Owen Shroyer argues free speech risks are at an all-time high under Biden, citing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s controversial remarks in Murphy v. Missouri and claims of government censorship—like suppressing reports on vaccine injuries or election fraud (330K votes in Michigan, 350K in Georgia). He frames Israel’s Gaza actions as worsening its reputation despite ADL propaganda, accuses Jewish groups of weaponizing victimhood narratives, and mocks the TikTok ban as a lobby-driven narrative. Callers pile on with claims of Democratic redistricting fraud and Biden’s wasteful $9B/year spending on illegal immigrants, while Shroyer pivots to Nickelback’s "Dark Horse" album, jokingly tying its lyrics to Jackson’s alleged hypocrisy. The episode ties censorship, election integrity, and cultural grievances into a broader establishment conspiracy narrative. [Automatically generated summary]
Biggest Rumble rant tonight will be the recipient of this shirt.
Owen Schroyer did nothing wrong.
What do we got?
A size L in the soft cotton gray.
I believe this is a tri-blend.
Very nice, very soft.
Largest Rumble rant tonight.
I will mail you this shirt.
I'll sign it as well if you want.
We're just going to do, we're just going to do merchandise giveaways, I think, every Monday night here on the show.
I think we'll just do that every Monday night.
So here we are.
Here we are talking about the issue of free speech.
want to take a lot of calls tonight too this issue is not being properly discussed or covered and And in fact, let me even pull up.
I'm going to pull up.
I'm going to be monitoring the mainstream news tonight as well.
But so far, I was monitoring it before I signed on.
And nobody's really talking about this.
I don't get it.
I don't get it.
We have the biggest free speech issues happening in our country right now, and it barely gets any media attention.
Now, the easy explanation would perhaps be the same explanation.
They're all talking about the bloodbath.
All of them are sitting around talking about the bloodbath lie.
That's all it is.
That's been the top story all night.
I get it.
The fake news lies about Trump.
They're also attacking him with the judicial system.
We get it.
So this has been the top story on every show all night long.
And if it's the liberal anti-Trump media, it's how Trump said bloodbath.
If it's the conservative right-wing media, it's about how the left is lying about the context of Trump saying bloodbath.
And all of it should be irrelevant by now.
So why won't the mainstream media touch the issue of free speech?
Because it's not real to them yet.
The average television host, the issue of free speech is not real to them.
In other words, they're not being censored off the internet, and they're not being arrested and incarcerated for their speech.
So it's just not real to them yet.
The minute Sean Hannity gets censored off the internet, the minute Sean Hannity gets arrested for his speech, then it'll be a big deal to him.
But until then, not so much.
Same with the average congressman or woman.
Same with the average talk show host, TV, radio, internet.
all the same.
But there was a significant news story today.
There was an extremely significant news story today dealing with Katenji Brown Jackson, who clearly doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, nowhere near it.
The only reason, the only reason why Katenji Brown Jackson is on the Supreme Court is because she's black.
She might also be a gay.
I don't even know.
But it's all because she's a black woman.
That's it.
And Biden promised he'd put a black woman on the Supreme Court, not the most qualified, not with the most experience, not who deserves it or earned it, but a black woman.
Justice Katenji Brown Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is.
She's got plenty of bling, though.
She knows how to rock some bling, doesn't she?
Doesn't know what a woman is.
Justice Katenji Brown Jackson backs government censorship, First Amendment hamstringing government in significant ways.
So I guess you got to get rid of that pesky First Amendment, don't you?
I guess you just got to get rid of that pesky old First Amendment because it's in your way.
You want to censor American speech, but that First Amendment is in your way.
Now, of course, this opinion, this argument disqualifies her from the Supreme Court, if not the judicial bench altogether.
If you don't understand the basic concept of the First Amendment, if you don't understand the basic concept of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, if you don't understand the Declaration of Independence, if you don't understand that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is there to block government from taking our rights, endowed by our Creator, by God, then you don't belong anywhere near the bench.
Now, this is part of the Supreme Court case to decide on whether the government can coerce social media companies to censor content it doesn't like, including dissenting views on COVID-19 and election integrity.
Now, this all stems from the Biden administration, the Biden regime, the Biden circus, Where they were sending out emails and notifications telling social media companies to censor information on COVID, to censor information on COVID treatments, the vaccine, to censor information on Hunter Biden's laptop and the 2020 election and the 2021 results.
the democrats censoring your free speech and katenji brown jackson says well yeah the government should censor speech but that first amendment is in the way
And as C.S. Hollywood points out in the chat, yeah, me covering this case could affect my case going in front of the Supreme Court.
