybe perhaps slightly less explicit about it, but he was clearly intimating it's possible that the president was blackmailed or something was held over his head.
Maybe there was something he, I think he mentioned like Trump's family could be hurt, something could happen.
And it was speculation.
It wasn't like, I know it, I've seen everything and it was there.
So I kind of was like, oh, I guess who am I to rule it out?
I don't know.
But this is the first time I've had somebody.
Tie it together with Epstein because Anna, what are the two biggest betrayals of the MAGA base since Trump took office?
Or I guess now we need to talk about it as the America First base because there's a split.
It's been Epstein and this.
Like the two things that felt completely like a middle finger to the people who elected Trump, like the core Republicans who had elected Trump.
They did not see Epstein as a nothing burger.
And they definitely held or intended to hold him to his promise of no more Middle East wars.
And you're saying it's no accident that those are the two that he betrayed people on, that there may have been, there may be something that made him feel vulnerable on Epstein or somebody around him he's concerned about that was vulnerable on Epstein.
And the people who maybe had that information wanted a payment in military blood and treasure.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I do think that there is a connection with what happened or how the Epstein files were handled.
But even if the Epstein files in no way implicate Donald Trump, there's one other factor that I want to bring up.
Reevaluating Israel and Epstein Connections00:14:11
And it's actually a factor that you yourself have experienced on a very personal level.
There are, in my opinion, People within our country who are less interested in their American patriotism and more interested in serving as Israeli operatives.
And I think Mark Levin happens to be one of those people.
So these pressure campaigns, right, these threats, these efforts to literally destroy your life and your livelihood if you don't play ball, I do think that those intimidation tactics have been very successful in this country.
And it's about time we push back.
And I'm happy to see that people like you are pushing back.
I'm pushing back myself.
I've lost jobs.
I've lost opportunities as a result of how vocal I've been on this issue.
But I care about my country more than I care about my pocketbook.
And it's really important for us to live in a sovereign country.
On top of that, when it comes to the manipulation tactics that were used against Trump, not to rob him of his agency, at the end of the day, he's the commander in chief and he made the decision.
However, we can't deny the fact that Trump has an ego, as anyone who wants to be president very likely has.
And it's easy to manipulate him by stroking his ego.
So, telling him these magical stories about how he's going to be the world's hero by demolishing the Iranian regime and freeing the Iranian people, and it's going to be so easy, and you're going to get so much credit for it.
I think those manipulation tactics are also very effective on someone like Donald Trump, who likes to see himself as a hero.
I think that's all you need.
Yeah.
That's all you need.
I don't think you need to go blackmail.
I mean, I'm open minded to the possibility of blackmail because honestly, my past nine months have proven to me that there's nothing, they will stop at nothing to get you to bend the knee.
Nothing.
And I'm just a podcaster, I'm a journalist.
Imagine if you're the president of the United States.
I don't think they would stop at anything.
And I mean Israel and its emissaries, foreign and domestic.
I actually believe that Mark Levin.
Would like to have me killed.
I do believe it.
I think he'd be thrilled to see me taken out.
Like, actually, that's so fucking crazy to me, Anna.
Like, I, there's no one, no one politically who I would ever wish that upon, ever.
There's no one whose death I would celebrate.
There's no one whom I would intentionally endanger with really crazy ass rhetoric.
He knows what he says about Tucker, about me, about many others is actually endangering.
You know, just to over and over call somebody a neo Nazi.
To suggest that they want Jews killed because they say things like, young people no longer support Israel.
It's so irresponsible.
It's lunacy.
It is.
And so there's something wrong there.
There's something wrong.
There's something going on there.
Not only that, I mean, it's when you listen to the way that he talks about war and what should be considered, you know, as one of the many options, especially in this war against Iran.
I mean, he's totally fine with using nukes.
Against Iran, wiping out an entire population of innocent people who, you know, we were all told that the Israelis want to liberate from the regime, right?
This is why I just didn't buy the narrative from the very beginning.
And people thought I was being cruel.
People were thinking that I'm being supportive of the IRGC.
I don't know if people realize this.
I'm not, you know, I don't believe in living under a theocracy, number one.
And the rules that they have, given their, you know, theocratic interpretation, I just, I reject wholeheartedly.
However, That doesn't mean I'm going to be stupid enough to believe for a second that the current Israeli government gives a damn about the liberation of the Iranian people.
