Wednesday War Room: Oil Falls, Stocks Jump on Renewed Hopes of Iran War Ending, As Trump Mulls Easter Ground Invasion…PLUS, NASA to Launch Astronauts Around Moon
Harrison Smith and guests dissect a chaotic April 2026 landscape, alleging Donald Trump plans an Easter ground invasion in Iran following Israel's assassination of Laura Jani. They condemn NBA player Jaden Ivey's firing over Pride Month as part of a "color revolution" and critique the Artemis II moon launch for lacking cockpit imagery. The trio exposes alleged corporate conspiracies involving Bayer/Monsanto, Bill Gates, and Larry Fink, citing the 2026 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides where nearly 100% of produce tested positive for forever chemicals. Ultimately, they urge a Supreme Court rally on April 27th to oppose pesticide immunity laws, framing these domestic crises as symptoms of a rigged global system controlled by international monopolies. [Automatically generated summary]
Obviously, just massive developments with the war in Iran.
We'll get to all of those.
And I mean massive.
I mean like world shaking, world changing type of activity going on here.
Donald Trump is apparently going to give a nationwide address primetime tonight.
I don't know if that, I assume that'll happen after our show's over, but we'll keep an eye on it.
And if he goes live while we're on air, then we'll go to that.
Big addresses really across the world.
You've got the PM of the UK, Kira Starmer, giving a big address.
Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia.
Likewise, gave an address having to do with the fuel lockdown that we told you was coming.
It is absolutely here now and going to get worse before it gets better.
We also have the continuing fallout of Jaden Ivey being removed from the Bulls for not being sufficiently subservient to the LGBTQ community.
We're going to be joined by Royce White in the next hour.
He's going to talk to us about that.
Tiffany Sianci has some inside information, some exclusive information.
Secret as of now, information that she'll be bringing to us about pesticides and laws being written about pesticides right now.
Just a very big show.
And we'll be spending a lot of the first hour on the Supreme Court decision about birthright citizenship.
And it's a doozy, folks.
So just so much to get into.
Stay with us.
Let's begin today, as we do every day, with our daily dispatch.
All right, here it is, folks, your Daily Dispatch for Wednesday, the 1st of April, 2026.
Trump attends Supreme Court oral arguments in a presidential first.
This is just how important this decision is, and it really could determine the fate of our republic from here on out.
He spent about an hour listening to the government make its case against birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, making him the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the high court.
His presence would put him face to face with justices whom he has tried to bully and intimidate.
Only raises the stakes of an already closely watched case about what it means to be an American, an issue that was key to his political rise, of course.
I really actually don't know what they're talking about when they say that he's been bullying the Supreme Court.
I honestly can't think of an instance of that.
I can think about Chuck Schumer telling the Supreme Court that they'll sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, but that wasn't Trump.
However, we will get into clips from that.
The audio that's come out is truly remarkable.
And folks, it ain't looking good.
You got Justice Roberts.
Being a complete moron and basically the entire thing hinges on Amy Coney Barrett.
She's sort of the wild card to go either direction.
And that doesn't bode well for the future of our country.
So our fate hinges on whether a middle aged white Catholic woman with a rainbow coalition of children can stand to be just a little bit harsh with immigrants.
People say mean.
It's not mean to not give somebody something that isn't theirs.
So it's not actually being mean to immigrants, but she does have to.
You know, moderately not give them everything they want.
And the fate of America hinges on that.
We'll get back to it.
Meanwhile, Iran denies Trump's claim that it requested a ceasefire, calling it false and baseless.
The Iranian president has just released an open letter to the people of the world.
I'll read that as well today.
Trump to give a primetime address on the Iran war as questions swirl over his next move, considering the fact that there's no guiding principle here.
In other words, they keep changing what they're saying about the war every couple of hours, sometimes every like a minute or two.
While at the same time, you can't actually say, well, they're saying all this stuff, but let's look tactically at the field and see what they can and can't do because we're acting like complete idiots.
Actions are not guided by any form of logic or common sense or victory conditions.
Meanwhile, top Brussels official urges Europeans to work from home and drive less.
We'll talk about the fuel lockdown that is here and only going to get worse.
Finally, something dark is going on.
Nine top level scientists die or go missing in the past year, mostly from America.
I'll tell you, I don't know if this interests you, but my day basically, whenever I get in, usually I start, I'm never not working, right?
I'm never not checking the news and compiling things and putting things in folders.
But I will sit there from like noon until the show begins, and I'm just the whole time, I'm just copying links, downloading videos, just the whole time, three hours straight.
And everything's off, like I've already bookmarked everything over the last 24 hours, and it's just a matter of going through.
Putting it in the document so the crew can print it, all that stuff.
But it's like if we had, you know, 12 hours to go through all of this, maybe we could make a dent.
But I've got a lot to cover today.
So I'm going to try to get through Iran and the Supreme Court in this first hour, second hour.
We'll get into a lot of stuff with Royce White, but particularly the not just the firing, the releasing of Jaden Ivey from the Bulls because of his very moderate and reasonable stance about being forced to participate in LGBTQ Pride Month, but also that that's just in line with everything else that we see going on with people being punished for their.
Just very baseline Christian beliefs.
People like Kareen Prejan Bowler, who was kicked off of the Religious Tolerance Committee for the White House.
So we'll get into all that stuff.
Then, in the third hour, I will be joined by Tiffany Sianci.
She has some inside information.
We have an exclusive, as of right now, secret information about some upcoming pesticide bills in D.C.
So stay tuned for that.
We'll get into that in the third hour.
But I could spend 12 hours just on, well, it's almost like we have to cover the updates of Iran in real time because things are changing.
So much, so rapidly, and with so little warning or seeming through line that combines it all.
I literally have 40 videos of this, just having to do with the Middle East and Iran.
So, where do we begin?
We can begin with just kind of the absurdity of every claim that Trump makes.
There's an article yesterday that was like the 12 times Trump has declared victory.
So, yeah, we'll start with this.
We'll start with the footage of striking Tel Aviv, as apparently.
Last night was the biggest attack on Israel yet out of Iran, which is interesting because if we want to go to clip 38 here, this is what Trump said earlier today.
Let's watch.
unidentified
And when I read the fake New York Times, you take a look at it, it's like, oh, they're putting up a good fight.
They're not putting up a fight, they're not even shooting at us.
Not even shooting at us, which is interesting because clip 35 looks an awful lot different.
Like Iran shooting at somebody who looks an awful lot like us.
And this is just one of the many videos that went absolutely viral yesterday.
That seems to show that Iran can, in fact, continue to fire and are.
And it appears as though Israel is taking the brunt of this as well.
Again, we've just got that we're in this like laundry cycle revolution series where it's just Trump comes out, says something about Iran being willing to negotiate.
And then about an hour later, you have Iran come out and going, That's just not true.
I don't know who told him that, but we're not negotiating.
And then just rinse and repeat.
You just do that over and over.
In the meantime, between declaring victory and declaring, you know, Iran is totally destroyed, Iran is bombing the hell out of Israel and American bases and their Gulf neighbors.
And Trump is routinely claiming that it's only going to get bigger and crazier and we're about to hit them really hard.
You just wait.
So, again, kind of nothing to hang our hat on in any way whatsoever, in any way you're looking at it.
Let's go to clip 27 here.
So, again, we just heard from Trump that.
They've totally defeated Iran.
They don't even have BB guns anymore.
They're knocked out.
Now it's just a matter of mopping up the mess.
But that's not true.
Let's go to clip 27.
unidentified
An Iranian strike deep in the heart of Tel Aviv.
For the fifth straight day, the skies above the city lit up as Israel's air defense system intercepted one Iranian missile after another.
So, apparently, the missile interceptors are still working fairly well.
But those are going to run out not too distant in the future.
And Iran doesn't seem to be slowing down whatsoever.
Israel under largest Iranian assault in weeks as missile salvo hits center.
Israel is facing the largest continual Iranian assault since hostilities escalated three weeks ago, Channel 14 reported, marking a sharp escalation in the U.S. Israel Iran conflict.
Iran launched its largest missile salvo.
Sirens sounding across central Israel as the missiles were detected, with explosions heard in Tel Aviv and surrounding areas, including Jerusalem and the Shepherd area.
One missile reportedly carried a cluster warhead, dispersing bomblets over a wide area.
Damage was reported in homes and vehicles in Rosh Hayyan and Petah Tikva, while a bomblet also struck a playground in Petah Tikva.
So, again, they are still getting hit.
And it looks like the ground invasion is still very much on the table.
You've got the Telegraph speculating Is Trump planning a ground invasion of Iran on Good Friday?
The president has suggested he could walk away from Iran and leave other nations to police the Strait of Hormuz, threatening that America, quote, won't be there to help you anymore.
Traditional allies of the U.S., told one day that he does not need them, another day taunted as cowards, and then told they should hurry up and go to the Strait, are wondering how best to respond or whether Trump is playing a different game altogether.
Ever since the start of the conflict, Trump has been sending out a blizzard of conflicting messages.
The war is won.
It's not a war but an excursion.
Iran has 10 more days to stop the fighting and make a deal.
Companies should show some guts.
Other countries should show some guts.
Iran should open up the Straits, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
In other words, When he said that the work had lasted four to six weeks, he meant it at least for the initial phase of reducing Iran's ability to repel a raid to retrieve its enriched uranium and take strategic islands in the Gulf.
Now, it does appear as though, like I said, the ground invasion is certainly on the table, certainly moving in that direction.
In fact, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it may be happening right now, for all we know.
This could very well be what the announcement tonight from Trump is about.
Or he could wait till Good Friday and wait till the markets close.
Michael Savage saying just what a lot of people are recognizing right now.
However, something has changed here.
Something has broken a little bit.
And just a quick rundown from Uncommon Sense at Uncommon Sense 76 on X. Lindsey Graham now says that we should make a deal.
Remember, he had a deep and informed conversation with Mickey and Minnie Mouse, and they convinced him that Iran is.
This is not the right military target.
We could go on about that.
But something happened.
Again, we don't know what sort of magical intervention his fairy godmother implemented.
But Lindsey Graham now says make a deal.
Trump says to make a deal.
Mark Levin is saying the war could end in a few weeks.
Netanyahu is saying Iran is, quote, no longer a threat to Israel.
At least he says they're not an existential threat.
Europe is flipping on Zionism, as is East Asia.
Marco Rubio outlined changes strategic objectives.
To not include the opening of the strait or regime change.
Trump discusses leaving Iran even without a deal.
Bill Ackman says to buy stocks and that there will be peace.
America is questioning their Jewish overlords, and Trump is less popular than ever, and no one wants boots on the ground.
China and Russia are emboldened with sanctions removed.
There's been a pivot, if I had to guess.
The U.S. is staring down all of its options and it doesn't like them.
Either that or it's cover for a ground invasion with the 2,500 to 10,000 possible troops in the region.
It's actually upwards of 50,000.
Even so, what would that actually accomplish?
If you want to physically take Iran, they would need 500,000 to 1 million troops.
If you send 500,000 troops, you may get slaughtered.
Public opinion would be even worse.
While before I've only ever seen calls for escalation, everything now points to the U.S. trying to get out of a bad situation and trying to get out fast.
And he's right.
I mean, something has changed here.
But that could just be the language being used has changed and that everything is actually lining up to become the quagmire that we always expected.
This is from Apollo Russo underscore on X.
And I thought this was a very interesting and informed breakdown.
Isfahan underground tunnel complex.
So basically, the Spectator Index says the Pentagon is developing military options for a final blow in Iran that could include.
The use of ground forces and massive bombing campaign, according to Anaxios reports.
This was from March 26th.
And then this is the analysis from Apollo.
Isfahan underground tunnel complex.
The strike sequencing over the last month reads like a corridor preparation.