But see, here's the thing about that: I have to live with this.
Most of what I do now is scrutinized by the highest levels of government.
Whenever I talk about the Supreme Court, whenever I talk about the Biden administration, whenever I talk about certain prosecuting attorneys, district attorneys, what have you, I am under the scrutiny of the federal government, and anything I say can be used or will be used against me to try to throw me in jail again.
Trust me.
I've been basically told so much.
So I had to make a decision.
I have two options.
I guess maybe you could say three, but I basically have two options.
Either I continue to do my news coverage and my commentary, not in fear of being punished by the government for it, even though that's a very real scenario that I've already been faced with.
Talk about free speech being under attack.
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but since it gets brought up in the comments, I can either continue to do my news coverage and my commentary without being fearful of being thrown back in jail by the federal government, which is a threat every day, or I can censor myself.
I can live in fear of the government throwing me back in jail, which is what they want.
Therefore, hurting my coverage, hurting my commentary, and not delivering the information in the manner in which you tune in to receive it.
So, really, those are my two options.
Now, the third option would be try to have your cake and eat it too, but really, that's just option two, isn't it?
Try to cover the issues, but not go all the way in.
try to tell the truth, but not too much that it risks me getting incarcerated again.
So yes, I realize when I cover certain stories, when I cover certain issues, when I name certain names, I yet again risk my own life and risk being thrown in jail again.
Because keep in mind, I'm on federal probation, the strictest federal probation till the end of the year.
And I can't even cover that in its entirety for certain reasons.
You will have to wait until my probation is over until I give you the full coverage of what's really going on behind the scenes.
But believe me, they'd love to throw me in jail.
But getting back to the point, so I'm covering this.
I'm speaking negatively of Kentenji Brown Jackson.
I'm saying she doesn't belong on the bench.
I'm saying the only reason she's on the bench is because she's a black woman.
I could have my case in front of the Supreme Court by this summer.
And do you think this commentary and talking like this about Brown Jackson is going to help or hurt my case?
Of course, it's not going to help my case.
Of course, Brown Jackson is going to find out who I am and how I cover her, and she's going to rule against me.
It's likely that she would do that anyway, but that's where we're at.
And by the way, you know, it's crazy what you learn about the legal world because the whole system is set up for you to fail in ways that you can't even imagine until you deal with it firsthand.
But I'll come back to that.
Back to the Supreme Court justice that says the First Amendment is in the way of government censoring you.
Yeah, that's the law.
It's not that the First Amendment is in the way.
The First Amendment is stopping the government from censoring me.
That's the entire point of the First Amendment.
But this is why Democrats want to get rid of the First Amendment.
This is like the Supreme Court will say, well, gee, I'd love to disarm every American, but that dang Second Amendment is in the way.
So, in other words, we need to change the First Amendment.
We need to change the Second Amendment.
We need to get rid of the First Amendment.
We need to get rid of the Second Amendment.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Katenji Brown Jackson appeared to support government censorship during oral arguments on Monday, claiming her biggest concern is the First Amendment hamstringing the government.
Exactly.
She doesn't like the First Amendment.
Her biggest concern is the First Amendment.
Not that the government is censoring speech.
By the way, it'd be one thing if the government, it still would be free speech.
I'd still be against it.
But this would be an entirely different story if the government was censoring actual false information or foreign propaganda.
This is the U.S. government censoring free speech, censoring the truth.
This is the U.S. government.
This is the Democrats.
This is the Biden regime censoring the truth.
Not censoring foreign propaganda, even.
Not censoring violent or hateful speech, which is legal anyway.
This is the government censoring truth.
Truth.
So they got to get rid of the First Amendment because they want to censor the truth.
This should be your biggest story tonight, not the fake news bloodbath.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on the Biden Justice Department's appeal of the Murphy v.
Missouri case, where numerous states, not just Missouri, numerous states accuse Democrat officials in the Biden administration of pressuring social media companies to unconstitutionally censor conservative viewpoints on topics like COVID-19 and election integrity.
Oh, don't speak freely about COVID-19.
Oh, if a Democrat wins an election, you're not allowed.
You're not allowed to question it.
And the Democrats are going to come censor you if you do or imprison you in my case.
Because see, they already censored me off all social media.
When all this was going on, I was censored on all social media, but I kept talking.
So after they censor you and you keep talking, they throw you in prison.
The United States argued that White House communications staffers, the Surgeon General, the FBI, and the U.S. Cybersecurity Agency are among those who coerced social media platforms to censor content.
