All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2023 - Stew Peters Show
01:00:39
Wrongthink: The DHS Announces The Deep State Is Expanding!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
voice or vote Oh!
Information laundering is really quite ferocious It's when a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious By saying them in Congress or a mainstream outlet service Information's origin seems likely less atrocious That's now a law enforcement official.
This is somebody with so few useful skills that she describes herself in the first words of her own bio as a quote, internationally recognized expert on disinformation.
As if that's a job of some sort, because Nina Jankiewicz is telling all the disinformation is on the other side of the political divide.
Most of the disinformation that we've seen, this highly emotionally manipulative content, is coming from the right.
If you look at the top 10, you know, most engaged with posts on Facebook or Twitter on a given day, They are usually posts that are coming from the right, and that's because the right does deal in this highly emotional rhetoric.
But there's also folks on the very far left of the spectrum who have been sharing disinformation and engaging in harassment and trolling campaigns.
There's been some criticism of the person who's been chosen to oversee this board.
She had previously called the Hunter Biden laptop a Trump campaign product, seeming to discredit its validity or Validity of reporting surrounding that.
How can you assuage concerns of people who are looking at this person who's been appointed to this position and wondering if she's going to be able to accurately judge misinformation now that a lot of that reporting has been proven to be factual in some ways?
Well, I don't have any comments on the laptop, but what I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from Traveling around the country in a range of communities.
I'm not sure who opposes that effort, and I don't know who this individual is, so I have no comment on it specifically.
Her name is Nina Jankiewicz.
She also just recently made some polarizing comments about the Twitter, Elon Musk's Twitter purchase.
It's just getting some pushback from critics who are saying this person may not be the right choice for a board that is run by the Department of Homeland Security.
Can you speak to that at all?
I don't have any information about this individual.
I can check on more information about the board.
Go ahead.
Yeah, remember Nina Jankowicz?
Do you remember the Disinformation Governance Board?
Yeah, well, they told us that it was gone.
They told us that they decided to close up shop and not revisit it because, well, it was a disaster.
It was a complete violation of our First Amendment, and they chose an extremely mentally unstable person to be the face of it.
Now, that doesn't really matter, because as I've always stated, whether or not Nina Jankiewicz was the head of it, that just made it a million times worse, but it was already bad to begin with.
There shouldn't be a disinformation governance board.
What gives the United States government the right to do that?
We have the First Amendment in this country.
Nobody gets to tell us what to say, what to do, whether or not we're allowed to protest something, whether or not we're allowed to believe something or think something.
That's why the show's called Wrong Think.
But what happened with her?
Well, she didn't actually disappear.
Or I should say the idea didn't disappear.
The spirit of Nina Jankiewicz is very much alive and kicking.
And fun fact, I actually just found out recently when I was researching for the show that she blocked me on Twitter.
So that's hilarious.
I went pretty hard on the disinformation board at RAV when we first heard about it.
So that doesn't exactly surprise me, although it's hilarious because at the time I wasn't even like that big of a name.
I was just like guest hosting for people.
So pretty funny, but it just goes to show guys how fearful these people are of criticism, which is why they project on you and they have the desire to control your speech, to control your thought ultimately.
And the reason why I bring all of that up again is because, like I said, guys, it didn't just go away when they said they weren't going to do that.
It didn't just go away when it said that they were going to cut ties with the Disinformation Governments Board or the DGB. Not to be confused with the KGB. Although I'm pretty sure that's what they want us to associate it with.
I think that's kind of the point.
But here's the thing.
They're at it again, guys.
And we knew they would be.
When they got rid of this, I literally said they will be back and it will get worse.
And sadly, I was correct.
And I don't take pride in that.
I'm actually unhappy that that's the case, that our government is that tyrannical.
But yes, yes, they're back, guys.
A new scheme from...
The DHS just dropped, and it's quite interesting that this is coming from the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security.
It's like they're trying to convince us that the only way to keep this country secure is if they go after you.
If they go after you and your ability to freely express your opinion, your ability to freely speak out on whatever it is that you choose to speak out about, and your right to peaceably assemble, that is what they're after.
We're going to be breaking down this new press release from the DHS. We're also going to be talking about what this really means, the similarities between that and the disinformation governance board, because it literally is the same thing.
The goal has always been the same, and we've known that since 2022, at the very least.
When the memo came out that they were actually going to start targeting regular patriotic American citizens for certain symbols.
We'll be walking through that as well.
And I also want to talk about, guys, how ridiculous it is that they have this narrative out there that somehow the FBI and the DOJ, oh, they're the victims here.
What?
Yeah, Peter Strzok just said something pretty interesting on MSNBC earlier this month that explains exactly what the narrative is that they're trying to push on us.
Of course, I'm not buying it, given what we've seen with January 6th protesters, and get this, what just recently happened when it came to these two elderly pro-life protesters.
I covered that on my earlier show, but I want to kind of tell you guys about it as well, because It's a really bad situation.
It's a really bad story.
And it's perfect proof of what this government is really about.
So stay tuned guys for this very important episode of Wrong Think Primetime.
And welcome to Wrong Think Primetime.
I'm going to be here.
I'm Anna Perez.
Thank you so much for being here on this Tuesday night.
Really excited for the second show of my new show, Wrong Think Primetime.
Welcome to everybody who is here, who is joining me now.
I want to see who's in the chat.
We have the 1AM. It says, Miss Perez's Posse Grows or Perez's Posse Grows.
Yes!
Thank you for being here, Ron.
I appreciate you showing up.
CassassRumble29 in the house.
We also have E333, ME007, AlanS333, SlickNerd, great to see you, Colty86, SaltyDebbie, Let's see.
Dan, the drummer, 234.
This is hi, beautiful Anna.
Hello, beautiful Dan.
I'm sure you are beautiful, although I've never met you, obviously.
Deplorable 767, Loki 707, InfQ Warrior.
Great to see you as well.
Um...
Let's see.
Ladderer.
Hawkeye7.
Salty Debbie.
I see you already said hello to you.
B-Man6262.
And some great patriots.