And this idea that in order to liberate people, you have to bomb them and kill them is ridiculous.
So, yeah, when it comes to people like Mark Levin, I think what you're kind of getting at is his demonstrable lack of concern for human life, for innocent human life.
Yes.
So that tells me that there are emissaries of Israel who will stop at nothing in order to get you to bend the knee.
And that's like the thing that's so crazy.
It's not about me at all, but my example is telling because I've been so pro Israel.
And he started, he and his little friends started coming for me so hard on the most mild comments about Israel that it was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's happening here?
And I know that people who had already gone before me down that lane.
We were kind of happy to see it happen to me just because they were like, You see?
Do you see now what they do?
You know?
And I do see now.
I see very clearly and I'm horrified.
And it's really caused me to reevaluate the country, the country of Israel, and like how they manipulate people.
AIPAC, the media, the ones they're giving the free tours of Israel to come now.
Like, you'll love it.
At what price?
Like, why?
Why are both parties, why are the loudest people against this war some podcasters in the independent lane, Anna, as opposed to, Where, like, the Democrats haven't said anything.
I can't think of one prominent Democrat who's been leading the fight against this.
Never mind Republicans.
You know, it's podcasters.
It's kind of crazy.
Well, it's interesting because, you know, historically, the left has always been a little suspicious of the U.S. Israeli alliance, has been far more critical of how Israel has prosecuted, you know, wars and especially what they carried out in Gaza.
I mean, but here's what.
Kind of changed as a result of how Israel prosecuted the war in Gaza, which I believe is a genocide based on now multiple organizations, including organizations within Israel who call it a genocide.
But putting that aside, that whole situation started to wake others up, right?
Conservative people up.
And when Israel is starting to lose the support of American conservatives, they know that overall support for Israel from the United States is in jeopardy, which is why I think the campaigns.
Against people like you, Charlie Kirk, before he was killed, were far more vicious, far more vicious than even the campaigns against me.
The campaigns against me have been terrible.
They've gone after family members of mine who aren't political at all, don't even know what's going on.
They don't pay attention to international news, right?
They're in a completely different world.
And suddenly, their employers are calling them into the office to ask about my political views.
That's how vicious these people are.
That's how vicious they are.
But I've seen them be far more vicious with you.
I mean, you are.
And have been historically very supportive of Israel.
I remember this whole thing with you began when you refused to denounce Candace Owens.
How about you're responsible for what you say and Candace is responsible for what she says?
Period.
Period.
End of story.
Right.
And that started against me.
Like now they want to pretend that it's all about, I won't denounce Candace on Erica Kirk.
And that's not where it started.
And that, of course, I disagree with Candace about Erica.
And Candace knows that and the world knows that.
I said it repeatedly.
But what they're really mad about is that I wouldn't denounce Candace asking questions about Israel in the wake of Charlie's death.
And you hit on one of the reasons why Charlie and I bonded in this now famous conversation we had.
A month before he was murdered, over the immense pressure being put on both of us to remain very pro Israel.
And we both were annoyed, exasperated, and deeply offended by already the terms being used about us for the mildest of conversations we had had about Epstein.
He had had it.
He was also trying to give voice to young people's, just young people had already started turning on Israel, even within the Republican Party.
And he was trying to give voice to that.
No, you're not allowed to.
And that text message thread that ultimately came out that he was having behind the scenes saying he's had it with the Jewish donors who are threatening him.
So they really wanted me to say how bad Candace was for even mentioning Israel in the wake of Charlie's death.
And I wouldn't condemn her because I favored her asking those questions 100%.
Even though I think Tyler Robinson did it, I'm fine with asking questions about was it only Tyler?
Who else may have been involved?
Is that crazy for her to ask?
Absolutely not.
And they couldn't, because I'm entitled to that belief, and because Charlie and I have been going through the same thing, the same exact thing at the same exact time with the same evolution happening to both of us simultaneously, because they couldn't really get me on that.
They just waited until they found something that they thought would be more persuasive, which is now she's saying these terrible things about Erica.
Let's meet you.
You will condemn her over Erica, or you're a bad person.
And I said, absolutely not.
We're not playing that game.
And some people still believe the lie that that's what it's about, and it's not what it's about.
And I will never bend the knee to these bullies who tortured Charlie.
At a minimum, they tortured Charlie in his last two months on Earth.
That's a fact.
I will never bend the knee to them.
