MAY 06 2022 — TRUMP’S COVERT PLAN TO BOMB THE CARTELS
A new book is out claiming Trump wanted to launch a missile campaign in New Mexico to destroy the fentanyl campaign, next, the FDA has restricted use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine over rare blood clot risks, conservative app PublicSq has announces fundraiser for pro-life pregnancy centers, and video game journalist Simon Gwynn questions whether individuals should kill the Supreme Court justices who vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPoso...
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily, powered by Turning Point USA. Today's May 6th, 2022, and in Odomine.
Today's top headlines, a new book is out claiming that President Trump wanted to launch a missile strike at cartels in New Mexico to destroy the fentanyl drug labs.
Amazing.
Next.
The FDA has restricted use of Johnson& Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine over blood clot risks.
Oh, that's interesting.
Third, conservative app Public Square announcing fundraiser for pro-life pregnancy centers.
Fantastic.
And finally, a gaming journalist has decided to ask the question, just pose the question of whether or not people should kill Supreme Court justices who may have returned Roe v.
Wade.
All this more ahead, Human Events Daily.
You've all been seeing it, reading it, hearing it, border security.
Every nation has not only the right but the absolute duty to protect its borders and its citizens.
A nation without borders is a nation not at all.
Without borders, we have the reign of chaos, crime, cartels, and believe it or not, coyotes.
So President Trump, we know, obviously no fan of the drug cartels.
I don't know, by the way, if President Trump has ever watched Breaking Bad.
It does occur to me that I should probably ask about that because I feel like that would be something that he's into.
I know he's a diehard fan.
I know he's a Pulp Fiction fan, but I don't know if he's ever seen Breaking Bad or Sicario or any of these movies that are specifically in TV shows that are about this border crisis and dig into the cartel issue.
But a new book that's come out in the New York Times has a story, Maggie Haberman and its secretary of defense, former secretary of defense, Esper, talking about this incident.
He's very, very shocked.
And of course, The New York Times is very, very shocked that President Trump suggested using a missile strike and potentially a covert missile strike.
I'm not really sure how you would do a covert missile strike because I don't know who else would be using missiles here in in our hemisphere.
But it's what he was asking about to go after the fentanyl drug labs on the other side of the border and actually start taking it to the cartels.
So apparently, his idea was, why don't we just bomb the cartels?
Remember, this is the same president who suggested that, why don't we just nuke the hurricanes at one point?
Which I still think is an option that we should keep on the table, right?
But in all seriousness, in all seriousness, let's actually think about this for a minute.
The New York Times lost their mind that President Trump would suggest conducting a missile strike, whether it be a drone strike or whatever type of missiles, you know, probably drones, To go after organizations that are actually killing tens of thousands of Americans that are responsible for the highest level of drug overdoses this country has ever seen in the entire existence of the United States of America.
To use the military to actually defend the American people.
Esper lost his mind.
Esper couldn't believe it.
He said, no, no, no, no, no.
I guess Esper and the DOD and the Pentagon and the New York Times think it's only acceptable to conduct drone strikes on weddings in Pakistan and funerals in Yemen.
To go after, and we're getting all these reports now, that the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence community is giving targeting data to the Ukrainians that they're using against Russian warships and potentially even Russian, what we would call HVTs, high-value targets, so generals and VIPs and that sort of thing.
And then they're saying, oh, we didn't even know that that was happening.
So you can use that when it comes to a nuclear power.
That you're trying to wag the dog into World War III over.
But when one guy comes along, one president and says, why don't we bomb these people that are actually killing Americans?
Oh, no.
Can't possibly do that.
Yeah, this is the commander in chief.
He's elected.
Not Esper, not the New York Times, not anyone else in the chain of command of the military is elected to office other than the president of the United States.
And there's a reason for that.
He's the commander in chief.
None of you.
I remember when the last guy, when President Obama was in office, and he handed over five war criminals, Taliban generals from Guantanamo Bay, who were there when I was there, handed them over for a traitor named Bo Bergdahl.
And we were told, oh, well, it's what the commander in chief wants, so we got to do it.
This is one of the biggest scandals.
So not only number one, obviously it would be a good policy to use military action against the cartels and protect our border.
Clearly, obviously.
And by the way, this is something that you could probably do in conjunction with the government of Mexico because they don't like the cartels either.
But we've gotten to a point with these cartels and the cartel wars that are going on in that area of North Mexico and Sonora where they're controlling vast swaths of territory that the government of Mexico can't even exert full control over because that's cartel land.