We already have 828 watching.
Guys, please share the link on your social media.
Send it to your family and friends so they can join in too and they can hear what is going on with our government because it is very, very bad, which is why I want to cover today.
Also, guys, please rumble the show.
Hit that thumbs up button.
Help this network grow.
Help the stupid Stu Peters Network climbed the Rumble leaderboard.
That is always a goal here on Rumble, and we're only going to be able to achieve that with you guys, with your help, by rumbling these shows.
Not just mine, but all the other Stu Peters Network shows as well.
Let's see who else.
Anybody else joined recently?
ToneMan514.
Great to see you, ToneMan.
All right, so like I said, I'm sure more patriots will join.
Oh, look, we already have a thumbs down.
I've already pissed someone off.
Someone off and I have barely gotten started.
Well, good.
I'm glad I pissed that person off.
Anyways, we're about to piss off more people.
Whoever is a globalist and in bed with the deep state that is, everybody else, they'll agree because obviously this is correct information.
It's called wrong think.
So the irony in it is that you would consider it wrong if you are a tyrant, a globalist tyrant, but you would know it's right if you're anybody else.
Anyways, guys, like I said, a new spying scheme just dropped from the DHS. That's right.
Take a look at this.
Secretary Mayorkas announces establishment of Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.
Yeah, this was a literal press release, and this came directly from the DHS website, okay?
This is what they just dropped today.
As you can see, the date was September 19, 2023, which, again, is today.
Today, U.S. Department of Homeland Security DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis Ken Weinstein, and Counterterrorism Coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen announced the establishment of the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.
Oh, great.
They always call themselves experts.
That's what they did with Nina Jankiewicz.
Like, as if you can really judge who, like, no, I hate that.
That's so narcissistic, but actually it's a good show right there.
The narcissism in linguistics and how the left kind of manipulates that.
Anyways, the group is compromised of private sector experts who will provide their unique perspectives on the federal government's intelligence enterprise to DHS's I&A and the Office of the Counterterrorism Coordinator.
Now, this isn't just any ordinary terrorism.
No, this is...
This is domestic terrorism, which they've been targeting for a while.
We'll be talking about that in a moment, but I want to go ahead and read the rest of this.
The security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect, generate, and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, campus, and private sector partners.
No, thanks.
That sounds scary.
Said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
I express my deep gratitude to these distinguished individuals.
Well, I don't.
For dedicating their exceptional expertise.
What?
Expertise in what?
Being a rat?
Spying on people?
Experience and vision to our critical mission.
The Homeland Intelligence Experts Group is being formed at a time of unprecedented challenge.
Oh, gosh, I can't.
This is so dramatic.
With the U.S. intelligence enterprise facing threats from a range of malign actors to include foreign nation-state adversaries, domestic violent extremists.
Oh yes!
I love when they use that term because you know that they're just talking about regular people who like to go to protests and happen to be conservative.
Cyber criminals, drug trafficking cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations.
Said Under Secretary for Intelligence Analysis Ken Weinstein.
And you know that they just threw in those other issues just to make you think that this is a legitimate thing.
The experts group will be an invaluable asset as we navigate through this evolving threat and operating environment and continue to strengthen our efforts to protect the homeland, because of course that's what they're doing, not.
The homeland threat environment is more diverse, dynamic, and challenging than at any point in our post-9-11 history.
Yeah, well, you know what?
That's not what this is about.
We're with threats tied to an array of different terrorist and violent extremist ideologies and narratives, said counterterrorism coordinator Nicholas Rasmussen.
The experience, expertise, and perspective offered by experts group members will undoubtedly put the department in a strong position to confront this threatened landscape, and we are grateful for the willingness of the experts group members To serve in this important capacity, the experts group will provide DHS with a wide range of views and perspectives with a membership that includes former senior intelligence officials, journalists, you know where these quote journalists are going to come from, and prominent human rights and civil liberties advocates.
And it gets even funnier because, so that's the actual announcement, and then they go through a list of people that are going to be involved in this.
And you're gonna pick up on a couple familiar names that you're not gonna be too happy to see.
But anyways, here is that list.
The experts group members are following.
John Bellinger, partner at Arnold& Porter.
John Brennan, distinguished fellow, Fordham University School of Law and University of Texas at Austin, former director, Central Intelligence Agency.
James Clapper, I'm sure you recognize that, CNN, national security analyst, so you know it's for real.
And then some other people.
You can read the whole list.
It's a lot of people, people that I don't trust, a lot of them in line with far left organizations that like to pretend that they're not, but anyways, and then here's the rest of it.
The experts group will meet four times annually and leverage the expertise of each member to provide input on I&A's most complex problems and challenges, including terrorism, fentanyl, trans-border issues, trans-border issues, and emerging technology.
That would be transgenders crossing the border, just so you know.
No, I'm just kidding.
That's not what that means.
It just sounds like it.
Alright, so as you can see there, guys, the mission of this intelligence group is quite sketchy.
Because I don't believe for a second, I mean, why would I, that these people actually want to protect us.
And the reason why I don't believe that is because, well, they've been pretty open about the fact that they're going to target everyday, ordinary American citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.
And we knew that even before they started arresting January 6th people.
We've known that for a while, but it became particularly clear about a year ago When they released this domestic terrorism symbols guide.
Actually, I shouldn't say released.
I should say it was released because it was actually leaked to the public.
They didn't want this information to get out, may I remind you.
So the fact that we know that they already want to target us for specific reasons is scary.
And those reasons...
We're merely being very clear about our patriotism, putting our patriotism on display with patriotic flags, patriotic symbols showing up for certain protests.
Even that's not really the point.
It's symbols, so it's just flags.
You could literally be tracked down by the FBI merely for this symbolism.
So now we're going to put that power in the hands of this intelligence group to track us down, to potentially spy on us.
Not potentially, they will.
We really want to put more power.
We're really expanding the deep state here after they admitted to us that they were starting to target regular ordinary patriotic Americans.
Because may I remind you that's exactly what the domestic terrorism symbols guide was all about.