First, the southern coastal defenses, the belt facing the Persian Gulf, was hit.
Then Iranian naval capabilities across the Gulf of Oman were gutted.
Then missile infrastructure and mobile TELs were systematically reduced.
Then internal security nodes across dozens of cities were hit, including Isfahan.
This is the sequencing of an approach route being cleared layer by layer toward a terminal objective.
And the obvious terminal objective is the Isfahan underground tunnel complex.
440 plus kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% stored inside, enough for roughly 11 nuclear weapons, weeks away from weapons grade 90%.
The tunnels have no ventilation shaft openings, no structural weak points for penetrating munitions.
Someone has to physically go in those tunnels.
Every other option has been tried and failed, it's been exhausted.
So that makes sense to me.
If this is all about the nuclear enrichment, then that would be the target we'd be going for.
And obviously, they are hardened against any form of weaponry we have from the air.
We'd have to send men on the ground, and you could potentially do something like that theoretically, feasibly, with a fairly small force, considering the fact that you're not actually trying to take over and occupy the whole nation, just a Maduro style in and out operation.
And it seems like they're preparing the corridor in preparation for that.
And there's basically endless.
You know, reports and people noticing that everything is moving that direction.
All of the naval forces, all of the marine forces, all of the air force, the specific planes like the A 10 Warthog, which is specifically designed and utilized for infantry support, it all points to a ground invasion being imminent.
And I think that is fairly accurate.
It gets a little complicated, though.
We can go to clip number 34 here.
This is Senator Chris Coons, who I believe is a Democrat, if I'm not mistaken, but I should have liked so many other times in our history.
Yeah, when the Republicans do something stupid, it turns out it gives a chance for the Democrats to win victories that they don't deserve.
Let's go to clip 34 here.
This is Chris Coons about what American Israel's intentions in all of this are.
That's a great question to which there isn't a great answer.
President Trump, several days into the war, made it clear that he had thought that Lara Jani, one of the senior elected leaders of the Iranian government, was someone with whom.
He or his administration might have negotiated, but the Israelis assassinated him.
The Israelis have attacked over and over the senior leadership of the intelligence services, of the IRGC, of the Ayatollah and his close advisors, and that has made it difficult for us to assess exactly who's in charge.
But we do know this the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the IRGC, has a pretty firm grip on the country and has been trained in how to continue aggressive operations even when there isn't a clear central command.
So I don't, in the near term, see an easy path towards there being a real change in the government or the regime in Iran.
I mean, we're still saying it, but we know what the answer is.
We know what they want to create.
They want to create a situation in which Iran is a broken state that we routinely bomb every couple of months.
Nobody in America wants that, but that's the way Israel has operated with its neighbors forever.
And it's really how they want to operate around the world, more or less, when you really get right down to it.
But let's go to clip 17 here.
But hold on, sorry.
That video we just saw was Chris Coons, the senator who has access to the classified briefings, saying, Absolutely, and not in a speculative way, that we were hoping to work with Laura Gianni or whatever his name is, but that, you know, less hardliner, he was going to be the one who we were going to prop up once we assassinated all the leaders.
And then Israel assassinated him.
And he says they routinely assassinate anybody that we want to work with.
So once again, Israel got us into this war.
The pressures of Israel set up the conditions for this war.
And now our exit ramps for this war are being systematically eliminated by Israel on purpose to keep us in the war.
They're the ones we should be at war with.
I mean, they are at war with us just through Iran, essentially.
That's how this is working.
So that's important to note with Senator Chris Coons coming out and saying that verbatim.
Let's go to clip 17 here.
This is a former U.S. naval intelligence officer talking about the immense troop buildup that hints that, yes, the ground troops in Iran are very much stolen.
Even though the war looks like it's happening in a massive aerial campaign, we've noticed just over the last two weeks about two weeks ago, a series of flights started to move from the United States, which started to spell out that there was a much bigger picture going on.
We started seeing flights that were at the main bases of the 1st and 2nd Ranger regiments, large numbers of aircraft, enough to move the entire battalion.
Special Operations Command, Tampa, Florida's Special Operations Headquarters, SEAL Team 6's headquarters, and then An associated U.S. Air Force unit that is only used to take contingency flights to repair damaged runways.
This massive armada moved quietly to an air base in Israel, over to an air base in Israel, and an air base in Jordan.
The numbers that they are having there are far bigger than anything you would need for Karg Island.
I was in the Navy.
I served off Karg Island, had naval battles with the Iranians in the 1980s, hit mines.
Let me tell you, Karg and the southern Strait of Hormuz Islands.
Are a task in themselves.
The Marines could handle that.
But that combined with the 82nd Airborne, we are looking at something much, much bigger than taking those islands.
So, again, we also are just moving our third aircraft carrier to the region.
All of these signs pointing towards an actual invasion of Iran with ground forces.
That's what the rumors are as well, as you just heard.
That's what, I mean, they're moving in that direction.
You also have this from the inside paper.
Military officials are planning for two potential ground assaults in Iran, one on Karg Island, the hub of the country's energy industry.
And the other to season rich uranium to hobble Iran's nuclear development program.
According to three people familiar with the matter, all they need is the go ahead from President Trump.
So, again, that all falls in line with everything else that.
We've been looking at today.
However, this could quickly become a world war.
U.S. aims to be unpredictable with putting boots on the ground.
Like, yeah, I guess.
Fine.
Chechen fighters are ready to deploy to Iran.
Chechen units loyal to Katarov said they're ready to deploy to Iran if U.S. ground invasion begins.
Forces describe the conflict as a religious war and potential intervention as jihad against U.S. led aggression.
Iran raises alarms over Ukrainian involvement, warning of widening geopolitical dimensions.
Of the ongoing war with Chechen military units announcing their readiness to deploy to Iran to support the country's armed forces in the case of a U.S. ground invasion.
So, this would be sort of a separatist militia that would be getting involved, or it could go with the blessing, the official blessing of the Russian government.
Regardless, it looks like, you know, the dominoes are being set up for full fledged World War III.
Now, I want to go to clip number 13 here.
This is the reality about what the war in Iran has become at this point, as we have successfully hit all of the military installations that we know about, and yet we're still getting hit with missiles.
You know, one thing that really struck me today when I heard the chairman briefing, General Kane, was that, you know, the increase in what they call dynamic targeting, meaning that they have the ability to retask aircraft after they've launched based on actionable intelligence.
So, what that informed me with is the fact that I think a lot of the principal targeting going after the You know, the weapon development industrial base, whether that's drones or ballistic missiles, and even the nuclear research and development centers, and certainly all the command and control, the major ones across the country have been effectively either destroyed or degraded.
So it sounds like, based on what we heard today, what I read and what was inferred is that absent of going after this national infrastructure that you just mentioned, the water, the electricity, and the oil infrastructure, a lot of this significant targeting, minus what's Buried very deep underground has been eliminated.
So, yeah, that's basically us admitting that we've eliminated the military infrastructure we can reach.
And so we're still getting hit.
So now we're just resorting to exclusively bombing just basic critical infrastructure for Iran, which, of course, is a war crime many times over, strategically retarded.
It's just, it's actually only going to backlash since people that maybe didn't even like the Iranian government certainly are going to like you less when you blow up their children in a school.
So, We're not doing this.
Like, it's the same.
You can ask the same question of, like, well, why did Israel kill the person that we expected to take over?
And if you're in the mindset of, like, but don't they want this war to go our way?
Aren't we trying to win this conflict for America?
It's like, yeah, that decision doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
If you have somebody that you're ready to prop up as the puppet leader, why would you kill them?
Now, that doesn't make any sense.
No, there must be some sort of alternative, ulterior motive at play here.
And this is exactly the same.
Why would you bomb Israel?
Critical infrastructure.
If you know that they're only going to bomb your critical infrastructure, it's only going to get worse, you're only going to piss them off and more entrench the leadership.
If they were actually trying to defeat Iran, they wouldn't even do this.
They're doing it because the purpose is to create endless war.
We'll get back into this on the other side.
So, a lot more to get into with Iran.
I don't know if you've noticed something happened on X where they started cross posting Japanese.
Japanese posts with American posts inspired me to go back to 2019, do a little highlight and video of my time in Japan, probably the best two weeks of my life.
It was freaking amazing.
I love Japan, it was a great place.
And I'd love to live there.
I think it would be a great place to live.
You know what I would never do?
You know what I would never do to the Japanese people whom I respect and admire?
I would never break into their country and live there against their will and then file a court case when they try to tell me to go home.
Because I'm a decent person that actually appreciates Japan and would want to contribute to it, not be a parasite and a burden.
I don't know why we don't get that level of respect from anybody else around the world, but it's not too much to ask.
And yet, it's constantly withheld from us that just basic respect, basic appreciation of the desires and the will of the American people.
It, yeah, I mean, you would think, if anybody, you would think they'd be welcoming me with open arms.
Guess what?
They don't have to.
And I respect that because I like them.
And anybody that doesn't respect that doesn't like us and doesn't belong here.
I thought I'd play that a little bit.
I thought I actually did a pretty good job while also not using a single image that showed my wife's face.
That was, it was difficult.
It would have been a lot better if I could have shown her face.
But again, this is the basics of the conflict here in America is that for some reason, we just allow ourselves to be disrespected, allow ourselves to be taken advantage of.
We allow people who don't like us, don't want to contribute to us, literally just see us as a giant bunch of suckers to scam to the nth degree, and they want to come here to scam us and then send all their money back home.
Why would we ever allow this?
And this is the thing right now, the Supreme Court is debating birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is absurd.
It's absurd on the face of it.
It may have had a role to play back in the 1800s when it was first.
And this is why this whole thing is nonsensical, is because these arguments.
I get how the law works.
I understand why we do things this way.
It seems like a vestigial holdover of an earlier time where maybe this would have made sense.
But right now, it's like the question is simple to me Should somebody be allowed to enter our country, plop out a baby, and they are therefore American?
The answer should be absolutely not.
What the hell are you talking about?
That's ridiculous.
Of course not.
How would that even work?
Are you crazy?
There are a billion, there are just seven billion people that can get here in a plane flight.
They can all just stop over for an afternoon, have a baby at our expense, and then that baby can just collect Social Security, vote in our elections.
I mean, this is absurd, right?
But you can't just look at a problem as it exists right now and provide a solution for it.
You can't even, we aren't even writing laws to actually match the world as it exists right now.
We're going to the Supreme Court to decide on a case based on precedent from over 100 years ago.
So the entire Supreme Court argument are like.
I don't even know how to explain it.
It's like we're arguing about laws that were made to deal with laws that don't exist anymore.
Okay, so here's the thing.
In the 1800s, there was naturalization in America, it was exclusively available for white Europeans.
That was the only people that could be naturalized as citizens.
So the case they're talking about in the Supreme Court today, or at least they make reference to these cases, is like, okay, but you have a Chinese guy that comes over here and Is for all intents and purposes a citizen.
He's lived here his whole life.
He's moved his whole family over here.
He's made himself an American in every way he possibly can, except for blood and race.
But our Constitution, as it existed then, didn't have provisions for a Chinese guy to become American.
It just didn't exist.
And so they wrote this law in the 14th Amendment to be, or at least part of it was about this idea of like, all right, well, you can't naturalize him because he's not white.
So, but if he lives here and this is his domicile, then maybe we can make a provision for him.
And so it's like the whole reason the 14th Amendment exists is to deal with people that are excluded by a naturalization law exclusive to Europeans that doesn't exist anymore.
So we got rid of the naturalization law that meant the 14th Amendment was necessary, but we stole the 14th Amendment even though that law doesn't exist anymore.
This is the type of stuff that it's like, what are we doing?
And like half of the conversation is them debating on the definition of words as understood by people in the 1800s.
Again, I understand that it's like, okay, you say.
Precedent, and then you have to interpret the law.