So that's where we are.
Yeah.
And in fact, you know, say what you will about, you know, any of the other commentary that Candace has done, you do have to give her credit for revealing the truth about what Charlie Kirk was experiencing in the final months of his life.
It's important for people to know that.
Which they denied.
Exactly.
They called her a liar.
Exactly.
She was right.
Yeah.
And, you know, the other thing, just quickly going back to the Epstein files, which I found fascinating, the specific personalities in American media.
That seemed to want to engage in the cover up, I think that's telling, right?
The various members of US media that kept repeating over and over again that the American people don't really care about the Epstein files, the Epstein files don't matter.
Oh, Americans are paying attention to other things that matter more to them.
No, no, they cared about the Epstein files and they still care about the Epstein files.
But they do care.
But we should pay attention to the various media figures who downplayed it, who said it wasn't important, who.
Quite frankly, it appeared to be part of this effort to cover up the Epstein files.
Why?
Why do those people engage in that type of commentary?
What are they afraid of when it comes to the release of the Epstein files?
Just something to keep in mind.
And now we've been misled on the Epstein files yet again because we had this bill passed into law demanding these disclosures with huge exceptions that allowed the DOJ to remove really any problematic documents that they thought made this person or that look bad.
So now we have.
It's almost worse than had nothing been released because we have almost fake transparency where they can say, like, oh, everything's been released.
It's like, no, trust me, as a lawyer, I see the glaring loopholes in this law so clearly.
It's like next to as good as doing nothing.
And now they can pretend that they've done full disclosure.
The DOJ says it's done disclosing all documents.
And there's some trove someplace that has who knows what in it.
And I don't know whether we'll ever know the full truth.
What do you think?
I mean, we still don't know the full truth about JFK's assassination.
They didn't release all the JFK files, which I find a little questionable, right?
And I disagree a little bit in that I'm glad they released what they did release.
I mean, you have to admit, I mean, the members of Trump's administration did not do a good job in covering up what they did actually end up releasing, right?
So thanks to what they did release, we were able to draw those direct links between Epstein and the Israeli government when it came to other deals.
Like, Epstein.
Epstein was very much involved in foreign policy, in striking deals between Israel and the UAE, in striking deals with Israel and other countries as it pertains to cyber weapons.
And so those narratives aren't as sexy.
It's not as scandalous for Americans because it doesn't involve disgusting people in positions of power who happen to be disgusting pedophiles and freaks.
However, I do think it's important to understand how Epstein was used as a tool.
By intelligence organizations, right?
And Mossad.
Okay, but here, so we have to talk about this.
We have to talk about this because that's the discussion I had with Charlie at the Turning Point event last July that kicked it all off.
I went out on stage with him, and Charlie wanted to make the whole thing about Pam Bondi, who had just stepped on a rake with that ridiculous DOJ memo saying, We're not gonna be releasing anything more about Epstein.
And Charlie said to me backstage, He was like, let's do Bondi.
And he was like, go for it.
Like he said to Tucker, infamously now, Go Max, famously, which we know because I have that moment on tape and I released it.
But he said to me too, Go for it on Bondi.
And he basically told me he can't do it because he's close with the administration and he didn't want to be seen in a position of like really attacking any of their top emissaries.
And I was happy to do it because I'd been doing it on my show all week.
It's not like I just did it for Charlie, but he wanted me to sort of repeat what I'd been saying on stage at Turning Point.
I'm like, great.
I'm like, you take it where you want me to take it because he was leading a QA with me.
And we went to Epstein, right?
We spent a fair amount of time on that's really what it was all about Pam Bondi and her multiple Fox appearances and how there's no there, there, and does the base care.
Charlie did a shout out to the audience.
Do you care about Epstein?
And they were all like, Yes, we care.
And then he asked, Do I think that Epstein worked for intelligence?
And I said, You know, it seems like he did.
Negotiating Without Attacking Emissaries00:05:43
Whose do you think it was?
Well, it's probably Israeli.
I'm like, I don't know.
I'm not an expert, but that's what it seems to me.
And that was the moment that got turned around on both of us as we're now anti Semites, too.
Like, so pro Israel, Anna, you know, the past few years, like ardently pro Israel, defending everything.
I didn't really follow the war, to be honest with you.
Like, The days, ins and outs of what they were doing over there.
But like anything that happened to an American Jewish person on campus, et cetera.