Matt Gaetz brought that up.
Where he was explaining, reading some of these symbols or some of what this domestic terrorism symbols guide is that came out about a year ago, 2022.
I remember reporting on it when it first was leaked.
Here he is, guys.
Here's a clip of him explaining what that is, just so you're aware, just so you know how bad it is that this is the priority for the DHS. Okay, take a look.
So which Americans were being targeted?
Now, August 2nd, 2022, a media organization attained a copy of a document which whistleblowers subsequently authenticated to the committee that is styled the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide on Militia, Violent Extremists.
Mr.
Abwell, are you generally familiar with that guide?
Yes.
And that guide identified certain things that made people more likely to be deemed a threat or terrorists, didn't it?
Yes.
Wasn't one of those things just the number 2 and the letter A next to each other?
Yes, it was.
And in your experience as a law enforcement official, does putting the letter 2 and A next to each other make someone more likely to be violent or law-breaking?
No.
And if someone signified that they support the right to bear arms, was that also something in the symbol guide?
Yes.
And how about this one really got me.
The Betsy Ross flag.
Was the Betsy Ross flag in the terrorism symbol guide?
It was.
And what about the Betsy Ross flag makes someone more likely to be a violent extremist?
I wish there was a reasonable explanation for that question.
There isn't.
And people blew the whistle and said, this stuff is crazy.
Americans are being targeted.
Mr.
Friend, you ever been to a school board meeting?
Yes, I have.
FBI ever sent you to the parking lot of a school board meeting?
Yes, I have.
In the parking lot of a school board meeting, where the FBI sent you, you were taking down information regarding people's license plates.
That's correct.
Now, it wasn't the first time you'd been to a school board meeting, was it?
No, I went on my own as a private citizen.
As a parent?
Yes.
And so, there you were.
It must have been quite an interesting perspective.
There you were, taking down the information of people, parents, attending school board meetings on behest of the FBI, and you had been one of those parents at a school board meeting.
How did that feel?
Well, after I attended privately, my colleagues teased me that they were probably gonna start investigating me.
You used to go after the worst of the worst, didn't you?
Yes, I believe so.
You went after people who looked at child porn, Yes.
People who were sexually exploiting children?
Yes.
And then you were in the parking lot of a school board meeting, taking down the information of parents.
What happened to the cases that you were working to protect our communities from the worst predators that exist?
I was told they were not to be resourced, and then after I was suspended, they were handed off to local law enforcement officers.
Wow, so the FBI just decided it was more important to have you in that parking lot of that school board meeting than getting the worst of the worst away from people that they could harm.
That's correct.
But you deserve the consequences you are getting, according to the ranking member.
Mr.
O'Boyle, The ranking member said that when people break the law, they deserve the consequences they get.
And it doesn't matter that they served in the military.
So what law did you break before the FBI packed up all your stuff and moved it across the country to Virginia?
No true law.
The only thing I broke was not towing the line for the FBI. Like I said when I opened, my oath is to the Constitution, not to the FBI. And our laws provide you avenues to talk to Congress, to talk to your supervisors about those concerns, right?
Correct.
And so you didn't deviate from that, did you?
No.
You didn't go to the media first, did you?
No.
You used what the law provided.
And your family has paid an exquisite price for that, haven't they?
They have.
How old were your children when they moved you across the country?
Six, five, three...
In two weeks.
A two-week-old baby.
Could you get your stuff?
Six weeks later.
Oh, so for six weeks, almost every possession to your name, the FBI had and wouldn't give back to you.
How did you...
What time of year was it?
Was it winter, summer?
When I reported, it was in September.
So when we were traveling, it was summertime, essentially.
So we had basically summer clothes, but then we were basically stranded in Wisconsin, which is where we're from.
It gets cold there pretty quick.
I'll take your word for it.
I'm a Florida man.
But what was it like when you had to go and explain to your wife that you didn't have coats for your children because the FBI wouldn't give them back to you?
It was horrible.
I mean, we were...
Asking family for clothes and...
Excuse me.
That's exactly what happened.
All those FBI whistleblowers, they were talking.
They released this memo of all these domestic terrorism symbols, which I'm sure you guys would be considered domestic terrorism.
I know I would be.
I own a lot of those symbols.
The Gadsden flag.
A few others.
I have a Betsy Ross flag.
I used to.
But anyways, doesn't matter.
They were looking for reasons to go after patriots.
Many whistleblowers have said that this was the directive of the higher-ups at the FBI. And so those whistleblowers have corroborated everything that we've already known to be true.
And like I said, we've known this for a while.
So why create an intelligence group now that now has the power to go after citizens who may harbor these symbols or behave too patriotically?
Why create it now?
Well, they didn't just create it now.
This press release information isn't new at all.
No.
They actually tried it already.
The Disinformation Governance Board, also what we called the Ministry of Truth, I don't know.
The department welcomes the recommendations of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which has concluded that countering disinformation that threatens the homeland and providing public with accurate information in response is critical to fulfilling the department's mission.
We thank the subcommittee for its work, which required extensive fact gathering and analysis over a short period of time.
So I'm not going to read the whole thing because we all know that it was canceled, or so they publicly told us that.
But like I said, I always knew that the reason it didn't work was because it was bad PR. People associated it too much with the KGB. People associated it too much with communism, the disinformation board.
But make no mistake, what they're doing now with these intelligence groups is the same thing.
It's spying on you for the sake of censoring you and ultimately arresting you because if they can silence you then they can punish you.
That's what all of this was leading to.
They just wanted a reason to arrest patriots.
Which now they've been doing for a while, but now they have legitimacy behind it.
All this is is a rebranding of the Governance Disinformation Board because it didn't work.
A, because of Nina Jankiewicz.
I think they realized it was a horrible mistake to make her the face of it.
And two, because of the name of it.
Like I said, they associate people, Americans, and rightfully so, figured out what they were onto way too quickly.
I think they underestimated our intelligence here, and I think they underestimated how many people...
You know, would find this sketchy.
Because again, it's not even Nina Jankiewicz.
She just made it a million times worse.
