In the hospital on that day, you told me you're in the hospital, that you were told that there was a credible threat against me and Tucker Carlson. Specifically, you told me that me and Tucker Carlson were on a list and that you were just telling me as a friend that me and.
Tucker should lay low.
And after you told me that, I ended our phone call and I immediately called took a Carlson and I said, hey, terrified, obviously crying all day and telling him that he and I have to lay low because there's a credible threat and it is now really living inside me that you did not tell me who that threat was from. I assumed the FEDS told you, But I asked you the question, why wouldn't the FEDS call me directly if there was a threat against my life? No such call has come in. How is that possible?
Irrefutably true?
And concerning questions from Candice Owns, which she does deserve answers to, but she omitted something that I think is really important, and this is actually something that came from her coverage about a month ago, and that was that Andrew Covid, the same person who she alleges contacted her from the hospital, which means it was probably the same day as the attack on Charlie Kirk to warn her that she was on a list and that she was under threat and that she needed to lay low along
with Tucker Carlson, which she then called Tucker and confirmed that with him as well. It tells me that there is a reason to believe that Andrew Covid thought that Israel was behind the attack on Charlie Kirk. Now let me explain, because I'm making a pretty outlandish claim if you haven't been following this closely. A few weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Andrew covidt went on TPUSA and he said, this.
A group text chain that has been made known and released by Candee Owen's and I just want to dress it head on because you know, that was a text grab, a screen grab that I had shared with people, so it is authentic, and I want to go into it because I actually am really excited that the truth is
out there. I first want to say the reason I have I didn't share that screen grab publicly is because it was a private It was a private exchange, and I felt like it didn't necessarily comport with things that were already public. I wanted to not betray my friend's trust in that way, but I did share it with some people in government.
So those notorious group chats, those messages from Charlie Kirk in which he said that his donors were pulling out and that they were doing so because he wouldn't have been in Tucker Carlson, and that ultimately he had no choice but to have been in the pro Israel cause that was screenshotted by him, That was sent to the government by him. There has been an additional reporting after the fact that claims that he sent it to the FBI.
I don't know who he sent it to. All I can go off of is what he said there, which is that he sent it to the government. But the obvious implication, and the point that I think that Candice should have made in that moment, is that Andrew Covid, the pr rep and the right hand guy to Charlie Kirk, thought that those group chats were meaningful. He thought that they were a potential motive. Why else would he send that to the government, Why else would he forward that on to anybody?
Why would you do that? I mean The obvious.
Implication there is that you believe that it may serve as motive. Now, why would that be a motive. Well, if you've already been watching my show or Candas for that matter, you already know why that would be a motive. Charlie Kirk was the last prominent young voice on the right wing that was very right or die for Israel. At least historically he had been. That had been changing.
He had started to question Israel and their policies, particularly after October seventh, when he thought that there may have been a standown order that was put in place, because otherwise he could not rationalize or come to any sort of logical conclusion as to why there'd be no IDF response or any real response for many many hours after the invasion from AHAs he became increasingly disturbed by the
Epstein lack of disclosures. He also came under fire by TPUSA attendees on the regular, challenging him and asking him questions as to the war in Gaza, be that ethnic cleansing or otherwise. It had Dave smith On to challenge Josh Hammer, a debate he had already won. He did that at the penultimate event in July in Orlando, in which Dave Smith did what Dave Smith does, and he once again traunced Josh Hammer, Josh Hammer who went on to lie about the nature of those group chats which
he was a participant in. So why did Josh Hammer lie and why did Andrew Colvitt tell the truth? Assuming he's telling the truth that in fact he screenshot of those chats and he sent them to the government, the obvious implication is that he believed that those chats contained a lead or a motive to the assassination of Charlie Kirk that the government needed to look into. Now, as I've said many times, you don't have to agree with
Candiss Owens on her analysis or her suspicions. You don't have to believe that she's right in leaning towards this being an intel hit or Israel for that matter. What it does tell you, though, is that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, his right hand guy thought that that was viable. He thought that that was a potential motive or a potential lead for the attack on Charlie Kirk. That is a big story, that is a blaring headline story that nobody's talking about, and
nobody's pressuring mister Colvit to answer that question. Why did you think that they were valid? Why did you send that to the government. Now, I'm not accusing him of doing anything wrong, In fact, quite the opposite. I think in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of his friend and his boss, he probably was thinking to himself, Okay, what has happened that's out of place over the past couple days, What is something that could be meaningful that
happened over the past month or week? And what was his conclusion? Well, as evidenced by his activity, his action, is that he thought that that group chat was pertinent, He thought it was viable, he thought it was a potential motive, so he forwarded it on. You did the right thing, Andrew. I applaud you for that, but I have to ask why did you not come out in defense of Candice Owans when she started to imply the same thing just a few weeks later. Why did you
stay totally quiet? Why did you leave her drifting in the wind as everybody else called her a liar and a lunatic when it's pretty clear to me that you thought that the same exact thing, and in fact, you probably thought it before she did. So there's really only two potential conclusions to come to. Either Andrew Covid lied about screenshotting that chat and sending it to the government, particularly the FBI, or he did do that and then
he became scared or silent for some other reason. And I don't know what that reason is, but there's a very easy way to figure this out. Mister Covid, tell us, tell us why you thought that group chat was meaningful? If you have an explanation that's more benign than what I'm insinuating. What I'm thinking, what I'm thinking you were insinuating with that, Well, tell us why was that meaningful?