And Charlie, same.
And like official American Jewish organizations coming out and condemning the two of us as anti Semites.
And we were both like, what?
But now it's starting to make sense.
It wasn't accidental that the action was outsized, the reaction was outsized to the alleged sin because they couldn't have us go there.
This is what you're saying.
And this is starting to make.
Perfect sense to me.
Iran has never posed an actual threat to the United States.
They didn't have nuclear weapons and their missiles did not have the capacity to hit the United States.
Iran has always been a challenge.
Our own intelligence agency said that right before we launched this war.
Exactly, exactly.
But Iran has always posed a challenge to Israel's expansionist policy known as the Greater Israel Project.
And you need to wipe Iran out if you want to be able to expand your borders.
And that's exactly what they're doing right now in Lebanon.
Yeah, because Iran is 10 times the size of Israel and therefore actually could stop it and has been a potential threat to it.
And yeah, if Iran is sown in chaos, great.
Israel has zero problem with that.
They'd love to leave it a complete quagmire mess and have us up to our necks in it.
They don't care whether we're involved in that or whether Americans are dying on the, you know, whatever these, I'm trying to think of the name of the island, Karg Island.
They couldn't care less.
Nope.
It's just as long as.
It's a distraction, and Israel can't focus on, or Iran can't focus on Israel.
And that's why, that is why I believe they refused to stop bombing Lebanon and got us to lie about it.
Because it seems very clear to me, Anna, there's no, we definitely drafted that prime minister statement.
That definitely came from us.
And the first bullet point said the ceasefire includes Lebanon.
And then they kept bombing Lebanon, Israel did, queering our ceasefire.
And it seems very clear to me that Netanyahu must have told Trump, I'm not going along with that.
You know, it's fine.
You can say what you want about Iran, but I'm not stopping on Hezbollah.
And Trump had to accept it.
And rather than look like we were weak, Trump just said, oh, it was never part of the deal.
And by the way, it's also the case that at a minimum, the New York Times is reporting this today, we reviewed the prime minister's bullet points.
So it looks like we drafted them.
But the New York Times is reporting today that we actually approved them, we saw them before he released them.
Of course, we did.
Pakistan had nothing to do with this.
They just came in to broker a ceasefire, which they then, they quote unquote, did.
I mean, that too was a lie.
Clearly, Trump wanted a ceasefire.
He saved face by getting Pakistan involved and sort of made them be the ones to like ask for it and suggest it.
This is how it's done.
And then we wrote the guy's talking points.
We obviously approved the talking points.
And then Netanyahu wouldn't go along.
To me, it seems very, very clear.
But once again, it's the Israelis doing whatever the hell they want and the Americans left holding the bag.
Yes.
That's exactly right.
And, you know, one other thing that I'll say is days before the war started, you had the mediator from Oman on one of the Sunday shows speaking with Margaret Brennan.
And he had disclosed what the outcome of the negotiations were.
You know, these are the negotiations involving Iran, Steve Witkopf, Jared Kushner, and Oman was mediating those negotiations.
So the mediator goes on the Sunday show and basically says Iran is willing to give up their enriched uranium.
They are willing to go.
Further than the Iranians were willing to go in Obama's Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.
I remember watching that and seeing Margaret Brennan just shocked at how far Iran was willing to go in order to avoid war.
But it's really interesting because Steve Witkoff, same weekend, also goes on the Sunday shows and he lies about what the Iranians were willing to sacrifice, to give up, to concede in order to prevent war.
Why did he do that?
Why did he sabotage peace?
And so that makes me a little.
We know why.
It makes me very concerned.
We know why, because Netanyahu was making the pitch to Trump that the Ayatollah and his top emissaries were going to be above ground on this certain date by the end of February.
And it was the opportunity of a lifetime to take him out, and you'll be hailed as a hero.
And we heard my old pal Mark Thiessen on Fox News actually tell Mark Levin that this was going to be seen as like the greatest military battle since the American Revolution or victory since the American Revolution.
I mean, like.
That sort of like huge soaring rhetoric about how Trump would be seen, his place in history, and he got talked into it.
That's, and so, of course, you know, Witkoff and Kushner were like, okay, fine.
You know, like they didn't cave on all of our points.
There was plenty of reason to be like, they suck.
You know, forget them.
We're going to do this thing that I want to do anyway.
That's, that seems to me how it went down.
And that's what the reporting supports.