At one point, Brown Jackson claimed that certain situations may warrant government censorship.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in there like Ketenji Brown Jackson is saying, except maybe on the internet, except maybe when it goes against a Democrat narrative, except maybe when it comes to election integrity, except maybe when it comes to information on a virus or a treatment of a virus, I don't see that anywhere.
Maybe there's an answer in the Declaration of Independence that I can find here.
The preamble.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, common sense, self-evident, common sense.
We all understand this.
That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator, God, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
See, these things used to be considered self-evident, meaning common sense.
Everyone understood it.
Everyone agreed.
These rights are endowed by God, the creator, God, not government.
Our rights come from God, not government.
God, the creator.
Unalienable.
Not to be alienated, not to be separated from, not to be removed from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But somehow, a Supreme Court justice doesn't agree.
Somehow, a Supreme Court justice asks the question in an oral argument on a free speech case: whether or not the government can do this.
Censor speech depends on the application of our First Amendment.
What application?
Either you believe in it or you don't.
There might be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise.
I don't see that in the First Amendment.
I see the exact opposite.
I see unalienable.
I see endowed by the Creator.
I see self-evident.
Judge Katenji Brown Jackson sees none of the above.
Judge Katenji Brown Jackson says, Well, maybe sometimes we can censor.
Whether or not the government can do this, this is something I took up with Mr. Fletcher, depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence, and there may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise.
I mean, do you disagree that we would have to apply strict scrutiny and determine whether or not there is a compelling interest in how the government has tailored its regulation?
Certainly, Your Honor, I think at the end of every First Amendment analysis, you'll have the strict scrutiny framework in which, you know, in some national security hypos, for example, the government may well be able to demonstrate a compelling interest, may well be able to demonstrate in which the government engages in conduct that ultimately has some effect on free on speech necessarily becomes a First Amendment violation, correct?
Maybe not necessarily, Your Honor.
unidentified
I guess the top-line question I would ask is: has the government set out to abridge the freedom of speech?
And in this case, you see that time and time again, because if you control it.
I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done.
And so I guess some might say that you're not our big brother.
You are a Supreme Court justice meant to uphold the law of the land, which at the highest level is the U.S. Constitution, and you are going against it now and saying, oh, the First Amendment hamstrings government's ability to censor speech.
That's the entire point.
But it doesn't just hamstring, it blocks.
So here, Katenji Brown Jackson is arguing that she's your mommy and she knows what's best for you and she believes the government can determine what's best for you.
And she also says the quiet part out loud, that the First Amendment is in her way.
She wants to censor you, but the First Amendment is in her way.
This is how Democrats think.
This is how liberals think.
So what's the conclusion?
If they want to censor you, get rid of the First Amendment.
And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.
And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
So can you help me?
Because I'm really, I'm really worried about that.
Country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
So can you help me?
Oh, is that funny?
Some might say that the government actually has a duty.
It is a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.
And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
So, can you help me?
Because I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating.
About that, because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.
So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods.
I mean, what would you have the government do?
I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done.
And I see that the White House and federal officials are repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should be partners.
We're on the same team.
Officials are demanding answers.
I want an answer.
I want it right away.
When they're unhappy, they curse them out.
There are regular meetings.
There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms, and they want to have regular meetings.
And they suggest, why don't you suggest rules that should be applied?
And why don't you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you and we can look it over.
And I thought, wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there.
If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?
And so I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket.
And it's, to mix my metaphors, and it's got these big clubs available to it.
And so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates.
Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?
unidentified
So there's a lot packed in there.
I want to give you one very specific answer first and then step back out to the broader context.
So specifically, you mentioned demanding an answer right away and cursing them out.
The only time that happens is in an email that's about the president's own Instagram account.
We just, I don't, I don't believe anywhere in there says once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, once-in-a-lifetime virus, once-in-a-lifetime election, once-in-a-lifetime this, once-in-a-lifetime.
No, I don't believe that ever happened because now you understand the precedent.
Certainly you understand the danger of that precedent.
Now there's a quote-unquote once-in-a-lifetime anything.
And the government has to get involved in coercion and manipulation and deception and censorship.
And of course, we can't allow that.
And it doesn't exist in the founding documents.
It doesn't exist in the Constitution.
It doesn't exist in the Bill of Rights.
No.
No.
A pandemic does not change the Bill of Rights.
An election result that you like or dislike does not change the Bill of Rights.
These people should be tossed out of the Supreme Court post-haste.
These people should be tossed out.
I mean, physically tossed.
I mean, thrown to the stairs.
And Americans should be outside with rotten tomatoes to be raining down on them.
These anti-American commie scum politically.
Oh, but oh, that's my free speech.