I mean, it doesn't have to necessarily lead to some sort of far fetched or far reaching conclusion that this was in at tech from Massad or Israel or our own intellagencies. It could be that you thought that the withdrawal of the donor funds, maybe that was a catalyst for someone domestically to be upset with Charlie. I don't know what you were thinking, but I think it's meaningful enough that you want to answer it.
And I hope you will.
I wonder if I represent an anti interventionist faction. Tucker Carlson does too, as does Candice Owens, and I wonder if that's the real reason. I've not said anything particularly disparaging about Anfest, but they told me I couldn't come.
Why.
Maybe it's because I said we should stop funding Israel. Maybe it's because I said we should be giving money to Ukraine. Maybe it's because young people largely don't want foreign intervention and there are individuals in politics who disagree. So I will say this, I've been given the official reason I had made hurtful comments. Maybe I'd been told they'refull hard to do. Perhaps the use of Tim Poole is no more. We don't need a disaffected liberal who's
anti WARRN, anti intervention. That's not what the movement needs. The movement needs those who are going to champion foreign investment and foreign intervention.
So that's my buddy Tim Poole talking about his disinvitation to Amfest, which is the largest event that TPUSA throws every year. It happens at the end of the year. I never get invited, primarily because I'm not very pro Israel.
I would imagine.
But Tim is essentially announcing to the world that he has been disinvited, and he has been a staple of that event for a few years now, as far as I know, maybe longer than that. And it's just interesting to me because, in my opinion, as I said at the end of my last episode, Tim has been largely in between on this issue. He says he doesn't want to talk about Israel, but he also doesn't really care about Israel, but he also wants to put America first.
And I argued quite extensively a couple days ago that you really don't have a choice. If you genuinely are interested in putting America first, well then we're going to have to break away from some of our allies. We cannot continue to be both the policeman of the world or the donor of the world, be that via military aid or just welfare to people. Broadly, this has to end. Thirty eight trillion in debt, a trillion in interest annually. You have to end it. You don't have a choice.
So if you want to put America first, you're going to have to have an opinion when it comes to Israel aid. And I think generally speaking, He's probably open to the idea of getting rid of all aid to
Israel and maybe even all weapons. But what I think is interesting about this is that despite the fact that Tim has taken a largely neutral stance or at least certainly not an overtly antagonistic one towards Israel, he is still facing that same decision point, that same demand of him to essentially should ter get off the pot.
Are you with us or are you with the terrorists? Are you with us? Are you against us?
Are you in favor of our continuing aid and an incredibly intertwined relationship with Israel when it comes to foreign policy and otherwise or are you not? That's sad, because if you expect to keep this coalition together, it has to be a big tent like I was never calling for. And I still continue not to call for Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin or any of these people to be
thrown out of the GOP or deplatform for that matter. Certainly, I want to replace them when it comes to the voting block, and I want to win hearts and minds and convince the American people that what they've been prescribing to you for decades now has been completely destructive and ultimately severely not in your interest. But I'm not trying to beat them over the head. I'm not calling up TPUSA and saying, how dare you invite Josh Hammer? You know, like,
that's just not my perspective. It will never be my perspective. I believe that my ideas are right, and I am more than content to have them challenged, and I would actually prefer that they'd be challenged. I think that's how we progress, That's how we find some sort of compromise and meeting of the minds, and we allow for the general public to have that same dialogue, and that's ultimately how you create peace in this world and in this country.