And here we are.
All right, stand by.
I have to take a quick break.
We're not done.
We're going to come back.
Fascinating discussion.
The Opportunity to Remove Ayatollahs00:03:39
Great having you here.
Don't go away.
When it comes to your dogs, why does there often seem to be compromise on their food?
It's either fresh and healthy or it's easy to store and serve.
But with Sundays for Dogs, you actually can get both.
Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a veterinarian and a mom who got tired of seeing so called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics and then giving it to her dogs.
She designed Sundays, which is air dried real food made in a human food grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you would use to cook for yourself and your family.
Every bite is clean.
Packed with real meat, fruits, and veggies, no weird ingredients, no fillers.
Best of all, just scoop and serve.
No freezer, no thawing, no prep, no mess.
Just nutrient rich food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days.
Consider making the switch to Sundays.
Go right now to SundaysForDogs.comslash Megan50 and get 50% off your first order.
Or you can use code Megan50 at checkout.
That's 50% off your first order at SundaysForDogs.comslash Megan50.
Let's be honest here.
America can still be a dangerous place.
And you cannot afford to wait for help when you need it.
Sure, you could use a firearm.
But in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force could have legal consequences.
According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not require lethal force.
And that's exactly why so many are turning to Burna.
Burna is proudly American, hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
These less lethal self defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments, and private security companies.
Over 600,000 Burna pistols have been sold, most to private citizens who refuse to be victims.
Burna launchers fire rock hard kinetic rounds and also powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles capable of stopping a threat from up to 60 feet away.
No background checks, no waiting periods, super easy to get.
And they can ship them straight to your door.
Take responsibility.
Protect your future.
Visit Burna.com right now or your local sportsman's warehouse.
That's B Y R N A.com or your local sportsman's warehouse.
Visit now and be prepared to defend.
It's me, Megan Kelly.
I've got some exciting news.
I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM.
It's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda and no apologies.
Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more.
It's bold, no BS news.
Only on the Megyn Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111, and on the SiriusXM app.
Working Together on Foreign Wars00:07:09
Anna Kasparian is back with me now.
So, where do we go from here?
How do you see this going, right?
Given all the relative concerns and goals of the players we've been discussing, how do you see it going from here?
I think that there are Is no stopping the very real awakening that's happening among Americans right now.
And so I've noticed that there is a successful tactic that the Israelis use, I believe, in our own country, but certainly in their neighboring countries.
What they like to do is pit people against each other.
So they're so busy fighting each other that they're distracted from what Israel's up to, right?
And I think that that has happened to some extent here in the United States.
There are Americans on the left and right.
Who are aware of what's going on.
But I do see some figures who are like terrified of like building coalitions or working with the other side on changing our system on this very issue, on this specific issue.
It doesn't mean you have to agree on everything else, it doesn't mean you have to start a family with someone on the opposite end of the political aisle.
But I do think that Americans need to wake up from tribal thinking where they think like my side is perfect, their side is evil.
No, no, there are areas of important agreement between the two sides.
And so if there's an Area where we can work together to maybe change some of the influences that are baked into our government that allow for our politicians to serve the best interests of a foreign country over our own.
Like, we need to work together to change that immediately.
And I mean, it's happening organically, don't you think?
With the approval rating of Israel going down so precipitously amongst Americans, that's going to happen naturally.
AIPAC cannot spend its way out of that with these politicians because I really think, like, next presidential election, the issue of Israel and being controlled by By donations from AIPAC is going to be an issue we're going to hear about on both sides as we ferret out who the proper nominee should be.
Yeah, absolutely.
In fact, just yesterday on The Young Turks, I made a point about how, you know, if you are a Democrat who's in a solidly red district, you don't have a chance in hell of getting a Democrat elected.
Get active in the primaries for the Republican race.
Right.
Like what I would do if I were in that kind of position.
I mean, I'm in California, so I'm not in that position.
But if I were, I would look at the two Republican candidates in the primary and ask myself do either one of them reject money from the Israel lobby?
And if one of them does, I'm going to cast my ballot for that Republican.
Right?
Because you got to think strategically about what you want our country to look like.
And you're not going to improve it if you're so obsessed with your own party identity that you're unwilling to maybe hear out candidates on the other side of the aisle.
That's kind of where I'm at on that issue.
That's just one example of something that can be done.