It was the very idea that the United States of America, a country that was founded on the idea of freedom, of free speech, Would actually be adopting a disinformation board.
Well, like I said, guys, what we're dealing with is the same thing with this.
And may I remind you, this is what the disinformation board did.
This is a flashback back from a hearing with Josh Hawley.
Okay?
This exposes a lot of what the intention behind the disinformation board was.
And you'll see a lot of comparisons between this and the disinformation board.
Just to remind you, I'm sure you remember, though, a lot of what was set, what the goal was.
Um...
And you're going to notice a lot of similarities there and what they're trying to do now with this intelligence group.
It's very scary.
Take a look.
Senator Hawley, you're recognized for your questions.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Thanks again to the witnesses for being here.
Mr.
Secretary, nice to see you.
I didn't get to visit with you last time, so let's start with you.
I think my colleagues have established, given what we're seeing on the southern border, the massive increase.
and illegality there that that's clearly not a priority for your agency.
So let's talk about what appears to be and that is spying on Americans and censoring their speech.
You have turned your agency into a censorship machine.
Now, you said earlier this year that you disbanded the Disinformation Governance Board, which I thought was totally unconstitutional, but that turns out to be, at best, misleading.
That's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what you're doing.
Your own quadrennial review, which was just reported in the press, says that disinformation is going to be the new focus at DHS. The Quad Review says that DHS plans to target, I'm quoting now, inaccurate information domestically on a wide array of subjects including,
quoting, the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support for Ukraine.
This is what you're devoting your agency's resources to.
So I guess my first question is, is an American citizen who criticizes COVID mandates now to be treated as a domestic terrorist?
Of course not, and I'd like to say three things since you have three inaccuracies in the question you posed to me.
Number one, border security is a priority of ours.
Number two, the department does not censor speech.
And number three, we did not publish a quadrennial review.
Does it exist, the quadrennial review?
I believe it is being worked on.
Well, it's been published in the media.
Will you make it public?
When it is final, it will be public.
Mr.
Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter this article called The Truth Cops, published in The Intercept.
Here's my question then.
If you're not censoring speech and if you're not treating Americans as domestic terrorists, then why is it that you're pressuring big tech to treat American citizens as if they're threats to the homeland?
Why are you pressuring them to censor speech?
Let's take a look at some new documents that have come to light that show what your administration is doing, this administration is doing to censor speech.
Let's take a look at this email from July 16th, 2021.
It's over my shoulder here.
Facebook emailing HHS saying, I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.
Are you familiar with that email?
No.
Let's try another one.
Hold on.
Hold on.
We'll get to that.
You're not familiar with this.
All right.
Let's try a different one.
Here's one from July 20th, 2021.
The White House emails Facebook saying, any way we can get this pulled down?
46 seconds later, Facebook responds, yep, we're on it.
Are you familiar with that email?
No.
Okay, how about this one?
July 23rd, 2021.
Facebook employee writes to HHS, says, Thank you for taking the time to meet today.
Wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies and what we are removing with respect to misinformation.
Are you familiar with that one?
Senator, we do not instruct.
Just yes or no?
No, because I'm the Secretary of DHS. Well, I'm asking you that because it's funny you say that.
A federal judge has just found as a finding of fact, Mr.
Secretary, that your office, and I'm going to quote now, is supervising the nerve center of federally directed censorship.
It's a federal judge and a federal lawsuit.
You are supervising the nerve center of federally directed censorship.
Here's another email.
August 20th, 2021.
Facebook writes again to HHS and highlights that Facebook is increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.
April 16th, 2021.
Rob Flaherty at the White House circulates a Zoom meeting invitation to Twitter employees stating White House staff will be briefed by Twitter on vaccine misinformation.
So yeah, guys, all we're looking at right here with this intelligence group that the DHS is expanding the deep state with is their second attempt at a disinformation board, at the Ministry of Truth.
It's going to serve the same purpose.
I actually think it'll be worse because they've already set a pretty bad precedent with how much they've gone after the people following January 6th.
So all they had to do, really, was slip this right in.
And of course they're gonna tell us, like I read at the top of the show, I actually read the press release, they're gonna throw in things like, oh, border security, drug trafficking, fentanyl abuse, we're gonna be looking into all of these things.
No, they're not.
They already admitted, it already leaked that their focus, that the focus of the FBI is domestic terrorism.
And we didn't even need that for it to be leaked.
We already knew that based off of the patterns that we were witnessing.
And you know what makes this all the worse?
It's the fact that they're trying to convince us that the narrative is the complete opposite.
Yeah.
They're trying to convince us that the FBI, the DOJ, that they're facing all this backlash from big meanie conservatives like Anna Perez, like 26-year-old Anna Perez, as if I'm like a physical threat to any of these people.
But yeah, that's how insane this narrative is.
They want you to believe that the FBI are the victims here and the DOJ are the victims.
I'm not even kidding you.
I'm going to be playing a clip in the second part of the show of something Peter Strzok said that was fascinating and very telling of this new narrative that they're trying to push.
And they're starting it with the left, obviously, because they want you to think that these people are trustworthy.
And the only people who would believe that are, of course, the viewers of MSNBC and CNN and all of those people.
So, yeah, not only are they weaponizing the government against us, but they want you to believe that it's actually the complete opposite, that the Government is the victim.
The government employees are the victims.
Oh, woe is me, even though I'm fully protected wearing my bulletproof vest and I'm fully armed.
Yeah, if you're gonna lie, make it a believable lie.
But we're gonna be talking about that and so much more coming up.
Before we do that, though, I do wanna go ahead and see what you guys are saying in the chat.
Loki707.
Oh, Colin Guy.
Yeah, he has a sad life.
He trolls a lot of different shows, so I just asked him if they could get rid of him, so hopefully they'll get to that soon.
Let's see.
Emmy, bingo, it'll get banned or leave when there's no engagement.
Yeah.
It's just, it's sad.
Imagine being, you know what, Colin guy, I feel sorry for you.
I hope one day that you find a woman that will actually like you and stay with you, although I don't have high hopes for you considering it's 9.30 on a Tuesday night and you're watching my show seething.
