Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

It's Time to Fight Back Against Trump's Fascist Regime (w/ Ralph Nader) | The Chris Hedges Report
by Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader
The Chris Hedges YouTube Channel
Sep 29, 2025



Transcript

There's no functioning opposition party that can halt America's rapid descent into an authoritarian state. The
Democratic Party, which in the last presidential election saw the party hierarchy anoint a candidate who ran a
vapid, issueless, celebritydriven campaign, was soundly rejected by the voters for the grifter and demagogue
Donald Trump. The party, which is a minority in the House and the Senate, stands for nothing and fights for
nothing. Indeed, it does not even function as a political party with the concerns of its voting base routinely
ignored. Democratic Party voters, 62% of whom say the party leadership should be
replaced, 75% of whom oppose sending more military aid to Israel, and 66%
favor socialism are little more than props trotted out as extras at the highly choreographed conventions. The
sinking poll numbers, the party has a 24% positive rating and a 56% negative
rating, have done nothing to jolt the party back to reality. Hakee Jeff, the
House minority leader, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, each of whom are from New York, have
refused to endorse the party's official candidate for mayor of New York, Zoran
Mandani, despite his energized grassroots campaign and high polling numbers. It has ignored Bernie Sanders
fighting oligarchy tour, which drew large crowds across the country and did
all it could to sabotage Sanders campaign to be the party's presidential nominee. The party continues to cravenly
serve the interests of its corporate and oligarchic donors, including the Israel
lobby, at the expense of its own viability. It refuses to mount little more than a symbolic challenge as the
Trump administration dismantles democratic institutions and eviscerates civil liberties. With government funding
set to expire tomorrow, the party could deliver a significant blow to the Trump
administration by orchestrating a partial government shutdown. This tactic
was rejected earlier this year by Schumer when he supported a continuing
resolution. But the widespread outrage over the abject failure by the party to
throw up roadblocks to Trump's authoritarianism may finally see the Democrats reluctantly react. Joining me
to discuss the crisis in the American political system, what it means if the Democratic Party continues to
capitulate, and the Trump administration's war on Democratic norms and lawful disscent is consumer advocate
and former presidential candidate Ralph Nater. I want to begin, Ralph, by
looking at the Democratic Party. Uh, I think you have long blamed the party for
this right-wword drift and even the election of Trump.
Chris, you you I have to bicker with you. Stop using the word authoritarianism to describe Trump's
fascist dictatorship, which means every state, every criteria of dictatorship
moving into a police state with only terror to look forward to. He has
violated every law that would obstruct him. He's defied judicial decisions. He
has ignored congressional exclusive authority over spending and declaration
of war and other authorities under the Constitution. There's almost no
impeachable offense that he has not committed. uh we have drafted over 23
impeachable uh articles and we're talking impeachment now and removal from
office. That's the only thing left under the Constitution that he has not ravaged
and been able to control. He has turned the Justice Department into a crooked
illegal persecutor of innocent people. uh he is self-enriching himself and his
cohorts using the office of the white house. He lies seriously and violently
turning realities into fantasies. Uh he is basically laying the groundwork with
tariffs and other policies that are going to increase prices to the American people which has already started. Uh
unemployment is increasing. people are having a hard time finding new jobs and
uh they're having a very hard time in terms of housing and other necessities
of life to protect and nurture their families. So you have all the criteria,
repression of free speech, cracking down on disscent, kidnapping people with masked ICE agents, uh including some
people who have green cards, and and some they stumbled over uh people who are actually American citizens, throwing
into dungeon concentration camps. They're called detention centers by liberals as well as right-wingers. So
the the second thing uh is in addition to dropping the word authoritarianism
is to show that the Democrats have have they they don't have a party per se.