And if you're going to make it so that someone who has not been antagonistic towards Israel, like Tim Poole, he is also not welcome, well then we have a problem that is now basically an ideologically possessed cult that is a neo conservative movement, and in my opinion, that is completely contrary to the wishes and dreams and desires of Charlie Kirk. You're a founder, to which I will say,
why are you doing that? Why are you going against the wishes of Charlie, particularly given that his legacy has been so much a part of this debate over the past two months, that nobody can make heads or tails of what he truly believed. I mean, if you listen to the propagandist, if you actually listen to Charlie, he
had a very nuanced perspective. He was obviously pro Israel, but he was also willing to challenge them when he thought they got out of line, something that I think Tim is willing to do that I think you ought to be willing to do. And if you're not, you can expect Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson to start to
really wonder, is that why Charlie was removed? Because TPUSA was just a little bit too liberal when it came to discussions about Israel, that you aren't interested in having that debate that in fact, it is supposed to be a propaganda arm for a foreign government, a foreign country, in which case, why is your name, TPUSA, Why are you trying to indoctrinate the young conservatives of this country
into something that is not in their best interest? In my opinion, and I might add almost everybody that a tends your event, or at least half of them at this point seemed to be asking the same questions I am as to whether or not that relationship to Israel is in their benefit. And if you expect to deplatform someone like Tim, I would imagine you're going to be
disinviting people like Dave Smith too. And do you think that you're going to have kids in the audience that stop asking the questions that they do every single TPUSA event when it comes to the USS liberty and everything else. I would say no, They're going to keep asking it. So does that mean you're going to disinvite them, You're going to start to remove them from the audience. Are you going to stop handing out a microphone and then
allowing them to ask questions unscripted? It seems as if that's the trajector you're going in And let me just say again, that was not Charlie Kirk. That was not what he was about. Yes, he was pro Israel, but moreover he was pro debate, and in my opinion, he died for that. He died for free speech. So if you're going to try and pretend as if you're carrying on his legacy, I think you're making a catastrophic mistake, and I think your organization will fail as a consequence
of that. So I hope you make the right decision. And speaking of making right decisions, Nick Fointes has a clip that's going very viral today and I want to address it, and hopefully I don't upset him so much that he decides not to do the show with Dave Smith and he and Carroll and myself. But I have to adjuss it. I have to say what I have to say, And for any of the groupers in the audience, which I'm sure there are a few, I hope you'll hear me out. I hope you'll at least at least
hear me out. You may not come to the same conclusion. You may not agree with me, and that's fine, But I think it's very important that we contend with the trajectory that Nick seems to want to go in and really ask ourselves whether or not that's in your best interests and mind for that matter.
The political system is not answerable or accountable to the people because the political system is corrupt, and at these bottlenecks, this is where intelligence, mercenaries, foreign government's money is exercising undue influence in a way that is concealed from the public for an agenda that we don't know about, and maybe we don't even understand. Our sovereignty, our freedom, our liberty, our independence has been stolen from us by this system.
Why would we want to maintain this system? That's the goal. The system is corrupt. The system has to be destroyed.
So I'm gonna pouse there.
I completely agree with Nick fant Is on that the GOP has abandoned any semblance of what they're supposed to be, So no disagreement. Should they be destroyed? Yeah, yeah, they don't. We don't really have a choice because they're so rotten to the core, as evidence by the Epstein cover up after they campaigned to get into power based off of bringing justice and then lied. I mean, we went from yes, we're going to give you justice, full disclosure, We're going
to drop all the Epstein files. We'll do it in the first month whatever, and then immediately it shifts to here are the files, and then they bring out these white binders that have nothing new in them whatsoever. And then you shift a couple months later and there's no there there again.
I know people.
I get it.
I understand it's not there. If it was there, we would have told you.
And then you shift another month later, and it's like, Jeffrey Epstein traffick to no one.
You've seen most of the files.
Who, if anyone did Epstein traffic these women to besides himself, you replied, According to the transcript, there is no credible information that he trafficked them to anyone else. The location of the twenty nineteen sex trafficking indictment, which produced many things, including a series of FD three to two documents according to victims who cooperated with the FBI and that investigation.
These documents in FBI possession. Your possession detail at least twenty men, including mister Jess Stay, CEO of Barclay's Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to victims, including miners such as Virginia Roberts. You free, May she rest in peace.
That list also includes at least nineteen other individuals, one Hollywood producer worth a few hundred million dollars, one royal prince, one high profile individual in the music industry, one very prominent banker, one high profile government official, one high profile former politicans, one owner of a car company in Italy, one rock star, one magician, at least six billionaires, including a billionaire from Canada.
We know these people.
Exist in the FBI files, the files that you control. I don't know exactly who they are, but the FBI does. Have you launched any investigations into any of these people? And have you seen these three two documents?
Sir?
I have asked my FBI agents to review the entirety of the Epstein files and bring forth any credible information. And we're working with Congress not and to deveulows that information and produce.
It to you.
But any investigations that arise from any credible investigation will be brought There have been no new materials brought to me launching a new indictment.
So is the loophole here or is it your assertion that these victims aren't credible?
They reviewed all that, yes, sir?
And so have you reviewed those three to two documents that were the victims name the people who victimize them if I personally know, but the FBI has. So how can you sit here and in front of the Senate and say there are no names? I said, Oh, I named one today, I said, We are not in the We are not in the practice of the Department, just the FBI of releasing victims' names. That is not what we do. We are also not in the habit of releasing incredible information.
He was just a pervert.
He was just downloading bad stuff on his computer. But he certainly wasn't videotaping the rich and powerful abusing young ladies. No, I wasn't doing that, wasn't blackmailing anybody. He wasn't even trafficking to anybody. He had nobody else that he was. Nobody else was doing anything, according to Cash Hotel and Pam Bondi. And then we have Donald Trump calling it a Democrat hoax.
Okay, I guess.
And then I heard there's no files. I heard it's a hoax. All so he's going to release the files. Well, I thought there was no files. He wants an investigation. Now, listen, like, what is going on?