I mean, I guess I'm grateful for the view, but dude, dude, it's really sad.
It's really sad.
I don't know, man.
I mean, that's just really sad in my mind.
I hope that you find joy in life and that you find a job, actually, employment.
That'd be nice.
Okay, let's see.
AB502 says, yeah, don't.
Oh, you're talking about the troll.
Let's see.
Anna has her hand on the flush handle.
Yeah, don't worry.
We'll get rid of him soon.
Let's see.
Tone Man says, or the J6 pipe bombers.
I mean, they've just been targeting everyone.
We're going to be talking about a really wild story coming up about two elderly women who were merely protesting an abortion clinic.
It's a pretty insane story.
Also, guys, please go ahead and like the show if you haven't already.
Share the show on your social media.
I would really appreciate that, guys.
That helps grow the show, that helps get more eyes on the show.
Obviously, it's a new show, and we're trying to, you know, get the word out that it's new.
It's only 6.30, where I am, Anna, says Bman6262.
Oh, you must be on the West Coast.
Yeah, I'm on the East Coast, so it's 9.30 right now.
P.M. Reese says, are we all sick and tired with Biden?
I Am America needs our military.
I know, he's destroyed our military, he's feminized it, and he's made it gay, which is actually worse than feminizing it, because the only thing worse than a woman being in the military is a fake mentally ill woman being in the military.
I just don't think that that's probably...
A good idea for anybody.
Ladderer says, Happy, this is her second show of Wrong Think.
Primetime, she has Wrong Think at 3 in the afternoon under LFA. Yeah, this has been amazing.
I love doing a nighttime show because I feel like I can get to more viewers because oftentimes 3 p.m.
isn't super convenient and I get that.
People are working.
I'm like the Colin guy who clearly doesn't have a job.
It's very sad because he also comes into my 3 p.m.
show.
So if you have time to be in a 3 p.m.
show and a 9 p.m.
show, you clearly have no life.
Look, I... There's a lot of people that I don't like, but usually when I don't like someone, I don't waste my time giving them a view, trolling them, because that's, like, obviously not something I want to give them, because I'm giving them my attention.
Yes, nighttime is my time.
Good to see you.
This is Alan S333. It's my time, too, which is why, of course, I decided to do a nighttime show, because I figured it'd be good.
New Edge says my son just left the army.
It is gay AF. Yeah, I've heard a lot of stories about that.
And it's sad because it used to be this place of hyper-masculinity that attracted hyper-masculinity because if you want anybody, and that's a good thing, if you want anybody to be going to war, you want masculine men to be going to war.
You don't want feminized men.
Obviously, you'd think that's a no-brainer.
And quite frankly, I don't really want women going to war either.
And I actually would feel sorry, because if you think about it in this way, the military is teamwork, and if you're on the battlefield, your partner gets injured, or you're with somebody that you're working with, they get injured, you have to be able to pick them up, carry them to safety.
Now how am I, a 120 pound woman, supposed to do that if I'm standing there with a 200 pound man who's injured?
How am I supposed to pick him up?
How am I supposed to carry him to safety?
Like, that doesn't make sense.
And it's not like you can make the argument, well, Anna, they make sure that these are very specific women who can pass certain physical requirements.
No, they're not, because they've actually lowered the bar so that more women can be a part of the military.
I actually would be fine, actually more okay with the idea Although even then I wouldn't because having women in the military I think is bad for morale too.
And anybody who has been in it will tell you that.
Any man who has been, they've seen a lot of things go wrong because of relationship issues or whatever.
Or sex related issues.
So it's not good for anybody, for both the men and the women, to have them both in the same close quarters.
But besides that, at the very least, can we require that women pass these physical requirements?
But no, we don't.
We don't.
Let's see.
Ellen S333 says, haha, there ain't no way you can carry an 180-pound guy, huh?
No, I can't.
And I'm not, like, trying to because I'm not in the military.
I'm, you know, I, as a woman, don't believe that's the place for me.
I don't want to put myself in that environment, and more importantly, I don't want to put other people in harm's way because I can't handle the physical requirements of being in the military.
That's not fair to them.
Somebody might die because of my inadequacies.
And that's just the reality, right?
And I don't think other women, unless you have some super strength or a lot of testosterone...
Like, for example, the Colin guy would be useless because he clearly has high estrogen levels.
And so he'd probably be worse than me.
He probably has higher estrogen levels than me.
So the only person, you know, worse than having me...
The only thing worse than having me as a partner in the military would be having the Colin guy, to be honest.
Let's see, agreed Anna, says Grunwin75.
Ron Green says, high-heeled combat boots coming to an army near you.
Yeah, and you know what's funny?
They wouldn't even be for women.
They would be for the...
They would be for the trannies, because the trannies would be the ones in the high heels.
Bman6262 says, I know a small girl that has done it, Anna, just saying...
Well, yeah, that doesn't prove anything, though.
We all know exceptions to the rule.
There's always going to be a general rule, and then there's always going to be exceptions, right?
And so, typically, you want to base your society, if you're trying to run a successful society, you want to create a legal system, a justice system, and a set of cultural norms that are centered around the norm.
There will always be people who deviate from the norm, right?
But for the most part, you don't want to cater to the minority, or else you become a society that is honestly rotting from within, which is actually what's happening right now.
We can see the examples of that.
When we look at how we've catered so much to trannies, mentally ill men who think they're women, or the opposite, mentally ill women who think they're men, that's not a good place to be.
You never want to cater to the minority.
It doesn't make sense.
Let's see, Colin, guys, what does an anchor on OAN make, like 30k annually?
I don't know, I've never worked at OAN, so I would never know.
No, she just keeps auditioning for a position at OAN. No, OAN wouldn't want me, I don't think.
I think a little bit too much outside of the box for them, if that makes sense.
Let's see.
Let's see.
PM Reese, exactly.
Combat does not know the difference between male and female, just victories.
Exactly.
And so...
Uh, the Colin guy says, Anna, you're very attractive, but you're truly an effing moron.