But in regard to what we do, Megan, for our careers, I have no problem collaborating with people on the right.
I have no problem debating people on the right either in a simple way on other issues.
If Tucker Carlson wants to work with me, if you want to work with me, if we want to find a way to work together to get the message out to our audiences on this incredibly important issue, I am ready and willing to do it.
Knowing that there are people on my side, I'm going to deal with friendly fire from them because they think you should only talk to your own side.
No, I'm not going to do that.
And more importantly, I'm not going to condemn people based on what a mob demands of me.
Right.
So I get that same treatment.
The opposite.
Exactly.
Exactly.
The timing of it.
It's now official that all 18 to 25 year olds will automatically be registered for the draft here in America.
They've made it super easy where it's like automatic now.
You're just, as soon as you hit 18, you're automatically registered to go off and be drafted to fight Israel's wars.
And so it's like now more than ever, we need to be paying attention to who we elect because even somebody we trusted as much as Trump can wind up putting our young boys and women.
Our gals and guys at risk.
You know, he can be bamboozled into launching a war that's in Israel's interest, not ours.
And indeed, we have lost American service personnel as a result of this.
And that's to say nothing of the hundreds injured.
I really don't think we're getting the straight numbers on the numbers.
I agree.
And so it's like, and now, you know, my children are creeping up to that age.
Automatically, they're going to be registered to go fight Israel's next war unless we do work together, Anna, to stop this.
Absolutely.
Stop.
This cycle.
Absolutely.
And it goes beyond potential drafts and forcing Americans to fight a war on behalf of a foreign country.
Even if we were to sever the, I think, malignant relationship that we have with Israel right now, the fact of the matter is our economy is in a lot of trouble.
We've lost a lot as a result of this war.
So right now, Iran not only has control of the Strait of Hormuz, they've always had control of it.
It's the fact that they're now charging tolls for oil tankers or anything that's being transported through the strait.
So those costs will be passed down to Americans, no question about it.
But okay, even worse, even worse, they are not allowing the transactions using American dollars.
They're doing it with Chinese currency.
They want it in crypto.
No, Chinese currency.
Mo, yeah.
Well, that's.
So we are worse than.
The alleged talking points or the alleged 10 point plan that now we're told is not the right one had wanted crypto.
But yeah, China, I mean, the Chinese.
Have had a huge opportunity this whole thing to come in as the new world leader and be the voice of reason.
That's what we used to be.
And on top of that, despite the fact that Israel had an economic surplus in 2021, 2022, we continue to fund their military adventures, their weaponry, their IDF.
We send them nearly $4 billion a year.
And then on top of that, we add supplemental funding whenever they get involved in one of their wars.
Wait, why are we sending a country that had an economic surplus in 2021 our money, which by the way, we're $40 trillion in debt?
We didn't have an economic surplus.
So, why were we going into more debt to hand over more resources to a foreign country?
How did that benefit us?
That makes no sense.
And then we just spent $40 billion at least on this war, which was clearly for their benefit.
I mean, it's like, and the president is back again asking for billions and billions more from Congress to fund the military depletions that we suffered as a result.
You know, all these interceptors and so on that now have to be replenished.
Otherwise, we're sitting ducks.
So, it's just the whole thing is so frustrating and it's so.
Exasperating, but look, it's also educational.
It's illuminating.
That's the upside.
It's illuminating.
Funding Military Depletions in Debt00:01:27
Yes.
And I do think it's going to unite the left and the right on this very important issue in a way they haven't been before.
You know, I can speak from the perspective of somebody who is just ardently pro Israel without questioning.
I used to look at people like you as just sort of like, that's crazy.
They just can't stand Israel.
I don't know why.
I knew enough to know, like, keep questioning because I would have like Glenn on my show all the time and he's always been this way.
But I didn't listen, I wasn't open minded.
And I am now in a way that I think a lot of Republicans are starting to be and haven't been.
So thank you for being a part of that.
And thanks for being on the show today.
And we'll do it again soon.
Thank you.
Lots of love.
And thanks to all of you for listening as well.
We'll be back tomorrow.
In the meantime, go to MeganKelly.com and register there for our once a week email.
It comes tomorrow on Friday, the American News Minute.
It's all the week's news in one minute or less.
We'll see you tomorrow.
Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
No BS, no agenda, and no fear.
I'm going to go to the next video.
The Lunners are the ones who can spare the Trumpf Bonus post-trummen.