As the clock hits eleven fifty nine PM and Thomas Massey and MTG and Rocanna are sitting on the precipice of passing a bill, a law that will force the disclosure of this file, suddenly they shift and suddenly, yeah, we're on board, because I've got nothing to hide. That's what Donald Trump tells you. But if you recall just a few months prior Pambondi and Cash Hotel, he didn't traffick to anybody. There's nothing to look into. There's nobody
else that's guilty. But then Trump shifts it and now it's Reed Hoffman and all these other Democrats that are responsible, Bill Clinton obviously, and then today she says this, do you mean that.
You will provide all the files by thirty days?
We will follow the law. The law passed both chambers last evening. It has not yet been signed, but we will continue to follow the law again while protecting victims but also providing maximum transparent.
See Man Maturnity General. The DLJ statement earlier this year saying that the files would not release mention the fact that the review of the documents and the evidence did not suggest that any additional investigation of third parties was warranted. What changed since then that you launched this investigation.
Information that has come for information, there's information that new information, additional information, And again we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads, if there are any victims. We encourage all victims to come forward and we will continue to provide maximum transparency under the law.
We will.
We're not going to say anything else on that because now it is appending investigation in the Southern District of New York.
Now let me start by saying cash Betel standing there is. She completely back pedals on everything that he claimed just a few months ago. Has got to feel brutal, and you deserve it. You deserve every ounce of that embarrassment and that shame, because my god, how much of a failure you've been. And I can't believe you haven't resigned, honestly, But Pambondi, if you're listening to her and you don't get the immediate feeling, like you know in your soul,
in your core, that she's lying to you. Just a matter of seventy two hours prior, they were pushing to not have these disclosures, not have this law passed by Massey and MTG because I don't know why. I mean, they didn't tell you why, right, it was just a Democrat hoax. And then suddenly seventy two hours later, after they say he didn't traffick to anybody, now they've got new information. Now they're bringing additional investigations. Really, are you
buying that? Is anybody buying that that just suddenly in that seventy two hour period, after Epstein's already been dead for years and this case has been buried for years, now they get new information. Now there's additional participants that committed serious and have to be prosecuted. Is anybody buying this? You shouldn't be. If you're thinking it all rationally, you
should be telling yourself or thinking to yourself. Obviously they had this information prior, and obviously they were not going to pursue it. They were not going to pursue it at all. But thanks to you, every single one of you sitting at home right now, who relentlessly demanded that they disclosed these files, those that stood up and backed MTG and Thomas Massey and Rocanna for that matter, that
is the reason that that bill got passed. Because I want to remind you, despite the fact that that bill passed with only one dissenting vote, everybody else voted yes. Just a month prior, over two hundred Republicans were prepared to not vote yes. They were going to vote against disclosing the Epstein files Entirely. Two hundred Republicans think about how crazy that is, and then one hundred and ninety nine of them shift with the wind because Donald Trump
says okay. Now why did he say okay? He said okay because it was going to pass regardless. And then all of these fucking vultures decide to finally do the right thing and vote yes, Yes, we're going to require by law that the Epstein file be disclosed. But why
did they vote yes? Because they knew it was a career wreckord Because had it passed and one hundred and eighty or so of them had voted no, they would have had to carry that for the rest of their careers that you voted to not disclose the Epstein files. So one hundred and ninety nine of them go all right, fuck it, Trump says, do it.
We'll do it.
These are the type of unprincipled, absolute scum that have to be removed from office. And when Nick Wenta says that the GOP has to be destroyed, this is why these are deeply, deeply corrupt people, so corrupt that they
cover for what. If you followed my show at all, or if you've done research on your own, you've already come to the conclusion that Epstein was an asset to Israel as well as probably our intelligence almost certainly, and that information was being used for blackmail along with his accounting tricks. He was a financier, is what they call him.
But what he really did was he funneled money for intel agencies and really powerful and wealthy people to do shady shit, illegal shit, and he got paid handsomely to do so.
Epstein also had close ties to our own intelligence agencies in Israel's intelligence agencies. That's why there's so much effort in trying to stop this, and I do believe they'll try to stop it somewhere else and that's going to backfire on them too.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they've tried to bury this, and that is why suddenly they have additional people that they're going to look into and allegedly prosecute. Why would they open up these cases now, Well, because if it's an open case, they can make a claim that we can't talk about it right now because it could jeopardize prosecutions.
I am sorry if one of your billionaireed owners is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island.
They need to be on the other side of.
Bars a lot of them.
Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them need to go to prison, and the survivors know that.
So how will we.
Know if this bill has been successful.
We will know when.
There are men, rich men and handcuffs being purp walked to the jail.
And until then, this is still a cover up.
These people are fucking liars and they are fucking scum. Nick Funt is absolutely right about that. And I'm going to get into the part that I disagree with Funt does eventually, but first we have to hear from the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.
All right, Number five national security concerns. Okay, The discharge requires the Attorney General to release within thirty days quote classified information to the maximum extent possible. This ignores the principle that declassification should always rest and always has rested, with the agency that originated the intelligence.