And as time changes, you have to go back and say, Okay, does this word still mean the thing that it used to mean?
If not, how do we update it?
I understand, but it just seems ridiculous to me.
It just seems, I mean, in fact, it is ridiculous.
What should have happened a long time ago is that the 14th Amendment should have been eradicated, and there should be a new law by Congress.
Congress should write a new law that just says, Hey, guys, to be an American citizen, one of your parents has to be an American citizen.
That's the law problem solved.
That would be it.
No more discussion, no more conversation, no more debating, no more.
Getting out a dictionary from 1806 to determine what exactly they meant by allegiance.
Like, what if you just wrote a law in Congress that said the 14th Amendment is no longer applicable?
We're not going to do it anymore.
We don't need it.
It's not, it literally is not necessary.
It doesn't comport itself in the modern world.
So we have to, we have to get rid of it.
We have to change it.
Instead, we're trying to go back in time and ascertain what the people who wrote it thought, even though obviously the world and its conditions as it exists now.
If they could have foreseen what was to come, they didn't want any of this stuff to happen.
They wouldn't be okay with any of this.
I mean, the really amazing example that's come out over the last couple of weeks is this island in Guam where you have thousands of Chinese moms giving birth to quote unquote American babies.
You tell me, like, just tell me if you can figure out the answer to this question.
If you were to go back to 1868 when Chinese people were still slave workers building railroads in the Midwest and ask the people who wrote the 14th Amendment, Is this the thing that you're writing right now?
Does it mean that if a Chinese woman goes to an island on Guam and then back in China, that that baby is American?
Is there any question that those people would be like, well, it's a complicated issue?
I understand that.
It's like they'd be like, what?
No, what is Guam?
What are you talking about?
Absolutely not.
Is that what people think that we're writing?
We need to really be more explicit here.
And that's another part of it.
I think also genuinely, the people in the past wrote things with the assumption that the character of the nation would continue.
And this is one of the, I don't know, misfires of Thomas Jefferson.
See, Thomas Jefferson thought that the morals and the construct or what.
That the people would stay the same.
Sorry, it's a little confusing.
I'm messing it up.
Thomas Jefferson basically said that, like, every 20 years there would have to be a new government because they understood that they were trying to make a government that would have to change and operate in time with emerging technology and emerging just the modern world.
They knew that, like, they couldn't write something that could go unchanged, right?
It would have to change and it might have to change completely.
Like, Thomas Jefferson straight up thought, like, yeah, maybe in 20 years we just destroy the Constitution and start over with something new.
They thought that the mode of government and the function of government would change, but that the people would stay the same, more or less, and just have to change government to fit with the modern times.
The opposite has happened.
We have sort of calcified our government structure into a form that just does not make sense anymore, while the world and everybody in America has changed entirely and, like, can't even have a theory of mind for what the founders were like, like how they thought and what their opinions were on things.
And so, you know, in the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment was being written, you know, they wrote it just not thinking that they would have to explain these things.
Like, they could not have guessed that there would be these subversive infiltrators 200 years later that would be twisting their words beyond recognition.
They wrote it in, like, what's the phrase?
It's like, good effort.
You know, they, yeah, we need a revolution every 20 years just to keep the government honest.
Like, that's what Thomas Jefferson thought.
And yet, the, Government that he created is still operating 250 years later.
It wasn't supposed to, guys.
We were supposed to change this.
We should change this.
This doesn't make any sense, especially when you have people like Kintanji Brown Jackson making an absolute fool of herself.
And I have a series of clips.
I clipped them out myself.
So it's not just stuff downloaded from the internet.
And it's a series and it's basically one chunk, but I cut it up into four pieces because each time it's Kintanji Brown Jackson bringing something up.
And this is the thing from Kintanji Brown Jackson's point of view, She's going into the records.
She's going into the debates that happened because we have the records of the debates, exactly what was said.
There's no reason we don't need to speculate about if these people thought that they were writing a law to allow 10 million Mexicans to have free citizenship as long as they break our laws first.
Like, this is ridiculous.
But she's going back and she's not looking at it in good faith.
That was the term I was looking for.
She's not looking at it in good faith and going, I want to figure out what they really meant here.
She's looking for little isolated, out of context phrases that she can dislocate from the rest of the conversation.
And used to build her straw man argument.
It's like, is this what a Supreme Court justice is supposed to do?
Instead of just like actually genuinely trying to understand what the people who are writing it actually meant, so you can best enforce the law, she's literally just like, she knows that it's not the law, that the way she interprets it is not the way they interpreted it.
And so she's deliberately misconstruing statements from the debate.
And so this is a series where she brings something up, the lawyer for the government arguing against birthright citizenship.
Just smacks her down like so perfectly.
It's insane.
And it's very funny because she interrupts him every time.
Every time she's like, Well, what about this?
And he's like, Yeah, that actually is in our faith.
That's actually arguing for us.
And you see, and she's like, Well, okay, well, that may be so.
But what about this over here?
And he's like, Yeah, that also is evidence of our argument is right.
She's like, Well, okay, well, that may be.
Let's not talk about that anymore.
Let's move on to this next thing.
Like, it's.
So embarrassing, I would think.
If these people had shame, they would be so embarrassed, but they don't.
So we'll just have to talk about it and mock them regardless of how they feel.
Let's go to clip 53 first.
So, this is Supreme Court Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson asking about the debate in 1868 and being told by the lawyer for the government, yeah, you are completely misinterpreting that.
This entirely goes towards our argument, not yours.
But if the Supreme Court had prior to the 14th Amendment established that allegiance meant the common law definition, I think your first hurdle is to help us understand why we would believe that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the framers weren't just incorporating what we had previously said it meant.
Page 572 of the Congressional Record directly addresses this.
They say the concept of temporary and local allegiance from the Schooner Exchange is what is meant by, or temporary and local jurisdiction from the Schooner Exchange is what is meant by the word jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment.
Senator Trumbull says, I thought about saying owing allegiance, but again, quote, there's a sort of allegiance from Person's temporarily resident in the United States, whom we have no right to make citizens.
So, this is the one where, again, she tries to bring something up that she has cherry picked.
And isolated and said, Well, if you take this out of context and read it through a modern lens, then it kind of seems like the guys that wrote this might be on our side.
And the guy's like, No.
If you take it in context, they literally debate the point that Kintanji Brown Jackson is making and decide that she's wrong back in 1868.
And she should know this because she read it, but she's deliberately ignoring or being deliberately ignorant of the reality of the conversation that was happening and claiming that, you know, trying to take something out of context to frame it as if the, uh, Framers of the 14th Amendment actually consider this.
I mean, that's a debate and it's a discussion, very valid.
But then we have a subsequent debate between Fessenden and Wade where the same concept comes up and it becomes clear, at least from Senator Wade's perspective, that that's wrong.
So, Fessenden, and I'm not sure whether these are senators, I apologize.
Fessenden says, Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country.
Wade responds, the senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen.
I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside near the United States, et cetera, et cetera.
So it appears as though in that exchange, at least Senator Wade believed that the English common law understanding of what it means to have allegiance, to be a temporary person on the soil, Uh, was what was being adopted, yeah.
That content or that exchange strongly supports us if you look at it in context.
Senator Wade has introduced a version that says only birth on U.S. soil and doesn't have any allegiance or jurisdictional.
Element to it.
And so Senator Fessenden stands up and says, Well, that can't be right because, you know, obviously, what about the children of temporary visitors?
It has this, you know, it's another one of these statements that has this appeal to a background understanding that we all agree that the temporary visitors, their children, do not become citizens.
And then Senator Wade has to kind of backtrack and say, Well, what about the children of ambassadors?
And in the end, Congress does not adopt Senator Wade's proposal.
So we think that, to say you can draw an inference from that, the inference strongly supports it.
So again, she's making a point, taking one sentence or whatever out of a debate, you know, one exchange.
And it's like, yeah, but that exchange ended with them making the conclusion that you're wrong.
And basically, it's like originally they were debating should it just be anybody born here?
And they're like, no, that's ridiculous.
Because what if you have an invading army?
Are all of their kids citizens?
That's ridiculous.
What if you have an ambassador that's just visiting here?
Their kid's not going to be a citizen, a temporary visitor, somebody just passing through.
They're not going to get a.
So it has to be more than just.
Having been born here, they have to be permanent residents here.
They have to domicile here, meaning it's their permanent home.
They have no plans on leaving.
And that's where Kintanji Brown Jackson gets really confused and starts debating whether or not babies can have allegiances.
Again, this is like go back to 1868.
And when they're sitting there, you know, in their smoke filled rooms and their tuxedos and their top hats and beards, and they're going, you know, well, clearly, if it's somebody with an allegiance to another country, if you were to go back and be like, is it the baby's allegiance?
Like, what?
Do we need to write?
No, babies don't have allegiances.
Like, what are you talking about?
How could this possibly have been what they did?
It's the millennial woes retweeted text that people post all the time.
They just pretend to be stupid.
They pretend not to understand.
This is obvious.
It's not the baby's allegiance that's a question, it's the parent's allegiance that's a question.
So, this was the next question, Kintanja Brown Jackson.
That's two in a row, two things she brings up that just get immediately smacked down with the primary sources by the government.
When you're looking at 19th century conceptions of allegiance, the notion that the allegiance Again, you say domicile is instantiating the concept of allegiance for aliens as opposed to citizen.
All of that, the 19th century understands the newborn's domicile, its allegiance follows the allegiance of the parents.
And I point out that their theory relies on parental allegiance as well because they recognize the exceptions for, you know, hostile invading armies, for tribal Indians, for ambassadors.
Again, the child's allegiance status, even on their view, turns on the status of the parent.
Amy Comey Barrett asked a question What happens if we don't know who the kid's parents are?
It's like, I don't know.
How is that even possible?
You know that they were born in the United States, but you don't know who their mother is.
How could that even occur?
Are you trying to write a law that can somehow also contain within it potentialities that literally cannot exist?
Like, why would the law need to say that if we don't know who the parents are?
Tell you what, if ever there is a baby born for which we don't even know who their parents are, but they're born in America and we see them being born somehow without knowing who their parents are.
Tell you what, in that case, yeah, sure, that kid can be a citizen.
I'm willing to make that little caveat there.
Just in case there's any sort of spontaneous manifestation of babies, they get to be American citizens.
There's some sort of beyond miraculous conception, miraculous delivery with no mother.
It's, yeah, okay, the miracle baby gets to be American.
I'm okay with that.
Why are we talking about this?
What the hell are we doing?
How is this the United States of America in the year 2026?
Let's go to the next one.
Let's go to, again, She can't understand that she.
It's deliberately misunderstanding, being deliberately ignorant, and it's so infuriating that this is the way that the future of our republic is being litigated.
So there's no opportunity, there's apparently no opportunity then for the person to prove or to say that they actually intended to stay in the United States.
Their opportunity to dispute if they think they were wrongly denied, which would only happen in a tiny minority of cases, is directly addressed in that government.
And the way that, I mean, I'm summarizing because I'm not an expert at computers, but there's a computer program that currently automatically generates a social security number.
SSA says, look, a social security number, non citizens can have them if they work authorization, so it doesn't prove citizenship.
We'll give you a social security number, provided that the system automatically checks the immigration status of the parents, which there are robust databases for.
And then it appears no different to the vast majority of birthing parents.
So again, I genuinely don't even understand what she was asking.
Like, what?
She's like, oh, so we're going to be deposing pregnant women?
What are you talking about?
If they're a legal citizen here to stay because they're on a permanent visa, then they're domiciled here.
Like, this is not complicated.
They're literally creating non existent circumstances to try to come up with a reason to oppose this.
This whole thing is absurd.
This shouldn't even be at the Supreme Court.
If they actually decide, You know, in favor of birthright citizenship.
That's basically it for the country.