That'll probably land me in jail.
unidentified
Principles, but it's relevant to how they apply here.
And I think it's important to understand that at this time, this was a time when thousands of Americans were still dying every week, and there was a hope that getting everyone vaccinated could stop the pandemic.
This isn't back and forth between the White House and the media, the government and the media.
This is the government coercing censorship of the media.
Censorship of truth.
unidentified
What she says is, of course, we talk to the platforms just the way we talk to all of you when we have concerns about what you're doing, when we have information that you might find helpful.
Now, there's an intensity of the back and forth here, and there's an anger that I think is unusual, but the context.
That's where this language of partnership comes from.
It's not just from the White House.
It's these platforms, which are powerful, sophisticated entities, saying we're doing the best we can.
And the anger, I think, really most of the anger when you read the emails, and I appreciate that you have because I think you have to look at them in context.
The anger is when the officials think that the platforms are not being transparent about the scope of the problem or aren't giving information that's available.
No, your anger, the Democrats' anger, is that information is getting out that hurts their agenda.
Information is getting out that hurts their narrative.
That's why they're angry.
The American people are angry because our First Amendment is being violated and we have criminals that run our government.
And they want to shut anybody down that calls it out.
That's why they censor me off the internet.
That's why they throw me in prison.
That is stunning stuff.
It's funny when Justice Alito says, oh, maybe this does happen at print media.
Bingo.
Maybe this does happen with cable media.
Bingo.
Barack Obama made it legal for the government to censor and promote propaganda.
So yeah, that does go on, unfortunately.
that does go on.
It's not that, well, maybe you are naive, but see, this is what I constantly talk about.
And it's a source of much of our frustration.
You'd think, you would think that somebody sitting on the Supreme Court would be as informed or smart as you are, or as passionate about your patriotism and country as you are, but they're not.
The average judge in this country has no clue what's even going on, folks.
They don't have a clue.
Most attorneys are either corrupt or ignorant.
They don't understand anything that's going on.
If you can keep up with my commentary or my news coverage that I do on a daily basis, you are quite literally in the top 1% of politically informed and understood people in the country.
And that includes United States judges, district attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, U.S. attorneys.
1%.
1%.
That's not because I'm some sort of a genius or you're some sort of a genius.
You just care.
You just follow information.
You just understand the picture and the threat.
You just have a survival instinct.
If you keep up with my political commentary on Infowars and right here on Rumble, you are in the top 1% of the politically informed and understood people in the United States of America.
And I got news for you.
There are not very many judges on this 1%.
There are not very many U.S. attorneys on this 1%.
They do not have a clue.
I mean, just the attorneys that I work with, when I hire them, don't even understand or believe half this stuff.
And then they have to go through it with me.
Then they have to go through it with me just to get an understanding of it.
And then they say, whoa, this stuff you talk about, it is real.
This is really what's going on.
Whoa, now I understand this.
Now I understand that.
So I at least give Justice illegal credit because he says, well, I can't imagine this going on at print media or TV or cable news media, but maybe I'm naive.
Maybe it does.
Bingo.
See, that's somebody who's actually trying to be philosophical and intellectual, but honest, that he might not know or understand everything, and that he might be naive about something.
Just like we all should be.
The Smith-Munt Act.
Was that the Smith-Munt Act?
Was that the propaganda act by Obama?
I believe it was.
Barack Obama with the Smith-Munt Act.
I don't think he wrote it, but he brought it back to law saying that the U.S. government can propagandize the American people.
And then, of course, his administration used it at will, spied on President Trump, lied about President Trump.
So, look, you can have a debate about censorship when it comes to private companies.
You can have a debate about censorship when it comes to private companies.
You can have that debate.
Not with the U.S. government.
There is no debate.
The debate was already settled in the founding of this country with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution.
So there is no debate.
The debate is settled.
But if you're a liberal Supreme Court justice, you think the debate is still on, and you think the First Amendment is in the government's way to censor speech, and so therefore, what?
The arguments made and heard by Katenji Brown Jackson should be immediately disqualifying for any further role, not only on the Supreme Court, but in the judicial system at large.
She should be disbarred and removed from the bench immediately.
But again, most people aren't even paying attention to this.
They don't even know what's going on, which brings us back to the 1%.
And here we are.
And here we are.
Most of the political media in America have no idea this is going on.
Most of the judges, most of the attorneys in America have no idea any of this is even going on.
But you do.
because you're in the 1%, and it's an honor to be here with you.
We'll finish up with our coverage of this.
And then I will take some phone calls.
Here's Representative Jim Jordan talking about this incredible oral argument from Katenji Brown Jackson earlier today.