So the Epstein disclosures, according to the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, couldn't deigns your national security. I want you to ask yourself, and I mean this sincerely, think about it deeply. Why is it that a child trafficking, ring a blackmailer and a financier to the most corrupt institutions and people in our country and all over the world. Why would that fall under the purview of our national security? And hey, Mike, are you talking about America's security or
are you talking about our greatest allies national security? Because that's what everybody's thinking. A lot of people won't say it out loud because you'll get called all sorts of names, But that's what we're all thinking. Go read drop site News. If you don't believe me, go read about what Jeffrey Epstein was doing. He was setting up all sorts of unbelievably shady deals on behalf of Israel, having Israeli spies stay at his house, having Ahud Barack basically fucking be
his roommate for a couple of years. I mean, it's insane. It's insane the connections that this guy had with the top, top levels of Israel. And they want us to believe that when you say this is a danger to national security, that you're talking about America's security. And let me just add, if you are talking about America's national security, if you
were covering up which I clearly you were. But if you were, if you were covering up for a child trafficking ring, a blackmailer, and a guy who was doing all sorts of shady financial shit on behalf of foreign governments, well then you committed treason. All of you committed treason. And let me add if our intelligence agencies are participating in this type of activity, which clearly they were, well then you're all guilty, and you're all. I mean, evil
doesn't even begin to describe it. And I think the truth at the end of the day, or at least the natural conclusion that most of us have come to anybody who's thinking about this rationally, is that you guys are either evil or you're blackmailed. And I tend to think that most of you are just being blackmailed. But there has to be an inflection point. There has to be a moment at which everybody just stands up and says, no more. Whatever we're guilty of, we have to reclaim
our own government. And anybody in the GOP who doesn't have the courage to do the right thing, even if it means reputational damage, or even if it means your own prosecution for other shady.
Shit you did.
I don't care if you're gay, if you abuse kids, yeah, I care, and you're gonna have to serve time. But otherwise, like, come clean. This is like the highest crime you can possibly commit. You've already committed bad crimes. It seems like otherwise you'd probably tell the truth about it. But now you're committing treason. Now you're selling out your own country. And last I checked, the punishment for treason is a little bit more significant than those other crimes you committed.
In this case, if we find out who was on the island, we're going to vote to replace everybody that was complicit in it, and that might give you some hope that we can peacefully replace the political system.
That's the whole point. Johnson says.
We can't tell we can't give away the whole game because I might undermine the political system.
Why because you're all guilty?
Is that it?
Because it's all's true?
Because you're all guilty, and you know that if we saw all the Epstein files, nobody would pay their taxes, nobody would vote, because why would you What would be the point you're paying parking tickets while they're being blackmailed for child rape?
So maybe maybe you guys need to have a come to Jesus moment, especially as much as you talk about God.
So this is the blueprint. This is how we take over. And by the way, hey and get a load of this. Roe Conna and Thomas Massey working together against the interests to compel the files. What do you think that has a ninety percent approval rating? If you add progressive Democrats and nationalist Republicans working together, let's say, to compel the release of the Epstein files. What kind of approval rating
do you think that has ninety percent? And what if they got together and they opposed foreign aid to Israel? What approval rating do you think that would happen? Ninety percent? What if they got together and worked on the basis of a common interest? Do you think that Republicans are independents running under that brand? Do you think that that would become more popular or less popular over time? Four becomes eight, eight becomes sixteen. It's snowballs, and we need
to propel someone into the White House. That is just a populist.
Now, Neck's right about basically all of that. That is what they're terrified of. This is why we have the culture war more or less. I mean, there are obvious disagreements when it comes to the cultural war that are sincere, but a lot of it is concocted to try and keep us separated, and it particularly the populist left in the populist right. I mean, they hate the populist movements, They hate anybody who's not just kool aid drinking Democrat
or a kool a drinking Republican. They want us to be on the plantation divided based off of the somewhat overstated left right divide. And again I agree with Nick that there's a tremendous amount of power if we are willing to work with the populist left and the populace right on the things we agree on. I think where Nick and I part ways is that I think abandoning any semblance of a defense against the free market or in favor of the free market will be catastrophic.
And here's where we're going to have to give. This is going to be the compromise. Very simple. The left has to give up immigration, That's simple. The left is going to have to give up. Look, we can have equity, and we can have equality in the country, we can have civil rights we can have all those things, but we have to close the damn borders. We have to close it. Too many illegal immigrants, too many legal immigrants.
That has to be the compromise. The left has to give on immigration and the right has to give on the free market. If the right can come down on healthcare and on a social safety net, and maybe on subsidies for education, and if the left can come down on the anti white open border stuff, and they can agree that we have a country that party will win ninety percent of the vote in rule for a century,
that's the compromise. That's the populist compromise. Why is it that for the left it's like they don't even care about anything else.
It just has to be open borders.
And on the right, it's like they don't care about anything else as long as it's foreign a to Israel and war in the Middle East and war with Russia. That's the kind of program that we need. And that's what they're terrified of. They're terrified that the left and the right are going to come together on the basis of stop supporting Israel, on the basis of closed the borders, on the basis of restricting money in politics and the influence of the oligarchs. That's what they're terrified of.