Look, Colin guy, now it's clear.
You obviously have a crush on me.
Guess what?
I don't want to date you, okay?
So move along, okay?
I don't date men with high estrogen levels.
God, what a loser.
Emmy 007 says, tell it, Anna.
Um...
Way too in your face and honest for OAN, says Allen S333. Yeah, I mean, no offense to OAN. I don't consider them like the biggest problem, obviously, but I don't think, yeah, I never really, I don't really want to be there.
Anyways, SGT Bones says 10 years infantry, no way Joes would focus around a female.
Yeah, it's a horrible idea to focus around women and base your campaign around that.
Let's see.
LOL says, InfoQ, WarriorQ.
Lots of Q's in your name.
I can't pronounce that right.
SlickNerd says, Anna, they are depleting our emergency fuel levels.
Our missile stockpiles are depleting and our military is leaning woke.
This isn't America.
I know, it sucks because...
What we're dealing with right now basically is we're giving all of our equipment.
We already did it with the withdrawal in Afghanistan.
We just left like 85 billion dollars of military equipment on the street there.
They don't even have streets because they're such a third world country.
Just like a pile of dirt where we left it, I assume.
Sand dunes.
But then on top of that, we continue to give it away to Ukraine.
So, utter disaster.
Alright?
Alright, so I do want to go ahead and move on, because I have more to get to, guys.
Look, like I said, guys, the irony of all of this, despite the fact that it's we the people, United States citizens, who are actively being targeted, and not just United States citizens, because I'm sure the FBI loves the colony guy, But it's people like you and I who are actual patriots who actually want to see this country succeed and are proud of being from this country that they're after, that they're targeting right now.
And so the way that they're sort of trying to cover that up is that they're trying to convince you that the real...
It's total gaslighting.
They meaning the elites.
The narrative is that they want to convince you that the real victims here are the FBI and the DOJ, the whole deep state.
The deep state are the victims.
Oh no, protect them.
How pathetic.
How pathetic.
And all these low-T men, these high-estrogen men, are buying into it.
I guess Colin Guy would be one of them.
But I want to go ahead and play this clip of Peter Strzok, who kind of set the agenda.
When he said this, I came across it earlier today.
And this was, I believe, on MSNBC earlier this month.
But...
It was pretty telling because it made me think this is exactly the direction they want to go.
Despite the fact that they're weaponizing the government against us, they want you to believe that it's the opposite.
That we are the big meanies.
We the people are bullying the employees of the government.
This is hilarious.
Take a look at what Peter Strzok had to say.
If we are too timid in the way we talk about this, I mean, these are threats to terrorize people who are public servants doing their jobs for political purpose.
Are we seeing something?
Are we saying something?
And are we saying the right thing?
Well, in my opinion, we're not doing enough.
I mean, look, when push comes to shove, absolutely, the FBI and DOJ need to band together and protect their personnel to allow them to do their job.
They're going to do it, but they need to be able to do that without fear for their lives.
When the FBI was fighting Al Capone, there was not a unit dedicated to protecting FBI personnel.
And the FBI was fighting organized crime families in New York and all around the U.S. There was not a unit dedicated to protecting FBI personnel.
I'm struck by the fact you threw up that quote from testimony from an FBI agent to the House Judiciary Committee.
Who's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee?
Jim Jordan.
And yet Jim Jordan hearing that these threats to this AUSA are resulting, are coming about from being publicized, he nevertheless goes on television and, you know, appears in the same, you know, little snips that you showed repeating the name of this AUSA. So, congressmen, senators, they don't care about this threat.
But we need to be doing more.
In my opinion, I'm glad to see the FBI and Director Wray and others starting to talk about this.
But we need to talk about it even more.
Because it's not getting better.
If anything, it's getting worse.
And it's getting worse behind the testimony and the statements of senators and congressmen.
Not fringe, you know, sort of outcasts and outliers, but mainstream, reputable national politicians.
And it's got to stop.
It's interesting when you say that.
There's no unit created to project the agents that were prosecuting Al Capone.
And your comment, Pete, about the elected officials who are threatening these individuals.
In the same way that Republicans put out enough disinformation for the Russian troll farms to be rendered nearly irrelevant, although I'm sure they'll be busy in 2020, you've got Republicans doing all of the mob-like threatening and intimidation and endangering of prosecutors.
What do you need the Proud Boys for?
It's just, it's an It's an extraordinary articulation of how far we have fallen.
Shut up, you elitist faggots.
Yeah.
You're not the victim here, Peter Strzok.
You and your ilk are not the victims.
James Clapper is not a victim.
Those FBI agents that are actually going after American citizens following orders that they were given, they're not the victims either because they're a part of the problem.
None of these people are victims.
They are flipping the script on you.
The real people who are the victims are the ones that they're going after, that they are actively targeting.
I don't buy for a second that these people are victims.
I mean, the optics are enough to prove it, guys.
I mean, why else would they have been fully equipped with bulletproof vests and guns?
Are those the victims?
No, those are the people who have the power.
When you have guns and you have bulletproof vests and you're going after a powerless American citizen who probably isn't even armed, You're not the victim.
In that case, they are.
Which is exactly what happened to Nathan Hughes, one of the January 6th protesters that the FBI went after.
Now you watch this video and you tell me who the real victim is here.
The FBI or the American citizen that they're going after.
Take a look at this.
Don't get anywhere close to me.
Don't get anywhere close to me.
I'm not doing anything wrong.
Get away from me.
Don't get your fucking hands off me.
Get your hands off me.
Get your hands off me.
Sir, stop right there.
It doesn't matter.
I'm not doing anything wrong.
Get your fucking hands off me.
You don't need to walk into where we're arresting somebody right now.
It doesn't matter.
Get your fucking hands off me.
Don't touch me.
Yo, yo, come on, man.
We're good.
Come on, I got you.
We're gonna step over here.
I got him, boss.
He good.
He good.
Come on.
We good.
We good.
Don't fucking touch me.
Please stop walking.
Please stop walking forward.
I got him.
I got him.