They contract out their campaigns, their fundraising, their strategies, their
tactics, their choice of schedules and traveling, the corporate conflicted
consulting firms which have been immune from investigation by the Washington
Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal for years. And I have talked to all the reporters uh and I said, "You're
missing a big story. This is a the only party we have that can save the republic
from the ravages of what JD Vance in 2016 before he turned co turn co called
America's Hitler meaning he was referring to uh Trump. So having said
this it's so easy for the Democrats to throw the Republicans on the defensive
on issues that are supported by leftright voters. But they don't stand for anything because they're not in
charge of their campaign policies and programs. They got these all these uh
greedy consulting firms that go back and forth between the Democratic apparatics
and their own business. Uh it's a huge scandal that needs to be exposed. So if
the Democrats made a big issue out of increasing the minimum wage to at least $15 federal from $725,
that's 25 million workers would live better. They can say, "Go vote for a raise. You've long denied it." They can
raise social security benefits frozen for over 45 years and but and pay for it
by raising the social security tax on higher income individuals. In 2022, 200
House Democrats voted for such a bill by John Larson, Congressman from Connecticut. But Nancy Pelosi wouldn't
take it to the floor. That would help 65 million retired Americans. He could
restore this child tax credit, providing $300 a month to 61 million children from
both liberal and conservative families. The Republicans are against all of these. So you cut the the you cut the
difference between the parties sharply with huge polling. If you went into the
next issue, which is cracking down on corporate crooks that are stealing the hard-earned earnings and savings of all
Americans, that comes in at 85% in the polls. What's there to lose? Campaign
money from Wall Street to Chuck Schumer and to Hakee Jeff. And then the other
big one is which Kamela Harris raised but never really emphasized. It was a
throwaway line. Raise taxes on the hugely undertaxed super rich and and
multinationals. And that comes in at 85%. That's a lot of conservatives who are
fed up with how these big companies are getting away with it. So you you're
dealing with, you know, just endless opportunities that Franklin Dela Roosevelt, Harry Truman, even Lynden
Johnson would have adopted to landslide the Republicans. So now the Democrats
are hours away from a potential shutdown, but they haven't made the case. They say that it's due to they
want to reverse the uh ending the subsidies for Obamacare. That's almost
30 million. who are going to experience very high increase in health care
premiums as of January and they want to get rid of the uh depletion of Medicaid
to 10 to 15 million people are going to lose it in order to pay for tax cuts for
the super wealthy including Trump's family. So that's not enough. They don't
say it. They don't know how to say it right. They don't know how to talk about how many people would be benefited by
continuing the subsidies and stopping the hemorrhaging of Medicaid. They just
are letting consultants use uh use the words they use.
So in 2001, Robert Rush, former uh labor secretary under Clinton, wrote an
article for the OpEd and he basically said the Democratic Party is dead, dead.
And that's the pro problem for the American people. And that's why the clamoring at town meetings where people
are shouting at the Democratic senators and representatives, start fighting,
start going after the GOP, protect us, defend us, represent us, is still not
breaking through. Schumer and Jeffrey should resign immediately. They have
turned themselves into Trojan horses. And if the government shuts down
partially on October 1, I'm not sure they can make the case in
the polls yet because they have surrendered their integrity and independence to these commercial
consultants who have corporate clients throughout the year. What are they doing hiring then for the Democratic party?
Do you see any any hope in the Mandani campaign? Yes. So it looks like he's going to win.
The more he's battered by the billionaires and the real estate industry and Israeli lobby, his polls
keep going up. So the the the key thing is turnout. There are huge numbers of
younger New Yorkers uh who are registered to vote, who don't vote. They
came out for the primary, a small number, but Cuomo is relying on a low
turnout. Uh and uh so the issue is he's got over 16,000 volunteers. They should
be able to get a major vote turnout. He's getting a lot of media, even
critical media. He turns to his advantage. But the one thing he hasn't done is answer the question, how are you
going to pay for these programs like free child care, free bus, uh bus
service, uh etc. The way he to do it is for him to come out what his colleagues
in in Albany have already come out for a bill to end the daily rebate of over $40
million a day maybe 80 million uh of the the tiny sales tax on stock transactions
onetenth of 1%. Chris, you know what you pay when you go to New York? You pay a state and city
tax that's over 8% for necessities of life in stores in New York. Onetenth to
1% will bring in anywhere from 16 to 30 billion a year. And for some reason,
even though he's been asked by 1099 Union, he's been asked by a statewide uh
religious group, he's been asked by a coalition of consumer groups, including
us to come out to end the rebate so you can answer the question how you can pay for
daycare and uh bus fair. And this bill targets
money. It actually targets money to mass transit, to healthcare, to environment,
to education. All these unions should be fighting for it. But only a
very few are because a state labor federation guy has been listening to
Napoli, the state treasurer, who's in the pockets of Wall Street, and saying, "Oh, this will harm pension fund
investments." Total nonsense. It will it will be paid primarily by very high
frequency traders. So it's a wonderful progressive sales tax for only onetenth
of 1%. Otherwise he's running a good campaign.