I'll show you one more clip on the other side in the first five minute small segment that really shows you how broken and lost and in need of replacement our system is.
And then Royce White joins me to talk about the Antichrist activity.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the War Room.
I'm your host, Harrison Smith.
I will be joined very shortly by Royce White.
I just want to go to one more clip of the Supreme Court discussion that occurred today about birthright citizenship.
And this just shows you how not fit for purpose our current system is.
It is literally incapable of changing for the modern age.
And it's going to destroy us if we don't figure this out and figure out a way to deal with this again.
The proper way to deal with this would be for the Congress.
To actually go in and rewrite the 14th Amendment, abolish the 14th Amendment, and write a new one just saying we're not doing birthright citizenship anymore.
That's ridiculous.
That was maybe fit for the 1860s, but we're in 2026.
And it just genuinely doesn't make it.
No other country in the world has this.
So again, it's like, it's not like we're like, well, we got to figure out how to do that.
How do we even do it if we're not doing birthright citizenship?
It's like, well, why don't we just do what every other country in the world does?
How about that for a start?
Not that complicated.
We got to go through the Supreme Court, which I don't even understand anyway.
So many of our problems have come from Congress and the Senate just giving up their power.
In fact, I've got a video today of Speaker of the House of Congress, Mike Johnson, saying, Well, Trump says it's not a war.
He says it's a military operation.
So we don't really have anything to say about it.
We only come into effect when it's a war declaration.
It's like, so you're giving up.
You're surrendering your right to have a say over whether America goes to war.
This isn't a matter of.
You know, checks and balances.
This is you are abandoning your role as the check and balance.
You are surrendering your prerogative to the executive.
And the same thing happens with the Supreme Court.
They, instead of writing laws, you know, allow the Supreme Court to basically write law from the bench.
And even that is a little bit confusing because the Supreme Court will come out with decisions and then the liberals just ignore it.
And it looks like it doesn't matter.
I mean, they come out with a decision about, you know, you're not allowed to do DEI or affirmative action.
And the colleges just openly say, we're still doing it.
We're just calling it something different.
And that's just allowed, apparently.
It's a Supreme Court decision.
They're violating it.
Nothing happens.
Happened again today, a judge blocked the Trump administration from terminating Biden granted parole status for up to 900,000 immigrants.
The Supreme Court decided that these little judges could not issue nationwide injunctions, but they do.
They just keep doing it.
So it's almost like okay, even if the Supreme Court says that birthright citizenship is no longer legal, will the left even change their?
I mean, they'll just keep giving out citizenship to whoever's here.
Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.
No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.
And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, You've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils.
He said that about statutory interpretation.
I think the same principle applies here, and I think we quote that in our brief.
I don't know how exactly to phrase it, but that phrase, it's a new world, but the same constitution.
Yeah, that's a problem.
That's like a really big problem.
If these things that are occurring now were not foreseen by the people that wrote the laws, then you've got to change the law to fit with the modern reality.
What the hell are you talking about?
This is a problem.
I mean, the constitution is the greatest document ever written, but it's supposed to be updated.
The point of the constitution is it's supposed to be routinely updated.
To deal with the new situation.
Robert seems not to think so.
So, eight billion people, one plane ride away.
Robert's just like, well, some guys wrote a law in 1868, so I guess they're all Americans.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You know, the phenomenon of prepping seems to go through like highs and lows.
And it feels like I remember back when Obama was president, prepping was like the big thing.
There were reality shows about it, everybody was storing food and stuff.
I think nobody had hoped that it was ever going to get any better than Trump got elected.
And I feel like prepping kind of like felt, you know, it wasn't as culturally relevant anymore.
But now we're on the cusp of World War III, nuclear exchange, total destruction, fuel rationing already taking place all over the world.
Well, the best way to get prepared is to go to the Alex Jones Store.com, get yourself an Alex Jones signature Faraday bag bundle.
The bag itself is well worth the full price in order to keep your electronics safe and avoid the electromagnetic waves that may result from a.
High altitude nuclear explosion.
But it also comes jam packed full of other great goodies like the tactical trench knife, the America First t shirt, MK Ultra plus atomic defense, a ton of other great supplements.
All together, you could buy them individually for around $600.
We're giving it all to you for less than $250.
And for VIP members, it's only $199.99.
So do not wait.
Go to the Alex Jones store.comslash Harrison.
If you want to let them know who sent you, get your Faraday bag bundle for a third the price that it could sell for.
It could probably sell for a lot more than that, actually.
It's really high quality stuff.
Get it today.
We're running out of supplies.
Get yours while you can.
Better to have it, not need it, than need it, not have it.
Do your prepping before you need to be prepped, folks.
And with that, I'm very, very happy to welcome my guest, Royce White.
He is a native of Minnesota's Twin Cities, born and raised in St. Paul's historic Rondo community, a standout basketball talent.
He was named Minnesota Mr. Basketball in high school, starred in Iowa State University, leading the Big 12 in nearly every major statistical category, and was selected 16th overall by the Houston Rockets in the 2012.
NBA draft.
His professional career extended to championship winning seasons in Canada, where he earned MVP honors and set records, as well as stints in the Big Three on Three League, where he currently serves as co captain.
And of course, it goes on and on.
And typically, you know, we would tout your political acumen and all this stuff, but actually, the ballgames are important now with what's going on in America.
You can follow Royce White by visiting his website, RoyceWhite.us, or by following him on X at highway30.
And I feel like you're the perfect person for the big story that broke yesterday about Chicago Bulls player Jaden Ivey being essentially booted from the team for expressing just the most moderate disagreement with the LGBTQ pride agenda.
As somebody with experience in the NBA, what's your take on this?
What do you think of the reaction that he was actually kicked from the team for what he said?
Thoughts are always now centered around the global.
And in my campaign and running for U.S. Senate, and even when I ran for Congress, one of the things I said often on the trail was that the global affects the local.
And I'm constantly thinking about the geopolitics because how could you not?
I mean, we're on the brink of a world war, right?
As you said.
And it just dawns on me that in the vein of what Alex said yesterday on social media and many others in the America First movement who are opposed to the war, it shocks me that.
Many of our detractors or critics out there, like the Mark Levins, don't see the crisis of attacks against Christians here at home just as, if not more dangerous and insidious, than whatever dangers there are a world away in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.
And that was my initial thought is like, these are the Christian, this is the crisis against Christianity and of our country that we should be focused on.
When we say America first, this is exactly what we're talking about.
And how could we let this stand, even from a legal and jurisprudential standpoint?
You know, they're going to make a thousand excuses and say, oh, well, a private company has the right to fire who they want and terminate who they want, just like the social media platforms have a right to censor who they want.
At some point, our monopoly antitrust laws, at some point, there have to be Christian discrimination lawsuits that protect Christians.
Christians are not covered under the law in this country, and that's become extremely obvious.
Yeah, and it is extremely ridiculous because of the, you know, inequity of the way that, uh, Religions are talked about.
I mean, nobody would kick a Muslim off a team for opposing LGBT.
They'd be celebrated and uplifted.
I mean, the inequity is really glaring when it comes to Christianity, and it's making some people hypocrites.
I saw this, and I think this goes to exactly what you're talking about.
Dana Lesh, you know the lady, says, The Bulls are punishing a player for being a Christian.
This is religious discrimination.
Now, she's right.
I don't disagree with her.
But then somebody else pointed out, You were just supporting this two weeks ago when it was Cree Pre Jean Bowler, who, of course, was kicked off of the.
You know, White House religious tolerance board for promoting her Christian beliefs.
So, I mean, this is a really big issue.
And, you know, Jaden Ivey sort of brings it to the fore in popular culture.
But, I mean, anti Christian discrimination is really heating up rapidly.
And I think the Jaden Ivey story is sort of on three fronts.
The first front is obviously, if the left, the contradiction, if he had come out as gay, And he had been let go or released from the team because he was homosexual, the entire left would have cried discrimination, obviously.
I mean, that kind of goes without saying.
And they would have demanded legal reparation for it, by the way, for the anti LGBTQ hatred, bigotry from the NBA.
So the double standard is pretty clear.
And I think, you know, maybe even more importantly, but certainly just as important.
Is this color revolution, this stuff from a legal standpoint has reached a level of national security threat.
And I do think it's that serious.
I mean, people will look at it and say, ah, well, it's just another NBA player.
He can't just be saying whatever he wants.
No freedom of speech without consequence.
Well, actually, I think we need to, and as you were alluding to in the previous segment, we need to start to evaluate how to properly interpret freedom of speech in the workplace and when it comes to corporations.
And if we don't do that, then we don't have freedom of speech, actually.
It's just a fictitious idea, much like the rule of law when you have corrupt Supreme Court justices.
But even when it comes to freedom of speech, it's like, yeah, sure, a company.
Has a right to its own freedom of speech in a way.
Every corporate entity has a right to express itself how it wants to and fire and hire who it wants.
But in principle, it should be trying to, at least on face value, uphold a fair amount of equity, as you would say, as you would put it, equity when it comes to the value of freedom of speech.
And it's like they're not even pretending that freedom of speech is a value that they hold in any regard.
And it's become widespread on the left across the entire.
Corporatocracy.
It's like, you know, it's the freedom of speech piece just comes and goes.
It blows with the wind, and we can't have it that way.
And ultimately, if Christians keep getting crushed like this under the weight of this corrupt color revolution, my God, I mean, there won't be a place for us to, you know, celebrate Holy Week here in the near future.
I mean, are we just not standing up for ourselves enough?
You know, the crew just pulled up a headline, and of course, they're going to say MAGA cries about Christian discrimination.
But there's this, again, you know, inequity.
I feel like we need even a better word.
So I always say, like, it's not as if, well, a Christian person says something and a Jewish person said the same thing and only the Christian's getting, you know, punished.
It's like, okay, a Christian basically said, I think LGBT is kind of unrighteous.
That's it.
That's what he said.
That was the big crime.
He gets fired from his job.
Meanwhile, you know, well, hell, I mean, especially when you look at the corporate thing with the NBA, Miles Bridges was a guy who was arrested and criminally charged with multiple felony counts of domestic violence and child abuse after an alleged assault on the mother of his children.
He only got a 30 game suspension and remained with the team.
Meanwhile, you say that Pride Month is maybe not the most righteous thing in the world and you get cut.
So there's just an inequality and a total unbalance of the way this is being treated.
And I was saying earlier this morning that we have to start, the attack on us through language is profound and significant.
And even communism.
And today I use the term Fox News communist, and I'm sure that would blow a lot of conservative folks' minds, not the people who watch this show, but just, you know, in general.
And the reason why I say is like, we have to start to really hone in on some of these definitions that we just casually have used over the years.
And I think that's true of freedom of speech.
But I'll give you an example, and it's not unrelated to the NBA because they have a significant Jewish lobby influence.
I mean, Adam Silver's father was the founder of Prokeshire in.
New York City, which was the sine qua non of the legal Jewish sphere of influence in New York City and maybe the entire modern world.
I mean, Prokeshire was the law firm.
That the Jewish folks went to because the WASP law firms didn't accept Jews back then, which is just a matter of historical fact.
So it's not by accident Adam Silver's father is the commissioner of the NBA, and they're all lawyers.
And the things that they push in terms of the policies and even the way that they treat some of these players is all intended to be a part of the control of the narrative.
Communism, for example, okay, and we're in a war.
If you believe in the socialization of risk on money that you print that doesn't really exist on the backs of future working class sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, and then you try and paper the whole thing over by placing the interest and burden back on those same people, and then you have a global dollar empire that's based on your currency, you know, the strength and value of your currency or the faith in your currency, you're a communist.
Like, if you print money, if you print money that you don't have and then you send it to a military industrial complex for a world away and you socialize the risk on the working class, you're a communist.
And we just have to get razor sharp about how we define these issues.