You can't use the military for that.
You can't use the IC for that.
No, no, no, no, no.
Right?
Go watch Narcos.
Pablo Escobar, right?
But when it comes to Ukraine, when it comes to Russia, when it comes to Yemen, Pakistan, all of these places all around the world, Somalia, that's perfectly fine for the US military.
That's the job of the US military.
Conducting the agenda of the World Economic Forum in Davos, I guess, but not actually defending the American people.
So I came home from the gym the other day and put in my workout, get home.
Tanya's got dinner ready.
I said, what's for dinner, sweetheart?
She says, it's Good Ranchers.
I'm like, did we still have Good Ranchers left?
Because I feel like we've had the same case and we've been working through it, even with the boys.
For over a month at this point, she said, sweetheart, darling, we still have Good Ranchers left.
And I thawed some out.
I made it for dinner tonight.
We've had it sitting.
Now we cooked it up, made it with some veggies, made the steak.
It was delicious.
It was the bomb.com.
It was fantastic.
But don't go to bomb.com.
Go to goodranchers.com backslash poso, of course, to get this look.
Guys, this is...
Amazing.
What they pack, the amount of stuff they pack into just one of these cases.
So it's your beef, your chicken, your seafood.
It's incredible.
100% American meat.
Local American farms.
Prime upper choice.
High X quality.
Ribeyes, T-bones, New York States.
Strips.
Signature steaks.
Wagyu burgers.
Pre-trimmed, pre-marinated chicken breasts.
This is steakhouse quality right in the Poso home.
That's what Good Ranchers has.
The guesswork is out.
The meat is in.
So what do you do?
You go to goodranchers.com slash POSO, goodranchers.com slash POSO.
You get 30% off and free express shipping.
You're going to want that express shipping because these cases are not small.
They're really not.
So the free express shipping, it really takes the price down for you.
So go to goodranchers.com and make sure you're using slash POSO to get it.
Good Ranchers.
They are Christ followers and genuine Americans.
Good Ranchers.
American Meat.
Delivered.
I would definitely take the Johnson& Johnson vaccine.
This is a vaccine that works and it only requires one dose.
The Johnson& Johnson vaccine uses a particular, what we call, vaccine platform.
And you inject it into the body, the body sees that protein, makes it a good immune response against the entire virus.
It's 72% effective in preventing you from getting moderate to severe disease, But virtually 100% protective against hospitalizations and death as proven by this trial that was done.
So I've got this headline.
I want to be very careful about this.
Not, you know, mincing any words.
I'm not making up anything.
I'm not speaking out of turn.
This is from Fox Business.
The FDA has put new limits on the Johnson& Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting condition.
Health officials have detected cases of the blood clotting condition TTS, nine of which have been fatal.
Okay, that means someone died.
The FDA has revised its emergency authorization to sharply limit the use of Johnson& Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine to a rare but potentially fatal blood clotting condition called thrombosis,
also known as TTS. Only individuals who are 18 years of age and older who would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine due to availability or their choice should now take the J&J one-shot regimen, which means they are restricting it to people who are under 18.
The FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research put out a statement on Thursday.
Our actions reflect our updated analysis of the risk of TTS, blood clotting, following administration of this vaccine and limits the use of this vaccine to certain individuals.
They state we've been closely monitoring the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in occurrence of TTS following its administration and have used updated information from our safety surveillance systems to revise the EUA. That's the Emergency Youth Authorization.
So people died from blood clotting and the FDA, working with the CDC Advisory Committee, have now put out new guidelines to restrict that to people under 18.
So that's children.
And here's my issue with that, right?
I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a scientist.
I know scientists.
I know microbiologists.
There's one microbiologist I know very, very well.
But when it comes to this stuff, we can look at the data ourselves.
We can go to ResearchGate.
We can go online.
We can find this stuff.
We can look at studies.
We can look at cause and effect.
We can link things.
But Prior to this day, if you tried to talk about this on this program, if I tried to talk about this on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram, you would be taken down.
You'd be censored.
You'd be put in the penalty box.
You might even have your account taken away for suggesting something that is now the official statement of the government.
So are we just supposed to memory hole all the things and all of the issues that came up over the past 18 months?
Right?
Before the government told us that there was a problem with this particular vaccine for these particular people and be very clear about that.
But we weren't even allowed to ask the question.
And isn't that the bigger issue?