Yeah. I mean they they will they've already announced they will do everything they can to destroy him and
to make his uh tenure in office untenable.
Well, he's got to appoint some very smart, experienced people. Uh that's and he's fully aware of that. He he's a
pragmatic guy. Uh he's not a skydiver.
If the Democratic party uh continues in this trajectory and Trump continues to
consolidate and I I have used the word fascism. I did not use it in my introduction, but I do use the word fascism. this uh fascistic and we've
just seen this presidential memo that essentially uh equates criticism of
capitalism, criticism of ICE with with acts of terrorism. Uh
where are we headed and how fast? We're headed fast into a police state
and terrorism. He's already going after James Comey and he's persecuting him.
The indictment was two pages. It was totally flimsy uh by the grand jury,
which is a narrow decision. And uh he now says going after Senator Adam Schiff
from California. That's another very serious bright line.
He's starting to go after lawmakers. Yeah. And so that's what fascists do. They're
going after the press. He's extorting them. He's going after universities. This is technically extortion. When you
say you're going to cut off funds, you're going to block law firms from representing clients by not letting them
into federal buildings, that's the perfect definition of extortion. That's a serious crime, impeachable crime.
Clearly, it's not only his repression. Uh Chris, who's he leaving alone and who
is he cutting funds for, you know, cutting funds for FEMA with approaching
hurricanes? He's cutting funds that warn on weather patterns. He's cutting funds
that warn on pandemics. He's cutting funds at war on global warming catastrophes. He's cutting the funds of
Head Start, which Republicans and Democrats have supported. Cutting the funds on meals on wheels. Cutting the
funds on Medicaid. All these affect Trump voters as well. and they're not
coming to their senses and and turning against him in fast enough numbers. His
polls are dropping but not fast enough because he's betrayed them. Uh but it's
not just all of that that you've written and talked about, uh Chris, repression, violence, defamation,
incarceration, uh unemploying people, firing them illegally. 300,000 have left this
federal civil service since January 20. Some of them were retirements, but most
were pushed out. Closing down scientific me uh research, NIH and uh and CDC. Uh
but who's he leaving alone? And this is the definition of fascism or the corporate state. He's leaving alone
hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate handouts, giveaways, subsidies, bailouts a year. He's leaving
alone along with Musk all the corporate crooks that are bleeding federal
programs like Medicare 60 billion fraud a year. billion with the B Medicaid
heavy tens of billions of dollars by the vendors by the people who who the
companies who sell or who are contracted out to administer programs uh like the
inflated Medicare disadvantage program poking a huge hole in Medicare uh and
with deceptive ads that are not prosecuted by the Federal Trade
Commission. And of course, the military budget. He's he's added $150 billion dollars
more to the bloated military budget than the generals have asked for. 44 billion
more to Homeland Security, hired tens of thousands of mass agents, uh kidnapping
people, uh throwing them into jail without charges, uh sometimes exporting
them to dictatorial torture museums. uh uh excuse me uh uh regimes. Uh so you
got the complete definition of fascism defined by Franklin Del Roosevelt 1938
in a message to Congress. He basically said when private power takes over our
government that's fascism. Let's talk about his deployment of uh
National Guard troops in cities. uh Washington, Chicago, now Portland.
What's he doing? Um well, basically this attack on uh
Democratic controlled cities, most of them with black mayors um like Los Angeles and
New York, other places, Washington DC. Uh it's part of the fascist takeover.