Because right now, I'm saying anybody who's supporting this war in Iran, in theory and in principle, is a communist.
Now, I'm not saying there's not a certain level of socialism throughout our entire country and throughout our entire society, American society or culture.
Because there is a certain amount of socialism we accept.
But if you tune into Fox News, they'll go, Governor Tim Waltz, he's unfit to be the governor of Minnesota or any state, or certainly vice president, because he said socialism, one man's socialism is another man's neighborliness.
And I would certainly agree that there's only a degree of separation, if that, between socialism and communism.
I could tell you exactly what they do because it happened to me.
They threaten you.
That's what they do.
See, people, and this is this, I probably should have led with this.
I'm caught up in the geopolitics because I'm running for U.S. Senate.
But as far as a personal anecdote about the NBA and how it works, people forget that I fought for mental health policy, not the woke transgender mental health policy.
I mean, legitimate, like, hey, people are struggling with.
Alcohol abuse and drug addiction and anxiety and depression and PTSD from growing up on the south side of Chicago under Marxist Democrats makes you feel like you lived through Fallujah, right?
It's about a degree of difference between Fallujah, Iraq, and the 90s or 2000s in the south side of Chicago.
But, um, You know, I fought the NBA on mental health policy then, and they're so brazen and arrogant.
They actually had the audacity to tell me, young man, you're right about the mental health crisis.
You're right about the lack of policy, but who are you to force us to do it?
You don't have any money yet.
You don't have a lot of notoriety or fame.
And we are the gatekeepers to the very things you would need to push this cause forward.
So you can either shut up and wait until you're a little more famous and rich to.
To be a trailblazer, a pioneer about this specific social issue, which has exploded now nationwide and worldwide.
There's a full blown mental health crisis.
I would say it's more in pathomania and mass formation psychosis.
But all in all, it's a mental health crisis.
And they told me straight up and down you can shut up and play along, and then we'll help you do everything you want to do.
Or you can keep talking and you'll be a joke in the ash bin of history.
And I actually told David Stern.
In a conversation that the both of us had, that he was going to die before I did, and that God will not be mocked.
And at the end of the day, they could keep their money, they can have their money, they can have their superficial fame and status.
But here I am anyway, and I'm going to continue to fight.
A lot of these players don't have that same courage.
They feel that their identity, when you grow up as a basketball player from five years old, that's all you've ever done, especially with any rigorous discipline, your entire identity is wrapped up in the sport.
And so you finally make it to the pinnacle, your dream comes true, and you have these people who you've never met pull you into a back room, a black room, no pun intended, pull you into a back room and threaten to take your dream away from you.
Of course, a lot of people are going to fold under that pressure.
I mean, the loose camaraderie that comes through in the promotion of basketball is just that it's very loose behind the scenes.
I mean, they may try and run that gamut on you like, hey, you're going to mess up the chemistry if you, but you got to remember Michael Jordan, the greatest player of all time, took his own private plane away from the other players because, hell, he was Michael Jordan.
Right.
In many ways, he had earned that right.
And I'm not against that.
I mean, from a meritocratic standpoint, if Michael Jordan wanted to take two unicorns to the basketball game, fair play to him, right?
Because he earned that.
He's the greatest of all time.
But, you know, that's probably not as much as your agent would come to you, you know, maybe your financial advisor, maybe, you know, somebody from one of the shoe companies from the endorsement side of things, maybe your publicist, right?
And they have these backdoor channels to the league or the commissioner or, you know, the team administration.
And there's a conversation that happens behind your back about the betterment of your career and your financial stability and your mother and father.
They get them on the phone or on the plane to come in and say, hey, don't forget, we got to keep paying for your little brother's private school.
And then when all else fails, they'll just wage a full blown media propaganda campaign against you, like they're doing to this young man right now.
There's actually a thread of social media that would suggest.
This kid isn't good enough to have an opinion that's controversial, which is blatantly immoral, right?
Just in principle.
I mean, Who cares how many points he's scoring?
Why should that even impact what he's saying, if he has a right to, and if it's true?
And then, obviously, that he's bigoted, right?
That he's hateful for even saying there's an unrighteousness to this propaganda, which is them doubling down on the communist color revolution, that there are no sexual ethics or morals anymore.
Unless your name is President Trump or anybody else who wants to run for office, then any woman you ever slept with or even looked at becomes a cudgel that's going to be used against you.
There was a decision yesterday about conversion therapy.
My argument always was like, you can either ban both or ban neither, but obviously there's an ideological monopolization that's going on where they're saying you have to promote pride, which is a moral framework that is different and contrary to Christianity.
They're saying you cannot promote Christianity, you have to promote pride.
I mean, if that's not a violation of the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment and freedom of religion, I don't know what is.
I'm not sure how we've gotten to this place, but we certainly need to do something fast to get out of it.
And again, like I said earlier, I think the war is a world away.
You know, there are two competing theories.
And one, you could say, hey, President Trump just wanted to remind the Muslims that we will do violence because there is a doormat Christianity that pervades all of Western society.
And that's part of what we're talking about here this doormat Christianity has been crushed under the Supreme Court or the courts down the trough here in this country.
It's been crushed by the corporatocracy.
Christianity is getting crushed at every angle.
So, at least the president had the military to send a gut punch, a reminder to the Muslims hey, we will do violence.
We're not just going to sit back and watch this.
So, there's that theory of the case.
And then there's the theory of the case that even if you accept that that is true and maybe necessary, the real crisis of an intifada, of a communist color revolution, of the traitors in the courts or in the Senate or in the House, it's right here at home.
I mean, the front line, the front wave, first wave of that war is right here in the belly of the beast.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, where Ilhan Omar seems all but undefeated, you know, can't be defeated in her district.
I mean, that tells you where the fight really is.
It's not in Tehran or anywhere in the Middle East.
There's so much more to get into because this really does sort of touch everything that we're talking about today.
It does have to do with the Iran war and the effects that it's Having here and the effects of Israel and trying to push anti Semitism bills.
I mean, we are very rapidly, literally losing the First Amendment because we're not fighting for it, because we're not standing up for ourselves.
And I see sort of a similarity.
I always talk about how, you know, the leftist view of race is very sort of a weird, inverted white supremacy where they go, you know, white people are fine.
We don't have to protect ourselves.
We don't need any, you know, defense.
We're white people.
We'll be fine.
It's like, no, you won't.
And it's almost the same with Christianity where it's just like, we're Christian.
We're all Christian.
It's fine.
It's like, no, you can go away too.
You deserve protection too.
More with Royce White on the other side.
Don't go anywhere.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
This is The War Room.
I'm your host, Harrison Smith, joined by Royce White.
He, of course, hosts the Sunday night show here on InfoWars, does an incredible job with that every Sunday evening.
You can get to his website by going to RoyceWhite.us and you can follow him on X at highwayunderscore30.
We're talking about all sorts of stuff, but sort of centralizing our discussion on the fact that the Bulls NBA team has waived Jaden Ivey after.
Anti-religion LGBTQ rants is how the New York Post puts it, or as a post millennial.
Pro sports players stand up for Jaden Ivey as he's canceled by Chicago Bulls over Christian beliefs.
I think that's a more accurate headline.
It does feel a little bit different this time, though, doesn't it, Royce?
I mean, we've seen this not the first time somebody's been canceled for something like this, but he hasn't apologized.
It seems like the outrage I'm seeing is a lot more.
And there are a lot of pro athletes, even if they're not coming out blatantly and saying it, they're making social media posts just saying, hey, Jesus is king, you know, and just sort of signaling, hey, I stand with Jaden.
Does this feel different to you?
Does this signal a shift in the wider consciousness?
You know, and I think overall your athletes are going to look.
A part of this communist color revolution that's not really talked about so much right now is the attempt to take some of the youngest, strongest men in our society, which some of these professional athletes are some of the most incredible human beings to ever live.
I mean, in the history of human civilization, some of the things they can do physically and movement wise is next to supernatural.
And there is a sort of cultural.
Effect and intent to take the strongest young men amongst us and neuter them, emasculate them, you know, and turn them into eunuchs, put them in dresses, and normalize this effeminate, which then becomes homosexual or in the worst case scenario, transgender mentality.
And so I think naturally, as we track along here, people gotta remember these things happen over long courses of time.
Or sometimes over a longer course of time.
As we track along here, the American professional sports culture, the excellence, the mastery of skill, the hard work and discipline it takes to become a high level professional athlete is so diametrically opposed to everybody's equal egalitarianism of the far left.
There's naturally going to be a friction and a collision at some point.
I just think that this Jay Nivey story and the Christian piece of it.
Is the fuel, is fueling something that's a powder keg already.
Because you can't take men who believe in merit just naturally from their career or their passion, the thing that they're good at.
You can't take those men and tell them everybody should be equal and then tell them, well, you're not equal if you believe in Christ.
It's like, what kind of racket is that?
So I think naturally this thing is going to unravel.
The question is, will we be able to hold the country long enough?
Will we be able to even keep in the fight long enough to take back some of the institutions, right?
I mean, that's the whole point of deconstructing the administrative state and going against the deep state and shattering the security state and all the things that the MAGA movement said that it was planning to do.
And some of them we're doing, some of them we haven't done.
I'm in favor, I'm a maximalist.
I'm in favor of doing radical things like let's arrest some United States senators and Supreme Court justices.
I think President Trump should arrest.
Chief Justice Roberts.
I always hearken people back to Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and telling Chief Justice Tawney, as the rumor goes, told Chief Justice Tawney in the United States versus Merriman decision if you release Merriman or any of these other Confederates, I'm going to arrest you next.
And he understood the dire nature of the situation.
And I don't know that President Trump either does or that the American people have the stomach for him to go maximalist.
I know we all say we want that, but I kind of get the sense.
If he went max, over half, and maybe more than over half of the Republican caucus would.
Would sponsor his impeachment papers the next day.
You know, if he was to actually arrest John Thune on dereliction of duty charges for withholding secure elections from American citizens, I think your average Republican would say that's a step too far.
And, you know, and I say that for a reason.
I use that example to draw back to the NBA.
I think a lot of Fox News communists look at professional sports and what happened with Colin Kaepernick, and they're so, and rightfully so, Discontent with what's happened to American professional sports, they say, oh, well, this is unacceptable.
Well, what if President Trump put out an executive order and we were going to bring down the hammer, some harsh penalties or sanctions on some of these companies that were anti Christian?
Would Republicans say that that's an overreach of the executive?
And I tend to think that they would.
So, we find ourselves in a peculiar situation where people know what the problem is, but they don't necessarily want to take the prescription or the cure.
And again, even from a cultural standpoint, when you talk about the makeup of an NBA team, half of those players on each team don't believe in God in the first place.
I mean, or they only casually or loosely believe in God, much like a lot of the 501c3 Christians all across our great nation here.
We don't live in a Christian nation.
We live in a nation that should be Christian, that was intended to be predominantly Christian, but we're so far from that, it's almost laughable at this point, right?
Because if you're a Christian nation, You don't let communists and Satanists and pedophiles take over just from the outset.
I mean, that would be a non starter.
It isn't a non starter.
But so half of those players on those teams don't even believe in God.
The other half are frightened to lose financial security in what is a very financially insecure environment nationwide.
I mean, we have real financial insecurity that's widespread.
So, I mean, imagine you're accustomed to the high life.
You don't want to lose that.
And this goes to a much deeper issue of.
Radical materialism and communism and Marxism and the reduction of the human existence down to price.
And we have to understand, all of us, and even President Trump.
That's why I don't like when he says, oh, me and President Xi have a good relationship.
No, you don't.
He wants to kill you.
Because, again, if Iran is being subsidized by China and an Iron Triangle alliance and the Iranians sanctioned a hit on the president, that would mean China sanctioned a hit on the president.
So he's not your friend.
But what we can definitively say about China is that.