That you've got the government coming in here And you've got cities like Washington, D.C., where I'm at right now, where there are still places today that you can't go without a negative COVID-19 test or without a proof of vaccination because it was mandated.
Because it was mandated to live in this city to participate in city life, right, without having this vaccine.
There are people I know that are applying for jobs that can't even get the job if they don't have the vaccine, right?
But now the government says, oh, by the way, there might be an issue with this vaccine, but only if you're under 18.
That does not spark confidence.
And what it also does is show us that potentially some of the people that are identifying this issues who had been written off and silenced and attacked perhaps were onto something.
And maybe, just maybe, there is a massive financial incentive to keep these instances as quiet as possible.
You know, we've had plenty of those moments.
We received all the threats in the book.
We've had the angry Twitter journalists.
But at the end of the day, it's all been fuel for us to continue giving power back to the people, pushing against oppression in all of its forms, pushing against this corporate oligarchy that's in bed with big government, that frames this messaging in order to hurt the average Americans that do not share their values.
So all the craziness that we're seeing lately, coming out with this Roe v.
Wade, not only the decision, but the leak, everything that led to it.
These threats against the justices in their lives.
But now we're also seeing companies that are coming forward.
To me, if you're someone who's on the pro-life side like I am, to see companies like Amazon saying that they will pay their employees to have abortions, that they will give you money, something like $4,000 to travel if you live in a red state, to travel to another state to have an abortion procedure conducted, right?
It's insane.
And by the way, we know what this is about, right?
It's not about women's rights.
Amazon didn't care about that.
It's about Amazon's corporate interests.
Why?
Because if you have to go on maternity leave, if you have a baby, then they still have to pay for you to go on that maternity leave.
But if you don't go on leave, number one, they don't have to pay.
And number two, you're still working on the line.
You're still working in the warehouse.
You're still driving the little vans around making your deliveries like you should.
They want you to make sure that you're going to work.
It's not about your rights, quote unquote.
It's about their interests.
It's about what's good for Amazon and their bottom line.
That's what they care about.
But there is a company.
That is fighting back.
And full disclosure, this is a company that we do work with here at Human Events Daily that we are in partnership with.
But Michael Siefert, and we just played his quote there, he did not reach out to us.
We decided to do this story because we saw this huge announcement Public Square, the app, has announced a fundraiser for pro-life pregnancy centers.
Corporate America has shifted away from the values that tens of millions of Americans hold dear, remarked Public Square's CEO. In response to this statement and the potential overturn of Roe v.
Wade, Public Square will be hosting a day for life on Wednesday, May 11th at participating Public Square businesses throughout the country.
So they're starting with places called The Coffee Co., The Village SD, Nini's Deli, dozens of other businesses around the country will be donating a portion of their proceeds to local pregnancy centers.
And then it says, if you are a Public Square business and would like to participate, please email PR at PublicSquare.com.
So what is Public Square?
Public Square is a company that allows a listing of other companies, right?
So they're a directory service.
It's an app you download.
It's super easy to use.
I'm not going to give you the full pitch.
But that's the way it works, right?
You download it and you say, hey, I want to find, you know, a restaurant that only uses locally sourced food, or I want to find a coffee shop that stood up to the mandates, you know, that type of thing, or a bank that isn't going to cancel somebody because, you know, they have different political beliefs or, you know, whichever situation it is that you're looking for, whatever kind of business.
But now they're actually taking a stand, they're going to say, look, if there are companies out there and corporations that are going to be super woke, Or that are going to be pro-abortion.
Amazon is clearly being here.
This is pro-abortion.
This isn't about pro-choice.
You don't get the money if you choose to keep your kid.
Their choice is you get the money if you want to go have an abortion.
So make sure that's very clear.
I'm going to say that again.
Amazon gives you up to $4,000 to have an abortion, but they're not giving you $4,000 to keep your baby.
So understand, it's not about pro-choice.
It's about pro-abortion.
Yeah, fact check me on that.
But what Public Square is doing, Public Square is saying it doesn't have to be this way.
We can have families and still have companies.
We can have companies that support people having families.
And we want to do that.
And so what a pro-life pregnancy center is, it's idea that we know that life is crazy and the world is a messed up place.
That's just the way it is.
And sometimes there are people who get pregnant Right?
Women, obviously, who get pregnant.
I want to do that whole pregnancy people thing.
There are women who get pregnant, though, and they might be unplanned.
They might be at risk.
There might be a million reasons to want to come to a pregnancy center.
But it's a place where women can come to get the help they need, to get the medical services they need, free of charge, and no questions asked.