He good.
We good.
Get the fuck away from me.
Don't touch me.
Don't.
You can step back there.
Don't put your fucking hands up.
We good.
He good.
Don't touch me.
We good.
Do you want somebody to secure his car?
It doesn't matter.
Hey man, this is as far as you can go, okay?
I'm not going to touch you.
You can't get close to him.
I could be right here.
Don't touch me.
You can stay right there.
Please don't get any closer.
Don't touch me.
Don't fucking touch me.
Hey man, please don't go right here.
Sir, don't touch me.
Keep their fucking hands off me.
Don't touch me.
Step back over there.
Don't fucking touch me.
Step back.
There you go.
Thank you.
Step back.
You're walking between our cars.
This doesn't mean shit.
You're interfering with arrest.
Yes, you are.
We're conducting an arrest right now.
What's the arrest about, boss?
Yeah, that is his business not yours.
What's your badge on?
You have to tell me.
I don't tell you anything.
What, you don't?
No.
What's your badge on?
I don't tell you anything.
Okay.
All you put your fucking hands on me.
This guy put his hands on me.
Hey, who's feeling?
What?
Which one's Phillip?
Huh?
He's not here.
Hey, why did you put your hands on me?
He said the keys are in the car, so if y'all want to like pull it around and lock it and secure it.
I'll move it.
Perfect. - Can you get the, you guys over here?
Sure.
Do not stand close to that car.
Why?
Because I'm asking you to.
But you're asking me.
I'm allowed to go over there.
I'm allowed to go over there.
I understand what you think you're allowed to do.
Just please stay away from our people for a second.
I'm allowed to go over there.
I'm asking nicely, man.
I'm trying to be clear.
I'm allowed to go over there, though.
I understand that.
Okay.
I am asking you to stay away from my car for a second.
And I'm saying that I'm allowed to go over there.
So that man, Nathan Hughes, who's the one that the FBI are going after, they're the one that they're ambushing basically, that guy Nathan Hughes, we're being gaslit to believe that he somehow is not the victim in that scenario and that the FBI are the victims.
Makes zero sense.
But that is the narrative that they want you to believe.
They want you to believe so badly that you are in the wrong for criticizing these amazing patriots who are doing their job.
No!
It's the other way around.
That is how they're able to cover up or how they're trying to cover up everything that they're trying to do Censoring basically everything we do, whether it come to protest or free speech.
They want to censor us, okay?
That is clear.
And the way that they're getting away with it or that they're going to try and get away with it is they're trying to flip the script, as you just saw there with Peter Strzok and that example of the FBI going after Nathan Hughes.
And it gets even more egregious.
How could you, at this point, still believe that they...
For whatever, somehow, whatever, how could you possibly believe that the FBI, the DOJ, and the rest of the deep state are the victims here?
When they do things like go after, target 70-year-old women who are pro-life activists.
Yeah.
Take a look at what just happened.
This story, guys, made me so angry.
I just, I couldn't even, I can't even explain to you how angry this makes me.
A Biden DOJ punishes elderly pro-life women for trying to stop abortions.
Both face jail time.
A federal jury convicted three pro-life activists on Friday for trying to stop abortions from taking place at a Washington, D.C. abortion facility.
A jury convicted Jonathan Darnell, 41, Jean Marshall, 73, and Joan Bell, 74, of...
Of a felony conspiracy against rights and a violation of the freedom of access to clinic entrances, FACE Act.
The Justice Department, which is prosecuting the case, said in a release that the defendants were involved in a conspiracy to blockade the abortion clinic.
How is that a conspiracy?
The defendants each face up to a maximum of 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $350,000.
That's what these two poor 70-some-odd-year-old women face.
The DOJ release says, And guys, this is what the two women look like.
On the left here you have Joan and on the right you have Jean.
These two elderly women were merely trying to protect the rights of the unborn by protesting at a D.C. abortion clinic when they were deemed conspiracy theorists.
And by the way, they are currently detained.
That's right.
They are, as we speak, detained.
And as we know from the J6 prisoner situation, only God knows how long they're going to be there for.
Because it could be a very long time.
And we're supposed to believe that the DOJ, the deep state, all of the FBI, all of the three-letter agencies, that they're the victims?
We're not allowed to criticize them because they're the victims.
They're allowed to do whatever they want to, spy on us, silence us, censor us, politically prosecute you like they did to those two elderly women, and yet they're the victims.
That's like a domestic abuser convincing you that you deserve to be hit.
That you're the bad person.
You're the bad one in that relationship.
We are in an abusive relationship with the deep state.
And I refuse to succumb to it.
And you should too.
Because before we know it, they're going to be after you.
They're going to be after me, I'm sure.
I'm waiting for that knock on my door from the FBI any day.
They will look for any excuse, any excuse, to target patriotic Americans.
We know that.
They've told us that.
And what we're seeing, this new intelligence group that they just came out with, intelligence experts, it's just the latest rendition of the Ministry of Truth.
It's the latest rendition of their attempt to silence us, censor us, and then punish us, throw us in jail.
And they've already done it to so many.
That is the reality.
There's nothing new here.
There's nothing new up their sleeves.
They're just looking for creative ways to repackage it while distracting us with a false narrative, such as the deep state are the victims.
Yeah, BS. So obviously pray for those two elderly women, you know, because, you know, tonight, every night until they're free, because that's a horrible situation for two elderly.
They'll die if they go to jail for 11 years.
Who knows?
Maybe they'll die before then.
It's absolutely horrible.
That should not be happening in American society.
That should not be happening in America ever.
So, guys, I hate to leave it on that note, but it's important that we are realistic and that we're aware of what's going on here.
It's really important that, you know, we inform ourselves of what's going on.
Oh, we have this guy is the same guy who comes to LFA. He creates different usernames, the troll you're looking at right now, by the way.
It's really sad.
Pray for him, too, because he clearly doesn't have a life.
Anyways, he says, Anna, 10 years from now, you're going to watch yourself and cringe.
Um, I don't- who are you?
Oh, that's right.
Nobody.