They are a nation led by tyrannical and authoritarian engineers.
We are a nation that wanted to be a nation of ideas and laws.
So naturally, we're a nation led by.
Lawyers.
When you put tyrannical engineers versus crony capitalist lawyers, the tyrannical engineers win nine times out of ten.
And so the question we have to ask ourselves is is there any scenario where a nation ruled by lawyers, in general, lawyers, can beat a nation ruled by tyrannical engineers?
I think the answer is yes, but the premium on the rule of law and the integrity of the institutions that uphold the rule of law.
Has to be almost unimpeachable, unassailable.
And we're so far from that, that in and of itself is almost a concession to our defeat by the Chinese because we don't, I mean, we're inverted.
We think of the law as something that should almost axiomatically be corrupt.
Like, yeah, well, it's the law, of course.
It's pay to play.
I mean, if you can't afford a good lawyer, of course the judge is going to slap you, hit you with the book Alex Jones in a civil case where you owe a billion dollars.
I mean, this thing is, I thought it was out of control then.
Right when Alex Jones was sued and they awarded a billion dollars, I said, Oh, tyranny, right?
And people kind of looked at it, even on the right, and said, Well, yeah, Alex Jones deserved it, he shouldn't have been running his mouth like that.
Well, now you get a Christian, young Christian man who says, Hey, the LGBTQ is a little unrighteous, and the NBA drops, you know, drops, throws a book at him, you know, metaphorically.
And then the same conservatives who okayed Alex Jones being sued into oblivion are now mad that the Christian can't say what he wants.
Yeah, that has to hollow out our country, has to undermine our foundational beliefs.
And they often do it by sort of using our own beliefs against us.
And I mean, this is something I say all the time is like, you're not a good person for being taken advantage of.
People really think that it's like mean to defend yourself, it's mean to lay down the law.
It's like, no.
Mercy to the guilty is violence to the innocent, right?
You have to be hardcore about this stuff.
And you're right.
I don't understand how we've gone so far off the mark.
And it seems like, especially, I mean, even like when arguing with the leftists, it's like, all right, you like all these things like welfare and the government money come to you.
Shouldn't they be the ones who are concerned about the fraud?
They don't care about the fraud for some reason.
It's like, we have to have more hardcore laws here.
We have to have people stick to it.
The judges won't convict anybody.
Somebody just stole tens of millions of dollars.
This woman, Zamzam, her name is Zamzam.
She was just convicted.
I think $40 million, if I'm not mistaken, that she stole.
She was asked to pay back less than half a million dollars.
She'll spend six months in prison.
By August this year, she'll be back in Somalia with tens of millions of stolen dollars.
And it's like, that's the justice system.
Meanwhile, I'm sure you've heard the story a guy's facing 10 years for cheating in a fishing tournament.
It's like everything has gone off the rails, Roy.
It's like, how?
And the problem is that our system is so broken now, it's opening up an opportunity for the communists, for the radicals, for the revolutionaries to come in and go, This system's messed up.
You need us.
You need our new amazing system that I promise is going to make everything right.
How do we fix the system while still trying to uphold the system?
I mean, Aristotle's fifth book of politics tells us that women and slaves love tyrants.
We got a lot of women running this country, but we also have a lot of slaves, debt slaves, wage slaves, right?
So, I mean, I think the dark truth is people crave tyranny because it's convenient.
It's easy.
It's easy, yeah.
And we take the benefits.
It's like the Somali community, for example.
Oh, ICE is terrorizing us.
Oh, the federal government's overreaching.
This is tyranny.
Well, you accept the subsidies.
You can't have.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have a government that's inflated well beyond its rightful size and think that tyranny isn't going to, you're not going to feel the sting of tyranny.
And then say, oh, well, but it's okay because I still get my social programs.
And that's the left right now.
Of course, they don't care if Somalis, because we're printing more money.
As long as they get their snap benefits, they don't care if, and this is the danger.
This is what they would call in the financial sector moral hazard.
The sort of subtle unintended consequences of certain financial instruments and mechanisms.
Like, if you're going to print money and there's no penalty, no real penalty or consequences for stealing money or losing money, Department of Defense, hey, we lost another $2 trillion.
What the hell?
Doesn't matter.
If there's no consequences, as I've said for many years, even when I was back on Jason Whitlock's show, when your government steals, everybody steals.
See, this is how the Republicans really get us, though.
They want our political identity to be attached to the cultural wedge issues just as much as the left, because it's easy for them to control the narrative around cultural wedge issues.
Even the LGBTQ women playing in men's sports, my Senate opponent, Michelle Tafoya, her whole campaign is we got to get men out of women's sports.
It's like, you want to be a United States Senate.
And I get that's ridiculous and an abomination that we've allowed that to happen, but talk to me about monetary policy.
Talk to me about foreign policy.
Talk to me about.
Legacy institutions that have generations of corruption throughout.
Don't talk to me about a couple of weird, tranny dudes playing in sports.
That goes without saying, right?
Or should.
But the Fox News MO is pay attention to the young black men who are snatching bags out of department stores.
It's like, well, you could take every black person in America and add up all the merchandise they've stolen for the last 100 years, and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket.
For $2 trillion that the Department of Defense just misplaced.
Like we're doing it ourselves, we're enforcing it on ourselves.
And I think you're exactly right because our whole system depends on precedent, right?
And this is always the excuse from the Republicans well, we can't do that because what if they come back and do it to us?
That doesn't work when the left routinely does things that are unprecedented, routinely does things that have no precedent at all in law or justice or morality or anything.
Because, you know, like you said, like once the scuffle breaks out, you know, it's all bets are off, clear the dugouts, let's go.
But even in smaller ways, it's like if you're playing on team and they go, oh, well, we don't play that.
We don't play offsides.
We don't play whatever it is.
You know, we do a change rule.
And it's like, okay, that's the new rule.
Now you have to play by that.
So, okay, if they want to.
Throw people in jail for January 6th.
I guess that's the new rule.
I guess we have to play by that.
And that actually is the reason why, you know, the precedent setting works is because we need Democrats to go, ooh, if we do that, they're going to do it to us.
But they know we're not going to do it to them, so they can do whatever the hell they want.
And Republicans will sit there following the rules that are no longer valid.
I said it the other day about when I did the show on Sunday about the 1776 mantra.
So often invoked by conservatives, and it's like, well, you know, what about law enforcement?
I mean, we have a default position on the right that comes from the conservative Fox News communists that says anything a cop tells you to do ever, you should just listen, you should obey.
It's like, uh, excuse me, what did you just say?
Uh, what if they tell me I have to take a vaccine or provide my vaccine mandate papers?
Do I still have to obey and listen?
Oh, well, that wouldn't happen.
Oh, really?
It would, Mark Levin, you're vaccinated, buddy.
I mean, and we know it.
And I don't mean to keep picking on him, but he has become, you know, sort of the titular head of Conservative Inc. and the messaging and narrative.
And it's just like, where do these people get off with these type of brazen contradictions?
Their logic is so flawed.
And the fact that people are even willing to listen to them, let alone follow them, is a sign of a decadent culture.
But I hope we, you know, we could turn it around.
I'm not, I haven't, you can't preclude miracles, especially during Holy Week, right?
Christ is risen and miracles are possible.
So, we could turn it around, but we need some hellacious fighters right now to step up and just say things like you are.
If you support the war in Israel, you're a communist.
Why?
Socialism and communism are only a degree away, and we're socializing the risk of our phony money in order to fund the war.
So, you're just as much of a socialist as the Somalis who stole state taxpayer money.
Well, I just think we're at a point now where we can't rely on the Supreme Court or any other courts to adjudicate that type of justice or fairness, interpretation of the laws that we already have.
A commander in chief, a warrior philosopher, is going to have to take power in this country at some point and bring down the hammer.
Now, I'm not ever for rounding people up and having kangaroo witch hunt lawfare or weaponized courts, but some of these things are sort of explicitly anti Christian, anti American, anti human.
It's like, look at what happened in Spain.
Euthanasia?
I mean, where are we headed?
We know where we're headed.
We're looking at the inevitability of what we will become.
When we see a euthanization carried out on a 24 year old young, healthy bodied, abled woman in Spain, in Europe.
And then we're paying to subsidize their territorial integrity.
It's like at the moment where they lose the sanctity of life, we should be pulling out of NATO.
And that should just be a matter of principle and morality.
But we don't have that moral structure.
Okay, fine.
If the rules are there are no morals, then let's just call it that.
Let's just say that.
I mean, but let's not say we're going to fight a war for Israel on behalf of Christianity and, you know, our morals.
We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if we had more.
RoyceWhite.us at highway30 on X. Thank you so much for being here with us, sir.
It's very, very interesting times we live in, and the cultural landscape is shifting underneath us.
I do want to remind you to go to thealexjonesstore.com to support everything that we do here.
We're running out of Faraday bags, so get yours while you still can.
Stay tuned.
I'll be joined.
Very shortly by Tiffany Cianci with some breaking news about pesticide law that nobody else has.
This is an exclusive coming up.
All right, folks, welcome back.
It is 5 o'clock Central Time here on April 1st, and we are eagerly awaiting the launch of the Artemis rocket to and around the moon, supposedly.
And if that happens while we're live, we'll certainly go to it.
It is something to note.
We are still capable of great things.
We can never tear ourselves away from the misery and chaos we seem obsessed with causing all around us.
We could reach for the stars, it is possible.
And that's worth reminding ourselves.
Now, we'll keep an eye on that.
We're also going to keep an eye on President Trump's big announcement that should be coming up later today.
But I'll be joined shortly by Tiffany Sianci with some exclusive information about pesticides and some communication she's been in with some of the people on Capitol Hill.
I'm going to start with a short report by her.
So we'll go now to this Tiffany Sianci video.
And when we get back after a short commercial break, I'll be joined by Tiffany Sianci herself with some exclusive information you're not going to find anywhere else.
As now pesticide companies cannot be held responsible even if their products cause people harm.
So, the state of Kansas has ruled on the side of Bear Monsanto, saying that they deserve a liability shield so people cannot sue Bear Monsanto in the state of Kansas if pesticides cause them health problems.
So, even if the pesticides cause cancer, neurological problems, liver failure, You cannot sue Bear Monsanto now in the state of Kansas.
Now, this bill was passed by Republicans because Bear Monsanto had been lobbying the state of Kansas for months, but the Democrat governor of Kansas was set to veto the bill.
However, the Republican supermajority overruled the governor.
And now in the state of Kansas, if pesticides cause harm to you, you cannot be compensated for that.
The pesticide companies are immune from litigation.
They have a shield now.
So if you're working in the farm fields using Roundup and you get liver disease from the Roundup, it's not Roundup's fault, it's your fault.
You get cancer from using their product, they didn't warn you with the label.
That's not their fault, it's somehow your fault.
Little kid gets a neurological disorder from being exposed to too many pesticides.
Guess what?
You cannot sue Bear Monsanto, nor can you be compensated.
You get sick and you pay for it yourself, and then you fucking die.
Eat shit, asshole.
By the way, just so you know, there are about 15 pieces of legislation backed by Bear Monsanto giving them a shield so you can't sue them or get compensation if their products cause you harm.
Also, they're trying to do that at the Supreme Court.
Arguments being held at the end of this month.
The pesticide company Bear Monsanto that makes Roundup are doing everything in their power to make sure that they're not held responsible if their products make you sick.
They don't even want to up.
Update the label saying it might cause harm.
They want to pretend everything is good.
Even if new evidence comes out saying their shit makes you sick, they want a liability shield so they don't have to tell the general public.
That's what they're fighting for right now.
And the state of Kansas, the Republicans there, drank the Kool Aid.
The people's voice in this country doesn't even matter at this point.
It's whatever corporations and lobbyists want.
That's it.
You have no voice whatsoever.