You know, you you federalize the state national guard. He's using fake national
emergency uh declarations. This is Congress's fault. They gave him all this
wide open discretionary power to declare insurrection, to declare foreign
invasion, to declare uh emergency powers without any criteria or standards.
So, this goes back a long way when Congress just abdicated its role. It
doesn't want to do its job under the Constitution. Those are not executive
powers. Those are congressional powers delegated without any restraints and
accountability to any reckless president. And we've never had one more reckless. He's a egoomaniacal,
unstable, dangerous personality. He has said on the record and we printed him in our
book uh on our book on destroying America on Donald Trump. He he said that
he knows more than experts in 15 different areas. He knows more about
banks. He knows more about construction. He knows more about uh trade than
anyone. This is deranged megalomaniac person. He just said the other day before the UN, "I've been right on
everything." This is a very dangerous personality here.
Um, and let's talk about ICE. The massive expansion of ICE uh will get more its budget will now dwarf all other
federal law enforcement agencies. And this planned uh building of huge detention centers
all across the country. Uh they're not detention centers, they're concentration camps. concentration
camps. Yes, you're right. And and there uh what how is that
mechanism going to be used? One assumes that uh that not simply for undocumented
people. Well, be used for what he's already starting like he kidnapped a tough
graduate student because she wrote an oped criticism of him. So there's there
a lot of people in that category. uh citizen groups, labor groups,
uh better government groups, uh reform groups, and he's getting away
with it. And one reason, by the way, you might wonder, Chris, and your audience might wonder why people aren't suing uh
for malicious prosecution, abuse of power, the way they have successfully
sued uh out of control police violence in cities around the country under tort
law. It's because with the help of the Supreme Court, they've made it very hard
to sue federal employees uh who uh even under contract who
basically uh plead the government sovereignty defense. So that's why the ICE agents
feel that they're not going to be sued because they they come under that
protective uh cloak which the Supreme Court has been expanding. So the so
that's what the concentration camps are for. And uh now obviously public opinion
is turning against him and that's where he's going to fail. He's losing ground
even significantly among Trump voters and independent voters who voted for him
because they're seeing the betrayal even though there's been a delay in the impact because he delays the tariffs but
a whole bunch of them are going in effect October 1st and he they will see the price increases in necessities of
life kitchen table necessities very shortly. So, I expect that his polls are
going to drop to 30%. And it's only at 30%. The Hakeim Jeff and and uh Schumer
say it that's when they can go after him. Well, that waits to be seen. What
does it mean go after him? There's only one remedy. It's called impeachment in
the House, removal of the Senate. Now, people say impossible. GOP controls
both. It's not at all. Here's why. When the GOP sees his polls plummeting for 2026, it's either them up for reelection
and loss of the Congress or Trump who is not up for reelection. What do you think
they're going to pick? What's the president? Let's go to Richard Nixon. He won 49 states in 1972. He was a 60%
approval. Less than two years later, he resigned. Why? because he was about to
be impeached and removed from office for what articles? Listen to this. In
comparison, listen to the transgressions of Nixon that led to his ouster. One
count of obstructing justice and I think two counts of obstructing
justice and one article of defying a congressional subpoena. Well, he def
Trump defined 125 congressional subpoenas in his first term alone. 125
obstruction of justice. John Bolton said in his memoir, the former security assistant to Trump, who Trump is going
after, by the way, he's raided his home with FBI agents. He said, quote,
obstruction of justice was a way of life, a daily way of life in the White
House first term. So, the Democrats have hundreds of more impeachable offenses,
and they're not one-time events like Watergate. They are continuingly impeachable. He
brags about it openly. He boasts about it. He indicts himself every day. And
the Democrats on Capitol Hill are telling us, "Now is not the time for impeachment. Now is not the time. When
is the time, Jamie Raskin? When is the time, Adam Schiff? When is the time,
Schumer? When is the time, Jeff? After he's prosecuted you with rump
prosecutors for crimes and got you before a grand jury. Is that what you're waiting for? Have you ever seen a more
craven, corrupt, cowardly party in American history,
Chris? No. And and it's and it's always, you
know, you look at Vimar anywhere else, it's always a bankrupt liberalism that