So, uh, yeah, I wouldn't come for me if I were you.
Anyways, um, I do want to go ahead and move on because I have more to get to.
I actually want to show you this video that has been- that was pretty weird because it was like- I've actually done a show on surrogacy and why I'm against it.
I've done some reporting on what goes on in these countries where you see surrogacy is a problem like in Thailand and Ukraine.
It's a really immoral situation.
A lot of gays do it.
They like to LARP as a straight couple and adopt a baby and exploit a woman for that.
So it's pretty disgusting.
And the other disgusting part is that they basically play into this whole eugenics thing.
It's a designer baby thing.
Um, and they like, they want certain traits in their child.
It's really weird.
I'll show you the clip in a moment, but first I want to go ahead and see what you guys are saying.
Anna is a warrior, says, Hawkeye 7.
Stretch J. Mr.
says, LOL, God is with you, Anna.
Thank you, thank you.
Um, oh, Ryan's in the chat.
Uh, oh, did they get rid of him?
Um, oh, there's another, another one.
Uh, Let's see, Ma Trent says, Ryan, find him and kick his ass.
Oh, believe me, Ryan would if he knew who he was.
I totally believe that.
Let's see.
Hawkeye7 says, oh, everyone's saying hello to Ryan.
Yes, go follow Ryan on Rumble as well.
Ryan has a great Rumble channel.
We used to do a morning show together.
I've had to stop that today because I just have a lot going on, but he is amazing.
He just did an interview with a flat earther, Dave something.
I forget his last name, but he actually, Stu's interviewed him before too, and he's really interesting, one of the most interesting people, so highly recommend you check that out.
Please go ahead and like the show if you haven't already, and also share the link on your social media.
Send it to your family and friends.
Help me grow this show.
It is a new show here on the Stu Peters Network, so I really appreciate you guys helping me out with that.
All right, so I do want to go ahead and move on to the last story I have to get to.
This is one of the more bizarre occurrences we're witnessing in modern society.
Unfortunately, it is not just an occurrence, it's actually a trend that we're seeing with a lot of gay couples who want to adopt, or not adopt, they actually hire a surrogate, they get an egg donor, and it's this whole thing.
And the whole thing is so, so weird for multiple reasons, but first I want to go ahead and actually show the clip to you.
Here it is.
So this is how we chose our beautiful egg donor.
So we wanted her to have lovely big eyes.
I wanted her to have really thick hair because I've had two hair transplants.
I wanted her to have a really wide, nice smile and just look like a kind person.
Yeah, and we wanted her to be creative because we love the arts.
So how it works is you join up with an egg donor agency and you literally go through thousands.
That's what Stuart did.
That's what I did.
I went through thousands, thousands, thousands.
I shortlisted them, sent them to Francis and let him decide.
And then I had three or four in front of me and then we had a few Zoom calls with the ones that we liked and then...
The first egg donor let us down.
Fuming!
Second egg donor let us down.
Fuming!
And then by the third we literally found her and I was like...
She's incredible.
And when we got on the Zoom call, we were like, be calm, play it down, don't be too keen.
And luckily, she said yes.
And this is the result.
Yay!
you're mentally ill.
Yeah, that's weird.
How eugenic-y is that?
This is wrong for a few reasons.
Surrogacy is not moral, it's just not, okay?
First of all, a lot of these women come from Thailand or Ukraine, and a lot of these gay couples will travel to these countries, find women who are easily exploited because they need the money or whatever, so that woman is being used for her ability to reproduce, have a child, right?
Then it's also wrong because you're ripping the baby out of the mother's arms where the baby belongs That can't be healthy for the child.
In fact, I know it's not healthy for the child.
And the other reason is that a lot of these couples, what they do is they have very particular weird eugenics-y sort of demands that their child look like.
Just like they explain, she needs to be artsy, she needs to be this, she needs to be that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, well, you don't just get to force your child to be these things.
Life is not some cookie-cutter situation.
Sometimes your child doesn't end up the way you wish that they were.
And honestly, that's fine because you're supposed to love your child no matter what.
But that's not a concept you would actually understand because you're not actually meant to have a child.
Yeah, that's why you can't reproduce.
Yeah, only a woman can do that.
Only a man and a woman can do that.
And that can't be healthy for the child to be in that situation.
I'm sorry, it's just not.
And this isn't some sort of religious argument, although there are plenty of Christian arguments for that.
And as a Christian woman, I could talk about that all day.
But that's not even the point.
This is such an exploitative issue.
And I'm shocked that here in the United States we see people do stuff like that.
I mean, actually, probably not in the United States, but still in the Western world.
It's disgusting.
Oh, and by the way, a lot of times these babies get abandoned.
I've heard plenty of stories like this in Ukraine.
I actually, I want to do a documentary on this.
I want to expose the womb trafficking problem, womb, W-O-A-M-B, problem in Ukraine because it's really, really bad.
They'll go there, and if the baby doesn't end up being exactly how they wanted the baby to be, That baby will...
They'll just leave the baby there and never pick it up.
So pretty screwed up.
I just wanted to show you that clip because I think it's just so mentally ill that that happens.
Someone keeps telling me, Anna, go watch Nick Fuentes at Cozy TV. Dude, I'm in the middle of a show right now, or I should say at the end, but you've been harassing me this whole show.
What am I supposed to do?
Watch it while I'm hosting?
That makes zero sense, dude.
Okay?
Go somewhere else for that.
But yes, guys, thank you so much for tuning in today.
I know it was kind of a weird clip to end the show on, but it is a real issue that we need to be aware of.
The gays and the trannies are doing this like crazy and it needs to end.
Surrogacy should be illegal because of all of the implications, all of the problems that we've seen that come along with it.
All right, guys.
Thank you so much for tuning in today.
Please go rumble the show on your way out.
I really appreciate you being here.
And I will see you back here tomorrow for another episode of Wrong Think on LFA TV at 3 p.m.
Eastern Time and Wrong Think Prime Time right here in the Stu Peters Network at 9 p.m.
Eastern Time.
Have a great night, guys.
▲
Export Selection