It doesn't matter if you vote Democrat, Republican, socialist, communist, fascist.
There's the live footage of the Artemis. Spacecraft that will soon be taking American astronauts to the dark side of the moon where I vacation.
Very exciting stuff.
A reminder that if we felt like it, that this could be what we turn all of our energy towards.
Wouldn't that be something?
Exploring space, achieving great things, conquering unknown vistas.
No, no.
Instead, we're being bankrupt by Somali scammers going to war in Iran for a foreign state.
And now it's legal to poison us, apparently.
So we're going to talk about that with Tiffany Sianci.
We're getting connected with her right now.
In the meantime, I'd like to go to a few stories here that don't really fit in with our other topics.
And this first one, I'd like to go to clip 44 after this.
But the report from NBC News as of yesterday says Medicaid cuts threaten hundreds of hospitals.
New report.
Fines.
So more than 400 hospitals, they say, across the United States are at high risk of closing or cutting services because of the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's big, beautiful bill, according to get this, an analysis from progressive watchdog group Public Citizen.
Now, a new warning, a thousand miles away in New York City, where officials tell us resources are overwhelmed.
Across public hospitals in New York City, over the last year, nearly 30,000 visits by migrants and 300 new babies born to migrant moms.
Staff here at Bellevue Hospital tell us they're eager to help, but the numbers are tough.
This has been the hardest work that I've ever done, but it's been the most impactful work that I've ever done.
And most of the visits to the taxpayer funded legal clinic here are by migrants.
Our clinics are full and there are waiting lists, and people are turning people away or referring them to other places.
Randy Redkin from New York's Legal Assistance Group says so many migrants are asking for legal help on asylum representation and health care access.
Now, she says, American citizens who need legal assistance with issues like eviction and insurance have to wait up to 10 weeks.
If you ask me, do we need more resources for legal services, I would say absolutely yes.
Meanwhile, New York's governor now slamming the situation at the border.
It is too open right now.
People coming from all over the world are finding their way through, simply saying they need asylum.
And New York Mayor Eric Adams saying providing services for migrants will cost city taxpayers $12 billion.
But Biden administration officials have blamed Adams' response.
It is not an operationally sound effort, one senior DHS official told NBC News.
Meanwhile, migrants on the streets are desperate for city help.
We met Orlando, who fled violence in Venezuela.
He didn't want to appear on camera, telling us he slept on the street before coming to Bellevue for cancer treatment.
How is that for you, given your medical condition, to be sleeping on the street?
You have to make believe it's a good bed, a king size, and you lie down wherever and go to sleep, he says.
Orlando tells us he came to New York because he heard about the social services the city would offer to migrants like himself who are trying to start a new life.
The Biden administration recently granted temporary legal status to nearly half a million Venezuelans, allowing them to work.
Today, Governor Hochul announced there are 18,000 jobs now available to eligible migrants.
Stay updated on how the Biden administration is systematically destroying your country, and we're covering for him.
Remember, y'all just, that was a little trip back to the past, what it used to be like in old 2023.
Outrageous, insane, treasonous.
Every single part of that, everybody involved needs to be charged with something.
So that's actually the problem.
The actual problem with America's hospitals is not that they're inefficient.
Well, they are deeply inefficient.
Actually, there's another problem on top of all of it, which if we come to DotCam, the 3,000% growth in administrators versus doctors, HHS cuts target the real problem.
So, yeah, this chart, this is growth over time starting from 1970 to 2009.
You can see the number of physicians basically remained entirely flat.
Like, hardly raises at all.
Meanwhile, the administrators look like friggin' Mount Everest over here.
This is the problem.
Like, we have this thing in America where you look at just the latest bill versus the money that we have, and it's like, oh my God, we need more money.
Well, what about the bill?
What is added to this bill?
How about we go back in time and we undo some of the problems that got us to this point?
Hospitals in America, like, we're America.
We are the pioneers of modern hospital technology the world over.
Like, it has nothing to do with us.
It has nothing to do with us.
If Americans were left alone, our hospitals would continue to be the best in the world.
They'd also be incredibly cheap and affordable and efficient and available for you at any time.
Instead, what's happened is you had Obamacare come in and make insurance utterly unaffordable for anybody because you gave a blank check to the insurance companies to write to themselves.
Charging whatever the hell they want for whatever the hell they want.
And they're in cooperation with the hospitals when they do this.
This is how you get things like, you know, $20 for an aspirin pill because no real human beings having to pay for it.
The insurance company is, you know, billing you over time and that cost will be spread out.
They'll get their money.
Hospitals get their money.
All of this facilitated by the interruption of business by the government coming in and trying to make it cheaper for everybody.
Excuse me, made it significantly worse for everybody.
Then on top of that, you have migrants coming in who don't pay for health care.
For them, there's universal health care in America.
Not for you.
If you go to the hospital, you'll be stuck with a medical bill.
You'll have to go bankrupt if you can't pay for it, or you'll be denied your pre existing conditions.
For the illegal immigrants that come in, they go to the hospital, they get whatever the hell they need, then they walk out, and the bill gets sent to you.
They set this up to be this way.
And of course, the incentive for the migrants becomes go to the hospital for whatever.
It literally costs them nothing.
So now, if you fall off a ladder and break your leg and are sitting in the waiting room with extreme pain, You know, trying to get your body fixed, you're sitting behind 50 illegal immigrants who are there for a because they have the sniffles.
Why wouldn't they go to the ER?
Like, we have to think about it, right?
Americans have to go, ooh, is this worth the $1,000 ambulance ride and the $2,000 hospital stay?
Is it really that big or can I walk this off or can I, you know, book my doctor in a month and still be okay then?
We actually have to take that into consideration.
You wouldn't have to if it was free.
And by free, I mean somebody else paying for it.
So, but we don't look at any of this.
It's like, how did the hospital become insolvent?
Well, participation of the government, the expansion of Medicaid, the fact that they're allowing illegal immigrants to take advantage of our system.
And I believe in California, I think I have this right.
What they would do would be basically hide the fact that it was an illegal alien.
And they would basically charge all the illegal alien stuff through Medicaid or Medicare.
Basically, pretending like it was what they needed just for Americans' treatment.
They just hide where the money was actually going, that it was going to people who don't qualify for these things.
But we don't look at any of that.
For some reason, we cannot possibly go back and say, how did we get to this point?
It's like all we can do is just provide more money as a patch on the problem, which means we're never getting to the underlying fundamental disconnect at play, which means the problems are only going to get worse, especially when you have.
Everything that contributed to the insolvency of the modern medical system only getting worse over time, only being exacerbated, only with more and more migrants coming in and taking advantage of our system and doing it because they want to take advantage of our system.
Like in that video report you just saw, it's like, oh, he came here because he knew that New York would treat his cancer.
Like, doesn't everywhere else in the world have, are we constantly being told that America is this evil, unique country that doesn't have universal healthcare?
How about we just send them all to Canada?
How about if they want to have universal health care, we have a next door neighbor that provides such a service?
What if everybody who comes to America and goes to an American hospital gets put in a vacuum tube and shot straight to Canada?
I think that would be a good solution because, in effect, they're like forcing us to have the worst parts of universal health care.
We pay endlessly for universal health care for people who never paid into it in the first place, have never paid taxes here in America.
What the hell are we doing?
Everything is like this.
Why is literally everything like this?
Where's the reset button?
How do we power down for a decade and then power back up?
Because our problem is that we're working with a legacy system, essentially.
Especially if you're like a computer programmer, or, you know, if you, it's always easier to start with a blank slate, right?
The old joke why was, how did God create the world in seven days?
Well, he wasn't working with a legacy system.
He didn't have to figure out all of the nuances that had been established over decades that don't make any sense anymore.
Whether it's the birthright citizenship law or the healthcare situation, it's like somehow, and it's weird because it's almost always the Democrats who are doing this.
And there's a phenomenon almost in which whatever the Democrats put into place just becomes permanent.
And it's like unthinkable to even suggest that we could undo it at some point.
That's what happened with the Supreme Court, or it wasn't a Supreme Court, but the state court decision today about immigration.
And saying basically, well, you know, the Biden administration decided all of a sudden to create an app so people could circumvent the asylum system by clicking a button on their phone and.
There's no precedent for him to be able to do that.
There's nothing about this app that qualifies people for asylum.
They literally just decided to not enforce the law they're obligated to enforce.
And now we can't undo that.
Now, apparently, because they did that once, it's just that's the case forever.
Now, from here until evermore, anybody they came across is an asylum seeker and I guess a citizen.
And anybody else who wants to come across can use that same app.
And it's just that's the way it is.
How about we go back and we just undo all of the bad things?
It's not actually that.
Complicated or hard to figure out how to do it.
Only the way this stuff is designed is to get us into these quagmires, is to get us into these circumstances where, okay, implementing this thing is easy and no one's going to really stop you because it's not affecting anybody personally, right?
It would take, like, for us to stop the CBP1 app, we'd have to, like, file a case showing that the CBP1 app was used to hurt us personally and we'd have to have a dollar amount fixed to it.
Like, our system is not set up to deal with these things.
What it's set up to do is implement these massive, sweeping changes across all of society.
And then make it impossible to ever get back.
They can implement it.
No issues, no problems.
It's just done.
They just destroy the foundational identity of our country, the fact that we have borders.
They just eradicate that.
Nobody stops them.
They do it with a wave of the hand.
But if you want to undo that, it's impossible.
Now you're talking about hurting people because, well, people came across here with the CBP1 app.
They would be the ones who were kicked out.
So they are able to hire lawyers with money from NGOs or probably from the government themselves and argue.
Hey, this change in law hurts me personally.
I need an injunction.
And so they can implement this stuff with no barriers to undo it, it is impossible.
And this is ridiculous and a game they're playing.
And I say we flip the board and do what we need to anyway because we're trying to save the country and, in effect, the world here.
Tiffany Sianci is an activist raising awareness about the critical.
Threat that private equity poses to American society.
She's raising the alarm and putting pressure on private equity firms that are covertly monopolizing entire industries by using hostile takeovers and kangaroo courts.
You can learn how to fight back by following her on X at TheVinoMom or by going to TiffanySciancy.com.
Of course, she's here to talk about pesticides.
You keep a lot of plates spinning in the air, Tiffany, and have your finger on a lot of pulses of what's going on.
And it's all terrible.
Everything happening to us is terrible, but we're happy to have you to.
Yeah, it was all Republicans, really disappointing.
It's been relentless this entire legislative term, not just in the states, not just in the federal level.
We've seen pesticide immunity popping up in every state that has significant numbers of farmers or farming as a significant point of GDP for them.
And it's all been funded.
And I want to point out, Bear Monsanto is a German company.
They're not Americans.
This is a German company spending tens of millions of dollars.
To avoid tens of billions of dollars in liability for killing our farmers.
And they are spending tens of millions of dollars this legislative session to save themselves tens of billions.
Well, so today, one good thing that we did have happen is we had three groups that are MAHA aligned submit amicus briefs to the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to not grant pesticide immunity at their oral arguments on April 27th.
And Senator Cory Booker also had his staff submit an amicus brief.
Saying that American farmers need to be able to have a private right of action to sue a company that knowingly withholds information or fails to provide information that they are prone to giving you cancer, non Hodgkin's lymphoma, liver disease, kidney disease.
These are things that, first of all, glyphosate seems to be the pesticide that is primarily at the heart of these issues.
Well, oftentimes our EPA has relied on a study they've cited that said that glyphosate was safe.
That study has now been overturned by courts that found out that Bear, Monsanto, and their allies funded that study and had their own sources ghostwrite it.
So it's no longer valid.
It's been vacated.
But that's the study they're relying on to say, oh, we said it was safe, so nobody should be able to sue when we kill them.
You know, Monsanto and Bear, I mean, they've been discovered having.