Now, he's not wrong that there's a tremendous amount of energy and popularity for these ideas when it comes to the young people in this country. He's right about that, and he's probably right that that will be the prevailing ideology moving forward. I'm just not at all willing to
go along with it. I still think that it's very, very dangerous to start to just hand out free bees to basically bring the ideological sides together, and not because I'm opposed to handing out free bees, even though i am, but more specifically because we simply can't afford it, because the thirty eight trillion dollars of debt. Yes, it would be great if the left and right, the populist left and right, could come together and say no more aid to Israel, no more wars in the Middle East, no
more wars period. But the truth is is that even if you were to end all of that foreign aid, and even if you were to end the empire in terms of the wars, you're going to have additional problems financially that are coming regardless. And if you'd think that you're just going to be able to turn on the printing presses and churn that up so that you can scare quotes afford this social safety net, which is already extraordinarily significant and based off of his description, would be
increasingly large. You're not going to be able to do so. And let me explain exactly why, because I'm sure I've lost some of you already, because this is kind of an Austrian school defense that will immediately make it go a Lolbert idiot. You don't understand what time it is. It's like, no, I do understand what time it is. I'm telling you it's not going to work. And here's why.
If you end the empire, the primary undergirding of the US dollars purchasing power is the fact that we are the empire that I think it's seventy or eighty percent of global trade is done in the US dollar. Why is it done in the US dollar? Well, one, because it had been historically one of the more stable currencies. We're rapidly losing that reason for them utilizing it. The other reason that it's been the primary trading currency of the world is because we killed people. If they didn't
that's the truth. That's why get off. He's gone, saidam a bunch of people. So if you intend to end the empire, which I hope you do and I would love to see done, you're going to have to also emburn fiscal conservatism in a way that has not been embraced in our entire lives. You're going to have to cut spending, and it's going to have to come across the board. It's not going to just be the military industrial complex. It's going to be a lot of things.
And that's a tough pitch to make. But to offset that, what you need to be doing, and I agree with Nick's conclusion or his prescription for the border, I think that we do need to put a moratorium on immigration. I think that the American people do feel as if they're being replaced, and I don't think they're wrong to feel that way.
I think they are.
But if you were to do that, you suddenly increase their standard of living. You decrease the supply of labor, and you increase their living standards because their wages go up because they're no longer competing with tens of millions of illegal immigrants that are here. They're also no longer competing with tens of millions of illegal immigrants that are taking up housing. That should bring the price of housing down.
It will be a deflationary pressure that will be to the benefit of the young people in this country that have been so disenfranchised. But the answer is not to offer them free housing. The answer is to inspire them once again, to let them know, to actually know that they have a future, that if they work hard and they strive, that they can actually reach the highest heights
of whatever industry they're entering. So if we have deflationary pressure when it comes to the price of things, if the dollar starts to strengthen, and if the employment market starts to improve, well, suddenly so much of the desire for the government to come and help and just hand out everything diminishes. And if I haven't convinced you, let's see if Ron Paul has any better luck.
The greatest danger when we accept the notion that the governments supposed to take care of us from cradle to grave, and we're supposed to be the policeman of the world, is it ultimately is done at the expense of personal liberty. The purpose of all governments should be the protection of individual.
Liberty for each and every one of them.
We need to reverse the trend on the attack on our civil liberties. We need to repeal the Patriot Act.
We need to repeal the.
Provision and the President has the authority to assassinate American citizens without trial. We need to repeal the provision that says the President can use the mill terry to arrest any Americans.
It is an ndy nine am a trial.
Very simply, the answer is, send only people to Washington. Send only people to the White House that know and understand and read the constitutions and enforce the constitution. Then we would have an full understanding how you have a peaceful, thriving nation as you enforce the concept of liberty, enforce the liberty for each and every one of us equally. This brings people together.
Because people will.
Use their liberty in different manners, but we don't have to fight over how they use their liberty as long as they assume responsibility for themselves and the consequences.
Of all their actions.
Tell me what he has wrong there, sincerely asking do you think I mean, particularly given that we just lived through four years of Biden and the Democrat rule since censoring us, locking us down, I mean, just abusing us to the end of the earth, especially someone like Nick being deplatformed, being put on the no fly list, being debanked for God's sikes, Do you trust this government to
have this amount of power? I mean, if you do, still, after what you've gone through, I don't understand the rationale is I mean, is the rationale that you're going to take over the government in such a way that you don't have to worry about the viciousness of the state, and that you're gonna utilize it for your own ends? Because if you think that's gonna happen, I don't see it. I don't see how that's actually how this plays out. I think quite the contrary. I think it'll end up
being to your detriment and mine. The answer to me is fairly straightforward. Yes, Yes, we need to end the Patriot Act. Yes, we need to go after and prosecute and use whatever state power we can claim for ourselves to absolutely mercilessly go after everybody that did what they
did to you, Nick Fuontz. And He's right, there's going to have to be compromise, and ultimately, what I'm asking for is probably not going to be what we get either, So I'm not saying that like it's my way or the highway, even though that's what he's saying to the GOP. And I like the mentality, and I think that that's the energy that we need to bring forward. I think we need to have a my way or the highway mentality when it comes to our demands of the GOP.