I will tell you that there was one line that I still can't believe Judge Jackson said this, but she actually said to the Solicitor General from Louisiana, she said, you've got the First Amendment hamstringing the government.
Now think about that.
That's the whole thinking purpose.
Like it's supposed to, the government was not supposed to.
I mean, the fact that you have a person on the United States Supreme Court make that statement in the arguments on a case about censorship and the First Amendment.
unidentified
It's just like, I'm like, at one point, I can only know what to say.
The American left is a threat to everything that is truthful, everything that is good, the very bedrock of our country, the very cornerstones of our civilization.
The left is a threat to everything common sense, everything truthful, everything real.
So, yeah, they think a man can get pregnant.
Yeah, they think a 12-year-old boy can be a girl.
Yeah, Katenji Brown Jackson doesn't understand the First Amendment is there to restrict the government from taking our rights.
But you do, and you know all about it because you're in the 1%.
Well, if Katenji Brown Jackson would have her way, this would be censored off the air.
You wouldn't be allowed to learn about T-Bird or her vaccine injuries because Katenji Brown Jackson thinks that in these important times, this information should be banned.
But I guess the good news is that people are finally getting it.
You know, the debate is finally happening.
People are finally getting it.
Some of us had to go down.
Some of us had to get censored.
Some of us had to go to prison.
But, you know, I don't want my speech imprisonment to happen in vain.
I mean, if I go to prison for speech, if I go to prison as an example that, hey, in America, speech is under such assault, the Democrats will imprison you for speech.
Then if I have to go through that, then I want other Americans to see that and learn, oh, wow, there really is an anti-free speech movement.
There really is a threat to the First Amendment, our Bill of Rights, and our country.
Yeah, I just wanted, I just want to give a couple comments.
First thing I wanted to say, I haven't talked to you since you went in prison, but I just want to say what you did there, dude, was amazing.
I'm sorry I'm taking us off topic, but I just want to say I thought you were extremely brave.
And it was like the amount of balls you showed.
And like, even my younger cousins and everyone, they were like, oh, my God.
So I just want to say, God bless you, man.
That was amazing.
I hope you get to the Supreme Court.
I hope your case goes through.
I hope that's good.
But on the issue with the Supreme Court going on now, honestly, at this point, I think our last hope is Trump because these people are going to, these people are going to break, I think, under the pressure if we don't break their election fraud in the end of this year.
Yeah, I think that politically speaking, our best hope is to take back the White House, take back Congress, and start to finally get some policy with a political party that puts Americas first.
And really, that's the new Republican Party.
Traditionally, through my life, the Republican Party has been just about as corrupt as the Democrats.
Maybe not as corrupt as the Democrats, but I mean, the Republicans have been part of the uniparty system, destroying this country, selling us out for decades.
There's a new Republican Party.
The old right is out.
That's why Mitch McConnell is out.
That's why Kevin McCarthy is out.
That's why Ronna Romney McDaniel is out.
That's why Liz Cheney is out.
That's why Adam Kinzinger is out.
So there's a new Republican Party, and we actually care about the country, unlike the old Republican Party.
So this is our chance to save this country politically.
unidentified
Yeah, one other additional thing I said, I think the Republicans confuse people because what they do is this, is they have a good like social programs where like lower taxes, a better economy, stronger dollar, but at the same time, they're like doing World War III against every other country in the world, you know, so that we don't replace King Dollar.
And one thing I wanted to say to everyone listening is that Owen has a great thing called Owen.gold.
Go there because here's the thing.
The future is gold, silver, and Bitcoin.
Gold, silver, and Bitcoin, cows and chickens.
That's how we're going to get through this in the future by being self-sufficient and having currencies that can store our energy better.
And one last thing I wanted to make, I wanted to ask you if I can make a quick comment about Israel and the whole Palestine thing, even though that's off the subject, but it's, I still have a couple of things on my mind.
One thing I wanted to say to everyone, like one, like war is war.
So like a lot of time, like growing up, I was seeing like the genocide that was happening, say, to the Uyghurs in China.
I was seeing how many people starving to death each year.
I was seeing like the hundreds of thousands of people who were getting killed in this Ukraine Russia war.
That's a sort of like, I think of a satanic sort of genocide as well.
And those people, if you look at the numbers with how many are just getting wiped out.
And also, if we look at, say, Hiroshima Nagasaki or Trail of Tears, or even in the Crusades Day of Tears, what I'm trying to say is this, is that there are wars and war is this.
And also, it's kind of weird that when we read scripture, it's like there's this all these forces that are getting us to combine to have this one moment where there's some sort of person that unites Christianity and Islam.