There's no judgment, there's just help.
That's the point of a pro-life pregnancy center, is the idea that women can come in, get the services they need, And you're supporting them and you're supporting the children.
So it's not just a law restricting abortion.
It's actually proactively helping women, helping their kids, and helping families.
You guys spent some time yesterday talking about what you think are the extreme wings of the Republican Party.
Do you think the progressive activists that are now planning protests outside some of the justices' houses are extreme?
Peaceful protest?
No.
Peaceful protest is not extreme.
Some of these justices have young kids, but their neighbors are not all public figures.
So would the president think about waving off activists that want to go into residential neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland?
Peter, look, I think our view here is that peaceful protest, there's a long history in the United States and the country of that.
And we certainly encourage people to keep it peaceful and not resort to any level of violence.
So amid all the insanity.
In terms of the response to the potential, really likely, I think at this point, likely overturning Roe v.
Wade, a gaming journalist on Twitter named Simon Gwynn, British guy, by the way, is questioning whether you would kill Supreme Court justices or whether you should kill Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, given the chance.
And I'm going to read you and be very clear what I'm doing right here.
I want to read you I want to read what he said.
Should you do it while Biden can get his nominees to replace them confirmed?
It's an interesting abstract question, but becomes a real conundrum if, say, you're terminally ill and have little to lose yourself, but know that it could save many women's lives in the future.
He doesn't explain how killing Supreme Court justices would save lives of women in some sort of twisted...
Uh, logic that he's using there.
But he posted this stuff.
He then took it down and said, oh, it's just a thought experiment.
Twitter is no problem with that.
Calling for someone to directly rise up and assassinate two Supreme Court justices and then arguing, oh, no, no, no.
Just a just a thought experiment.
It was just kidding around.
You silly guys.
What are you thinking?
Is the problem right here?
Blue checked, lib journalist, Ukraine flag flying proudly in his profile there on Twitter.
No problem with saying, kill your political opponents.
And isn't that the problem right there?
Isn't that the exact problem that we've been dealing with?
2020, the summer of rage that we don't even talk about.
The largest mass riots in U.S. history, city after city after city.
The killing fields of our own major cities with the homicide rates completely out of control in this country.
Naughty peep about it.
Not a single, doesn't trend on Twitter.
Nightly News doesn't talk about it on the mainstream media.
No.
They want to talk about stuff that's going on 5,000 miles away.
They don't talk about what's going on in your backyard or in your neighborhood.
And you got guys like this that pop off and say, well, maybe we should just kill our political opponents.
I'm just kidding.
It's just a thought experiment.
Look, taking a stand against political violence means taking a stand against all political violence, from assassinations to punching to war to any type of political violence.
If you say you're against it, you have to be against all of it.
And the minute you open that door, The minute you say, well, it's okay because they're a bad person, that's when you've taken the discussion to a place that it should never be.
We can discuss things.
We can talk about things.
We can argue.
We can debate.
And that's the point of having freedom of speech.
All right, and that's it for us.
Human Events Daily for today and ends this really banner week for us.
Thank you so much for watching.
Thank you so much for giving us your time.
We really, really appreciate it now more than ever.
Remember, of course, our promise, our oath, our solemn vow to all of you is to be good, be brief, be gone.
Your homework for us, leave us one, just one of your five-star reviews on Apple, Spotify, any one of your podcast apps, and share this out with a normie friend.
What do we talk about today?
Former Defense Secretary Esper claiming that Trump wanted to launch missile strikes at cartels in New Mexico to destroy the drug labs.
Next, the FDA restricting the use of Johnson& Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine over blood clot risks.
Third, conservative app Public Square announcing a fund, this is so special, announcing a fundraiser for pro-life pregnancy centers.
And finally, pro-apportion groups Calling for protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes.
And you had that crazy journalist down in the UK calling for killing, killing the justices if you didn't like their maneuvers.
All of this is going on.
It's going to come to a head next week.
But before we go, it's time for today's history break.
Today, May 6, 1941.
It was the day that Joseph Stalin appointed himself premier of the Soviet Union, specifically his first government and where he became the chairman of the Council of the People's Commissars.
Now World War II had already begun with the joint invasion of Poland.
By the Nazis and the Soviets.
That was 1939.
But this, just one month before the outbreak of Operation Barbarossa, when the brutal, murderous communist regime was facing off against the Wehrmacht.
Remember, we have to understand what was going on in this world, in those bloodlands of Eurasia.