But when it comes to the negotiations between the warring sects of the populist movement, be that left, right or libertarian, I think that's the debate that matters most. I think that's what we ought to really be in the weeds about, is like, all right, so if we are going to ally, what is the vision, what are we trying to create and what is the best way to create that? Because I think that at the end of the day, most of us have a similar vision for where we want
to get. We just don't know exactly what pathway we're going to take to get there, and there's a lot of different prescriptions that could be thrown on the table and debated at nauseum, And honestly, I hope that we get a chance to do that, which is why I emailed Nick and invited him back on the show with Dave and Ian. And I know Ian Carrol has a lot of disagreements with me when it comes to economics too. I mean, the fact that he was an RFK guy tells me he was probably more in favor of the
social safety net stuff that Fontez is prescribing here. So it's going to be very interesting, and I think that's that's where the fight's at.
That's what the debate ought to be.
Instead of like whether you're a man or a woman, you know, all that pointless bullshit, It's like, let's fucking let's get into this. Let's see what actually presents and creates the best world moving forward. And if that's national socialism or if that's kind of quasi free markets.
I don't know where we're gonna end up.
What I do know is this was the type of discussion I was having a couple of years ago. It was me, Dave Smith, Jimmy dor and Passa. We were all talking about this on their show and it was like, all right, if we get on board with ending the Empire, will you guys give us national health care? And it's like, oh, well, you guys already agree with us about ending the empire?
So what are you giving up?
Because it seems like if this is a negotiation, if we're actually trying to have a meeting the minds here, don't you have to give up something too? And I guess nixt point is all right, you guys just give up on the mass immigration, open borders thing.
It's like, all right, but.
I'm already, I've already I'm on your team with that. So like, what am I getting here? Because I think that socialism is going to be a disaster.
Because it is. But the good news is is.
That we do agree on one major thing, and that's in putting this country first.
Now how do we do that?
We'll hash that out, But in the meantime, I think we can all agree that we need to stop whatever the fuck this is here in Israel.
And as I finish, I wanted to come back here to Israel and let you know that I asserve you as the mayor, but I want to continue to have the title that's more important to me than anything. I'm your brother, Thank you.
That's the former mayor of New York City, Eric Adams. In Jerusalem, he's a mayor of probably the most prominent city in America, New York City. He goes over to Jerusalem the Whaling Wall, and he says, I served you.
What the fuck are you doing? Man?
And this is like, I think, at some point point, this just happens so often that it just becomes normalized. Even though if you take a step back and you say to yourself, like, wait, wait, wait, wait wait, there's a black dude from New York who's going over to Israel to say I served you.
Why? Why?
Why is that the paradigm that we've accepted.
And it's not.
I mean, he's a Democrat, but this is standard fair on the right side the GOP, Almost all of them do the same thing. Many of these wolfs in sheep's clothing also wear the skin suit of America first, or Maga for that matter. I mean, these people are fucking sick. It's so obvious that their allegiance is not to America or Americans. Look, if Eric Adams were to go to some synagogue in New York City and say I served you,
I'd be like, okay, fine, at least they're Americans. You don't go to a fucking foreign country after being a mayor of New York City and say, I served you talking to people who are not American. That's treason, Like dictionary definition, you don't serve foreign governments or foreign people while presiding over our government in America. At least you shouldn't. At least it shouldn't be allowed, and it certainly shouldn't be something that's so overt and in our faces that
it's just beyond the pale insulting. And when people talk about noticing, this is what they're talking about. They notice they noticed it like this, and they go, what the fuck? Wait, wait, wait, you were a mayor of the biggest city in America and you served them.
Why did you do that?
And then you start to back up and you start to connect more dots and you go, okay, so if you served them, you're just some black dude from New York. Then how did you get into power in the first place? And what was the mechanism that caused your rise? How did you get there? And might I add, why was it that Donald Trump also backed you despite the fact that you were a Democrat.
Why did he like you? Eric Adams?
And oh wait, so Donald Trump got a couple hundred million dollars from the adel Sims. Is there any connection there? Is that why he also backed you, because not because you serve New Yorkers in some positive way, you didn't, but because you served the same donor class that put Trump in the power. It's like, oh, all right, now we have a problem. Now we've got a real problem. This is not exclusive to Israel. There's foreign influenced by
a lot of countries. But all of it has to cease, all of it, and anybody telling you otherwise needs to make a damn compelling argument as to why it shouldn't. And if they're unwilling to have that discussion, if they're unwilling to tell you exactly why that paradigm is acceptable, and instead they just start to call you names. You know exactly what you're dealing with. A propagandist, a foreign agent, a trader, and I don't use that word lightly.
That's what it is. Though.
You can't be an American politics and serve a foreign country.
You can't do it.