And then we get this antichrist type.
And it's just all coming into play.
And I see this Hegelian dialectic of we're going to get on the digital system because they're wiping out the currencies.
They're going to push against Bitcoin, but really they have some sort of backdoor in the end that where they're going to use Bitcoin to control us.
In the end, I don't know.
All I'm trying to say is this.
The whole thing between Israel and Palestine, if you say, oh, genocide, genocide, I kind of view as a hypocrite because there are all these other things before.
And then if you're American and you're saying, oh, no, no, no, they don't have the right.
The problem is, is because it's a war between nations, not people.
And I'm not justifying it.
I know it's bad, but honestly, China, they have plans in the books to kill everyone in North America.
But also, I'm kind of like a white Mexican person.
I live all through Mexico.
I mean, I'm children there.
I'm going to go back there.
I don't even like living in America.
So, I mean, I'm just kind of giving you my view on that.
You know, I think you bring up good points, and you might even bring a bit of my perspective into check there.
I think that if I try to bring this back to us, the United States of America, I think what has been shown, and maybe this creates a bias in the Israel-Palestine situation.
But I mean, if I were to ask you, if I was to ask you who has more influence over the United States foreign policy, domestic policy legislation, Israel or Palestine?
So, the here's it's not no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's not, it's not a difficult question.
I'm saying who has more influence, Israel, okay, they own the banks, they own the money, so exactly.
So, I so I think that what all of this has done is it's highlighted that as an issue.
And where normally, I mean, normally people like myself wouldn't talk much about it.
I wouldn't talk much about Israel influence or Jewish influence or any of that.
It wasn't really my thing.
And people would say, Oh, you're an Israeli shiller, all this stuff.
I'd say, Well, no, it's just not my big issue.
It's just not right in front of me.
But now, there's no doubt that it's an issue that's right in front of us.
Now, you may like it, you may not like it, but I think that there's been no doubt that that is an issue that persists and is now clogging up the political commentary in this country.
I don't think it's, I don't think you can deny that.
unidentified
Well, I think I know why.
I think, and I'm just going to say this last thing.
I know this is very provocative, and I'm sorry about that, but um, here's what it is in my perspective.
Um, I think there's a bunch of false prophets like Nick Frentes, Kanye West, even this other guy.
They're they're they're false prophets in the sense that they say all these things, okay?
They bulkenize people, get them into their groups, okay?
And each one on the side lives a very demonic, satanic life.
I mean, all you have to do is have a private dinner with Alex Jones, and I know you know him, and just ask about Nick Funtes, and he'll tell you.
And one thing I'll say is that, you know, even to Andrew Tate, in a sense, and it's this coming from someone who like loves Andrew Tate.
I used to email with him in 2016, 2015.
I'm huge email trades with him.
We were talking about Bitcoin, this, that.
I mean, like when like he even mentioned me in one of his interviews, okay.
He didn't realize it was me, but I was just like that one dork emailing him out of Spain because I was going to bang this one chick and her sister, and it was this whole thing.
And I was like joking with him about it.
But he doesn't respond to me anymore because he's world famous.
But what I'm trying to say is that I think there's a lot of false voices out there, and they're trying to bulkenize and trick people.
Well, look, I could completely ignore and erase all those names off the internet that you just mentioned as false prophets, and nothing would change.
The situation would still be the same.
And I'm not even, I'm not even, I wouldn't even necessarily agree with you on any of that, but it doesn't matter.
The point is, you could erase those voices off the internet, and the situation remains the same.
Thank you for the call.
We're about to go back to the phone lines, but you know what?
On that issue, you know, Candace Owens has been really engaged in this commentary.
And I think she's smart and she knows what she's doing, but she has exposed something.
And it's hard to quite put a finger on it.
And that's why I just use examples.
I don't try to opinionate things.
I just look at real examples and then I present to them, present them, and do commentary on them from an honest, a neutral, observant perspective.
There's no doubt to me that for whatever reason, the Israel lobby, the Jewish lobby, whatever it is, it wants control over the conservative commentary and narrative.
And it's extremely upset that they don't control the narrative in regards to Israel and Palestine.
And now it has just avalanched into something else entirely.
We're now just covering the Israeli-Palestine war and not supporting Israel wiping Palestine off the map.
Somehow you're an anti-Semite.
Just doing commentary that isn't from the Israeli perspective is anti-Semitic.
And so really what it's doing is it's exposing a lot of people from the Jewish community.
And I think that let me play this clip of Candace Owens and let me explain what I'm talking about here because I do everything in fairness and I like to give analogies so that it can be better understood.