You know, black ops sections in their company that are there to intimidate journalists to stop them from saying the truth about pesticides, allegedly, I should add.
But I mean, this has been written about for years.
I mean, they have, they spend a lot of money and they work very hard to make sure that this information is not available.
And, you know, when you see, aside from TikTok ban, I have never seen anything outside of funding our greatest ally that has ever cropped up over and over again in a legislative session like absolute cancer.
Like a virus.
We have defeated pesticide immunity literally a dozen times this legislative session.
The American people have made it clear 98% of them do not support this.
They don't want pesticide immunity granted to these companies because what company has ever needed immunity when they weren't doing anything wrong?
Yeah, you know, right now we have literally a 20 front war on this pesticide initiative, right?
We have them fighting in every state in the United States.
We have them fighting with multiple mechanisms, multiple weapons.
They're trying to do it in state legislatures.
They're trying to do it through, look what happened in Florida.
They almost got through an anti First Amendment bill that said if you said anything bad about a pesticide, you could be held liable for defamation without cause.
Right, we have it going on in Tennessee, Missouri.
We see it in Georgia.
We they've already gotten it through in Georgia and North Dakota.
They're trying to do it in North Carolina right now.
We narrowly defeated it in Wyoming, where it's finally dead.
But now they're also doing it in bill after bill after bill at the federal level.
We saw it in the appropriations bill in the Senate and the appropriations bill in the House.
And now, just in the last couple weeks, they've snuck it back into the farm bill, the same bill that President Trump just toted out at the White House, brought hundreds of farmers to show them how much he loves farmers.
And says that he is pushing for an immediate passage of this farm bill.
Of course, he is.
Bear Monsanto has given his administration $9.125 million.
He has 19 Bear Monsanto planted officials in this administration right now, starting with his chief of staff, Susie Wild, and going all the way down to the mail room.
Of course, he is.
I'm sorry, why can't we pass a farm bill that's good for farmers instead of mega corporations?
I mean, it's that's like almost impossible to ask, too.
And look, I'm not a big fan of Cory Booker, I'm a big fan of him putting an amicus brief before the Supreme Court to stop pesticide immunity.
So it's like just one just add it to the list of things that Republicans should be the champions of.
We should be the champions of farmers, we should be the champions of small businesses.
We should not allow these big corporations that are globalist and totally anti American to come in and literally kill our farmers with no uh recompense.
I mean.
Unbelievably outrageous as always, as it continues to be.
More Tiffany's fiancé on the other side.
Follow her on X at TheVinoMom.
Don't go anywhere.
All right, folks, some interesting things are happening with the planned Artemis launch, the moon mission.
Now, scheduled to launch right about now, right around now.
Crew's keeping an eye on it, and they're like, well, they just changed the clock to 20 minutes.
Well, now it's 10 minutes.
Now we're looking at it two minutes.
Two minutes and four seconds.
Artemis 2 launch, T minus.
Two minutes.
Of course, my guest is Tiffany Sianci.
Tiffany, we're going to take a minute here to celebrate America doing something that I'm not going to complain about.
The American government able to do something.
Who's going to complain about shooting a rocket to the moon?
Somebody, I'm sure.
But hey, we can still achieve great things, can't we, Tiff?
I feel like this could have been such an opportunity for just.
Unifying moment of American exceptionalism.
And unfortunately, we've been doing so many things recently that have undermined generally the working class belief system in American exceptionalism and their ability to participate in that promise that we've missed an opportunity here because of so many things that so many promises that have been broken.
So I love the idea of taking a minute.
I love the idea of seeing us go back to the moon.
I wish we could have done it under better circumstances with more promise and more hope for everybody else.
That's very exciting and it's good to see Americans come together.
You know, I was talking to my father in law a long time ago.
We were all sitting around and sort of talking about, like, if you had a time machine, where would you go back to?
And his answer was, I wish I could have been a part of the space program, right?
Because he was a little kid at the time.
But, you know, and the way you described, like, it's just thousands of people, the whole nation really, it felt like all came together and all that energy and all that effort went into this one thing.
And then there's this one little canister on top of this tower sized rocket.
And it's just like, there's something beautiful about all this cooperation to do something.
You know, brilliant and amazing.
And be nice to recapture some of that.
Feels like we've lost.
Everything about that, the cooperation, the cohesiveness, the reaching for the stars, I mean, all of that has been just degraded and destroyed over time.
It'd be nice to recapture that feeling once again, Tiffany.
And again, it's interesting that you have everything that you're describing.
I mean, just the pesticide, the relentless push to legalize killing you with pesticides, I think is one way to put it.
And on the same day, I guess this was from a week ago, first day I saw it.
2026 Dirty Dozen produce nearly 100% test positive for pesticides, including forever chemicals.
Leafy greens such as spinach and perennial kid favorites such as strawberries and grapes held the highest level of potentially harmful pesticide residues based on government tests.
According to the 2026 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides and Produce, nectarines, peaches, cherries, apples, blackberries, pears, potatoes, and blueberries filled out this year's Dirty Dozen, the most pesticide laden fruits and vegetables.
According to the report, Released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group or EWG, a health advocacy organization.
And of course, pesticides, they're not going to be removed with a little splash of water from your sink, right?
I mean, these pesticides are extremely damaging.
They know that they're damaging.
And again, this is sort of the foreknowledge, condemning thing about this if they didn't know that their product causes cancer, then they wouldn't fake the tests that you were describing about glyphosate being safe.
They did the same thing with atrazine.
They knew atrazine would affect people's hormones.
They knew it could affect wildlife everywhere.
They deliberately went out and hid that information and lobbied the government to not have to provide that information.
That is a guilty conscience.
That's evidence of foreknowledge.
What they're doing is not an accident, it's not an unfortunate side effect of just good business.
They are literally, deliberately doing things that hurt us.
I think that's an important point that not everybody grasps.
If anyone's seen the movie Dark Water, then we all know that DuPont did the same thing with Teflon.
They knew it was killing the women on the line, it was causing birth defects, it was causing cancers.
They were leaching it down into water supplies that were killing entire farms of cattle and then the farmers.
And they knew.
And they told the government it was safe and they buried it in reports and thought they could ride it out long enough to avoid any liability.
And we're just seeing the exact same playbook wash, rinse, repeat.
You know, American farmers, they have it hard enough.
American farmers, we're seeing American farms go out of business at a rate we've never seen before in American history.
We are seeing generations of new farmers that know that there's no future refusing to pick up the shovel.
Genuinely, because they know that right now, four companies, four international non American monopolies have consolidated all of the farming supply chain into a vertical that they control.
And as long as they know what you're going to be paid for your crop, they can maximize extorting every single penny from you so that you never move ahead.
Right now, farmers are making the equivalent of the exact same price they were getting in 1986 for their crops.
Their crops have gone down since the 90s.
And of course, the companies are posting record profits.
These international, non American companies that make their money off of the backs of the exceptionalism of our American farmers that serve American mouths, American children, American schools, Americans.
And these international monopolies are exploiting them, they are extorting them, they are making sure that they never, ever can see its success.
And then they're rolling up the farmland that does fail.
Buying it for pennies on the dollar and consolidating that into their verticals and selling off the water rights to data centers.
And I do want to get into that because that's extremely important right now because we still have a chance to stop this stuff from coming into fruition.
They're trying to very quietly install these data centers everywhere.
And it literally takes all of our water and the entire purpose of them.
I mean, they're like, they're building prison camps essentially.
That's what's happening.
So we got to get to that.
But when it comes to glyphosate and the pesticides, You know, what strikes me is that we have all of this new technology, AI and laser.
And of course, I'm sure you've seen and we've played on here the, you know, examples of prototypes where you got a big machine that just scans plants and zaps each little thing.
What they're doing by forcing pesticides and by demanding people use pesticides and by genetically engineering food so that it requires pesticides is they're preventing any sort of novel invention, any sort of change in operation that typically, like, this is how we arrive at better technology, more efficient, you know, strategy.
Is hey, one thing we were doing isn't working so well, we got to come up with something new.
But they're basically preventing that new thing from ever occurring by forcing pesticides to be the one thing that you can use to get rid of bugs and things that eat plants.
And they couldn't do it if American farmers didn't need farm bills and bailouts.
And all of the subsidies that we're giving to American farmers are being lobbied for by these multinational conglomerates, these monopolies, and they're tying the subsidies we give our farmers to forced use of that money to buy pesticides.
Farmers don't want to use this money for pesticides.
Farmers would love to do more organic farming.
They would love to do more regenerative farming.
They would love to take care of our soil and love to take care of our children with healthy food.
And instead, to survive as a farm, these corporations have forced through their will, through our government, through lobbying, to make it so any money that we subsidize farmers with is tied directly to handing it back to them.
It would not be in use the way that it is were it not that these four corporations control our farmers by controlling every step and every penny they get.
And they forced it to a point where those three days matter enough that the subsidies force them to use this as a desiccant.
And it creates a constant stream of income for Bear Monsanto, in particular, their agricultural division, that also creates a constant stream of income for their ready GMO seeds that work best using it as a desiccant.
And as a result, we end up with sick farmers and sick children and a sick population where we have out of control chronic disease and we refuse to do anything that actually fixes it.
Because if we do anything that actually fixes it, it hurts a mega corporation that made record profits this year, bringing in $100 billion while our farmers went bankrupt at unprecedented rates.
Right now, I can say 98% of Americans support a private right of action to be able to sue.
When a pesticide injures a farmer or an American, 98% of America wants this.
Now, the only way we're going to push it through is if we can get bipartisan sponsorship.
And the farm bill is going to be headed to the Senate very, very soon.
We need co sponsors in the Senate.
We also have the No Glyphosate Immunity Act in the House that is co sponsored by Roe Connor, Thomas Massey, Representative Luna, and a host of others, right?
So we have these two bills that can be reconciled on the cross.
We also are calling on everybody to meet us in DC on April 27th.
I'm going to be there.
There's a whole bunch of creators that are going to be there.
There's going to be a rally on the Supreme Court steps.
We're all going to be speaking.
We're all going to be calling all day long.
But right now, in three states in America, as of today, as of today, in Kentucky, North Dakota, and Georgia, farmers that are dying because of Bear Monsanto can no longer sue them.
Without codifying this bill, this private right of action that Cory Booker introduced, they never will.
But we can restore that capability in the federal courts by passing this bill that 98% of Americans support.
And this is just like the most apparent stuff where it's just like, okay, this guy used Roundup every day for five years and he got cancer in the place where he held the can or whatever.
Like, you know, it's just very obvious where it came from.
But when you think about the other pesticides like atrazine and the classic meme of, you know, they're turning the frickin' frogs gay, I mean, there's subtle damage to humans that are being done, you know, that pesticides do to humans that you can't even really tell, you know, what effect it's having.
It's just sort of after a couple generations, everybody's sick and stupid, and this is why.
So, like, the danger of this is so much more even than just the cancer stuff.
That's just the most apparent and horrifying effects, and that's what they're trying to conceal.
Right now, there was also a recent study that looked at how many of the required by law pesticides were actually labeling cancer risks on their bottles that were required by our EPA to put it there.
And it was like 1.6%.
We don't enforce our laws against corporations, we only enforce them against everyday Americans, and it's exhausting.
The answer is if you're in the DC metro area or you want to jump on a train on the Eastern Seaboard, come meet us on April 27th at Supreme Court Steps.
We'll be there at 9 a.m. and all day long.
You guys can be calling and contacting your senators, your representatives.
We need to get co sponsorship for both of these bills in the House and the Senate.
We need to make it known in every state in the United States that you will not tolerate.
A state initiative.
If you are in Tennessee, if you are in any of the Farm Belt states, you need to be contacting your legislators now and getting ahead of what they're trying to do to your children and your farmers because they're not for sale.
You need to say that no on pesticide immunity, period.