And you've done it for too long, and you got away with it for way too long. And you certainly labeled us a bunch of hateful shit because we started to call you out on it. Up Ding it's over. You can't keep doing it. And that includes Democrats like Eric Adams. And it also includes the entire Trump administration, which inexplicably covered up for the Epstein operation, you know, because Jeffrey Epstein, a classic Katari surname. A buddy of mine responded to me with that, that's the debate. Now
we can come together on America first. But what does what comes after? I'll leave you with that. You tell me what comes after this national socialist movement? Or are we going to embrace free markets to a certain extent or not after all the fighting we've gone through, or are we going to be Sweden or some other European quasi socialist hellhole.
I don't know.
Doesn't sound so great to me. You guys won't even believe this. I couldn't believe it when I looked at the charts this morning. Liberty Lockdown. This show has more listeners than Rachel Maddow. She gets paid twenty five million dollars a year. I don't even make six figures. What the fuck is wrong with the world anyways, I just thought that was awesome. I'm two slots away from Glenn Back. These are Spotify rankings Obviously she's got a TV show,
so she's still reaching way more people than me. But just to have surpassed someone like such an obvious overt propagandist like Rachel Maddow, and to have done it with no network and no backing, no marketing, it's unbelievable.
It's just fucking awesome.
And I think that's like, that's where we're at, Like you can just buy some lighting and a camera and have an Internet connection and you can compete with the biggest voices in the country. I mean, Nick Went is such a great example of that. He was de bank deplatformed, basically treated like a terrorist, and he's now arguably a top three or five podcaster, stream or whatever in the world or in America at least. I mean, that's amazing.
That's the reason for hope. And we don't have to fucking worry about like beating Rachel Maddow in terms of the debate, Like she's not really that relevant. It's between us now. Like think about what an incredible paradigm shift that is. Like I remember, you know, Dave Smith famously kicked the ship out of Andrew Cuomo, not physically, even though he could probably do that too, but it was at PbD.
I was.
I was there for that event and it was just like this incredible moment for us because Dave was me. You know, he's just a guy with a camera and a microphone, right, and he gets this opportunity to take on one of the top lockdown COVID propagandas and Chris Cuomo.
I don't like what people did the Joe Rogan about I remacton. I don't why you did it.
No, no, yes you did find.
The clips, but dude, find the clips. You shamed Joe Rogan. Find you said he was taking horse the armor. You and Don Lemon were chuckling at him. I'll go find you just saw the clip. Watch I'm not chuckling. I'm listening to Don. But no, no, no, there's what I'm talking about. Wasn't on there and here's absolutely they were. Oh here do we have it?
Hold on, let's play the club.
Drugs for animals and horse.
And people telling them to what person you know you talk about like, you know, cancel culture and who.
To shame ivermectin a d wormer.
Really, they are shaming themselves, that's what they're They're shaming themselves.
So you're taking a d warmer right now. You can't apologize for that this.
You weren't being clear that it was this, and you know that, dude, you're being so dishonest right now. You were talking about ivermectin the drug. You were not talking about this version of ivermactin.
Come on.
Obviously, Dave did what Dave does and he stomped him into the ground. But I think what was most notable about it is like, well, yeah, of course they beat him, Like of course they've just ran circles around him and
made him look like a total fool. And what's really interesting about it is like it doesn't even matter though, you know, like Chris Cuomo was on CNN like primetime forever, and it's just like he doesn't matter, though, like Rachel Mattter doesn't matter, like Tucker Carlson matters, front As matters, can his own's matter, Dave matters. These people don't matter like the I'm two slots away from Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck was on Fox News in primetime for fucking ever.
I used to watch his shit.
He was doing the chalkboard and connecting everything to Soros, and I was like, this is interesting it's like, I'm too slot spot Glenn Beck in his entire Blaze Empire, Like it's just a different paradigm, man, And it's all because of you guys. It's all because of us. I'm gonna include myself in that one. It's all because us, because we just all recognized we were being lied to and we're like, we're not gonna accept it anymore. We know your liars. We're gonna get our information elsewhere. And
then it's just pure meritocracy. It's like, is this what's this guy's track record? Is he telling the truth consistently? Okay, I'm gonna keep listening. As soon as I feel like you're lying to me out, we're done. And that's the trend line, man, And it's a beautiful thing. You got Tucker Carlson, Candice Owns, Dave Smith all top ten. I'm talking news podcasts. Obviously there's other charts. I'm thirty nine, Glenn Beck is thirty seven, Rachel Maddows forty one.
What the fun, dude, It's so awesome. It's so cool, man.
Uh we did a million a million listeners over the past thirty days. Never done that before. So I just want to end with that, there's the silver lining. We're winning doesn't mean we've won. Don't get a twiste that we haven't. But in terms of the information war, as Alex Jones vidilia, we're winning. We're fucking winning. It's all because you guys. All right at liberty lock pot on X. You want to sport more work, subscribe there.
I'll follow you.
Back Libertylockdown dot locals dot com, or go to MyPillow dot com. Get you some cozy from MIKEA. Lindel, who's perman code lockdown.
We're out of here. Peace on this vote.
The years are four hundred and twenty seven.
The nays are won two.
Thirds being in the affirmative.
The rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Subscribe to Liberty Lockdown, Great podcast Clint is Tight