But watch what happens with this rabbi that wrote a smear hit piece lying about Candace Owens.
She then invites him onto her show, and it goes like this.
How dare you go into the misogynistic anti-Semitic trope of his hag daughter, something used throughout the late 18th and early through the early 20th century.
No, I'm asking a specific question that the witch archetype of those fairy tales were specifically modeled and called the Jews, that the Jews of that part of the world were called hags and witches specifically because they didn't eat the same food.
They had different practices and they were excluded that way as part of the bloodline.
unidentified
So you are saying that we can't by calling a rabbi's daughter or a witch, a hag daughter.
Commentary that is quite common and perfectly allowed everywhere is talking about the victim economy and talking about black Americans wanting to take advantage of the victim economy.
Oh, we were slaves.
Oh, systemic racism and white supremacy and all this stuff.
And we can talk about that and we can talk about black Americans crying victim all day long.
That's why he's constantly reminding you about how he's a Jew.
That's why he's constantly bringing up Jewish history and all the strife and all the troubles that they've been through for decades.
But you're God's chosen people.
So God chooses when you get to be successful and when you get to suffer.
That's from your own religious text.
That's your belief.
So he goes on this, oh, oh, the Jews and the hags and the witches.
And now you're conjuring up this new anti-Semitism of using the word witch.
So no, no, no.
You're not an anti-Semitic, you're not an anti-Semite for doing fair commentary.
You can criticize Black Americans all day long for crying victim.
You can criticize Black Americans all day long for using and abusing the victim economy, but not Jewish people.
Now, let me be fair.
Let's bring this all home before you have a visceral reaction.
I am a Christian conservative.
What do I and other Christian conservatives do when they see groups like the Patriot Front?
We call it out.
We say, this is horrible.
This is a bad look for Christian conservatives.
This is a bad look for Trump supporters.
This is a bad look for Republicans.
I don't like this.
Why do we do that?
Because we don't like people besmirching our movement.
We don't like people besmirching our culture.
We don't like people bringing negative commentary and negative perspective and views towards us.
So why do I say that?
Well, because I'm not an anti-Semite.
I have plenty of Jewish people that I know, that I'm friends, that I get along with.
And what we need to see, rather, I should say like this.
If you're a Jewish American, you need to start condemning rabbis like this and Rabbi Shumley because they're hurting you as a good person.
Now, this is already happening in Israel.
There are already tens of thousands of people who are protesting what they view as a genocide in Palestine being committed by Netanyahu and the IDF.
So they understand Israel probably has the most negative approval rating.
Let's just say it like this.
Israel probably has the most negative approval rating in recent history, thanks to what's happening right now in the Gaza Strip.
And no matter how much of censorship or propaganda or lies from the ADL and Netanyahu and everybody else, no matter how much they say, it's not helping.
And in fact, it's making it worse.
Israel would be much better off as far as public perception was concerned if they just came out and said, we are going to wipe Palestine off the map.
We believe we're God's chosen people.
We believe he's promised us this land.
So we're at war.
We're wiping them out.
Too bad for them.
Good luck.
Land is ours now.
We're taking it.
They would have a much higher public approval rating than crying victim after they stood down on October 7th and then committed the atrocities in the Gaza Strip and then still continue to cry victim and act like it's not going on.
But that's what they did.
And now anybody that gives coverage outside of supporting Israel's side is considered an anti-Semite.
So this is why Israel's public perception, approval rating, whatever, has been so negative recently.
And smart Jews in Israel and in America understand that.
And they say, hey, it's not my fault if there even is anti-Semitism on the rise.
It's not my fault.
It's Netanyahu's fault.
It's Israel's fault.
It's the Israel lobby's fault.
It's the lies.
It's the propaganda.
Same thing.
If Candace Owens comes out and criticizes the black community for crying victim all the time, or criticizes the black community for being racist against white people, or criticizes the policies of diversity, equity, and inclusion that wind up with people like Ketenji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court.
That's because Candace Owens is smart.
And she knows as a black woman that somebody like Katenji Brown Jackson getting on the Supreme Court because she's a black woman makes all people think negatively about black women when that's how they get ahead in life, simply for being a black woman.
So that's what's going on right now.
And the cries of anti-Semitism and we, the Jews, are the biggest victims on the planet no longer works, but they have no other play.
They have no other card to go to.
And so that's why this is going on.
That doesn't make me an anti-Semitic for doing fair commentary, but that's what they'll say.
And if you look into it, you find out what's really behind the TikTok ban because the commentary on TikTok is anti-Israel about nine to one, probably even more.
95% of the commentary on the struggle in Israel and Palestine is against Israel and pro-Palestine.
That's why the Israel lobby and the ADL are trying to force the sale of TikTok so that a pro-Israel individual or Jewish person can own it and control that narrative.
That's just the fact of the matter.
So if I was Jewish, I would be condemning these rabbis like Rabbi Shumli and this rabbi that lied about Candace Owens and wrote a hit piece full of lies about Candace Owens because they're making Israel look bad and they're making Jews look bad.
Just like if a black woman goes on a diatribe and says, oh, I'm black.
I get free stuff.
Give me free stuff at McDonald's.
And someone says, gee, that doesn't look good.
Same thing goes for this rabbi with that pathetic argument he makes in front of Candace Owens that saying the word hag is now anti-Semitic.
Give me a break.
And you know, I feel that I feel that my commentary actually weighs a lot here because for years I've been called an Israeli Jewish shill.
For years, oh, InfoWars, Jewish shills controlled by Israel.
All BS.
And the truth is, I just wasn't my big issue.
Wasn't the issue in front of me.
I talked about I don't like Israel's influence in our foreign policy, but now here we are.
And I'm going on.
I don't, to be honest, I don't understand this guy's commentary anymore.
He, I mean, he used to be, I guess, what you would call an anti-Semite.
Now he's like a pro-Jew Semite.
I don't even know.
And that's Adam Green.
Now, Adam Green basically says, oh, I was wrong about Schroyer.
Oh, I was wrong about him.
And now he's begging me to come on his show.
So I'm going on his show Wednesday.
I just call it like it is, folks.
That's all I do.
I just call it like it is.
But you know, the thing about that, it seems to land you in trouble these days.
But I think you did a great job kind of pointing some stuff out there just now with the whole Candace Owens thing.
And, you know, it takes me, I read a quote.
I think it was Voltar that said that if you want to know who controls you, you just ask yourself who you cannot criticize.
And I think that ties in perfectly here to the whole Israel thing because, you know, and personally, I hate to categorize people at all this way, but it's almost like as if if you want to call it like the victim Olympics, it's like Israel is now like always winning gold.
And I just find it very, very concerning that so many conservatives or whatever seem to be taking the bait with this whole TikTok ban, which I personally think too is being kind of pushed by the Israel lobby.
I mean, for somebody, if anybody claims to be a pro, you know, free speech, First Amendment conservative, but you sign on to the TikTok ban saying that, yeah, yeah, we got to get rid of China, then you're being extremely hypocritical because what you're basically endorsing is letting the government control what you can and cannot look at on your phone.
Oh, and it's funny because before earlier this evening, I saw you post on your act there, you know, basically stating that same thing.
And I commented back with like the meme of like Trump saying, you know, like China and, you know, how they would get on him for constantly, you know, like just, well, I mean, telling the truth that, you know, it came from China.
And no, I just find it to be completely out of line.
And, you know, just to kind of tie it in real quickly, you know, the difference between the new right, like us that's calling this out and the old right is that the old right was originally part of the whole establishment censorship 20 years ago when George Bush said that, you know, let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories when he was referring to 9-11.
And, you know, I feel like, you know, that whole ideology, which is now shifted mainly to the left, is what's all behind the TikTok ban and censoring on the internet and things like that.
Well, you know, Supreme Court also blocked Texas from enforcing immigration laws until I believe appellate court rules on some matter because of some Biden admin filed emergency appeal.
Well, I'm going to have an update with my attorney, Norm Pattis, this week on our movement to the Supreme Court.
And I mean, it's honestly just crazy.
It's just stunning how much just what they do to you throughout this process.
And the entire purpose is to turn you off so that you don't take it to the Supreme Court, so that you don't fight the government when they do you wrong.
It's why they make it so difficult and so expensive and make all these hoops that you got to jump through and with no guarantees for anything, unfortunately.
So I'm going to have an update with my attorney, Norm Pattis, sometime this week.
I'm not sure what the day is going to be on the war room, but we will have an update on that.
And I mean, it's just, it's just nonstop with the legal stuff, whether it's me or Alex.
It's just, it's honestly just nonstop.
And that's another part of it.
It's just legal warfare to keep you bogged down so that you can't just do what you need to do to tell the truth and to activate fellow patriots to try to save this country.
They redistrict, they redistrict so that all the congressional seats are blue.
And then they rigged the electoral college count with illegal immigrants to ensure that California, Illinois, and New York is like a three-piece suit to electoral victory.
Well, most black Americans already understand how they've been lied to by the Democrats when they were promised free stuff and then they gave it to the illegals.
And I don't know how that will result in an election, but we're seeing it at least on the streets.