sews the seeds for fascism. Well, you know, you wrote the book on
it, the death of the liberal class, which uh when I had you on my podcast
radio show, I accused you of understatement. And it's really, it's much worse. For
example, we're asking Jamie Rascin. He is now the ranking member of this House
Judiciary Committee. There's nothing stopping him from holding shadow hearings publicly with witnesses and
media on impeachment, educating the public, getting them ready for
impeachment if and when the Democrats take control of the House. Now, the House Democrats under Pelosi, they
impeached Trump twice. Once on a Ukraine extortion type thing with Hunter Biden,
not exactly a tabletop uh issue, kitchen table issue, and the other was
on January 6, insurrection. Now they have 24 serious
serious impeachable offenses, many of which are
criminal violations with jail terms like the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits
uh presidents from not obeying appropriation fund orders by the
Congress, which he violates every day. He's closing down aid, impeachable offense. Congress has authorized funds
to keep it open. He's done the same thing with Education Department, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
that protects people and has returned $21 billion from corporate crooks, including from Wall Street. So, what are
they waiting for? The longer they wait, the more they're going to have to deal with the police terror state. This guy
has no boundaries. He's a deranged, unstable personality. He's ignorant,
monoomaniacal. He knows more than everybody. And he's put entrenched yes
people that can be the counterparts of Herman Goring, Himmler, Ribentrop, guys
like Hespath, Secretary of Defense. You can't wait for a war. They're pushing
the country to war. And he'll put a country he'll put us into war to try to avoid impeachment and
send US troops. So we have retired military who despised Trump. They worked
under him. They were secretary of defense. Remember Matis, the head of the
joint seat of staffs, Mark uh and uh his
his security advisor, John Kelly, all former generals, retired now. They have
a network. What are they waiting for? It's it's they cannot be told to obey an
illegal order under the Constitution. And a Trump war without congressional
authorization is ipso facto an illegal order to every soldier that they are
under a legal requirement under the Nuremberg rules, international law to
disobey that illegal order and go fight an illegal war in some foreign land. So
Ralph, before I ask you about your new book, uh do you have any idea what this
concave of all the senior military and hegsith is about?
It's about dis dis not to disobey illegal orders that are forthcoming to
do things uh from Trump to the Pentagon to people overseas and to use the
military domestically in our cities and towns and rural areas which violate a
federal law and he can't get away with it by just declaring one fake emergency
after another. It's basically to whip potential denters
among the generals and admirals. Uh people who grew up West Point Air Force
Academy, Naval Academy, saying that their first obligation is their oath to
support the Constitution, not the Secretary of Defense or the President. It's a very dangerous whipping them into
a very pliable force for illegal action against the American people
domestically and abroad. So let's talk about at the end here your
book civil self-respect and what you call uh civic personality as opposed to
uh a personal personality. Let me just put it this way. I I want to
use this metaphor. The mighty Mississippi starts with a few rivullets in Minnesota
and Montana. The rivullets then become brooks.
Brooks then merge to become streams. The streams then merge into mighty
tributaries which then like the Missouri River feed into the giant Mississippi
River. The giant Mississippi River would not be a river without the rivullets
and the streams. So that's the metaphor. Now I read
reason I wrote this book. It's critical to all we've been discussing. The ball game now is back in the hands
of the people. They're turning out at various town meetings.
1% of them are marching and and very active. We need more than 1%. Even 2% is
5 million adults right there. And so I write this book because I would
be speaking to large audiences, Chris, around the country in past years. And at
the end, people would come up to me rather hesitantly and they would say,
"Ralph, I know I'm not I I know I'm a nobody, but I have to ask you this
question." And when I hear that, I flare. I said, 'What do you mean you're
a nobody? How can you ever say you're a nobody? You live as a citizen in this
country. How can you say you're a nobody? A worker?
Yes. Are you a consumer shopper? Yes. Are you a taxpayer? Yes. Voter? Well,
sometimes. Are you a parent? Yes. Are you a veteran? Sometimes. Well, how can you
say you're nobody? You know things about those roles. You've experienced them. You've been
frustrated. If you allow yourself to be a nobody, you're going to be treated like a nobody. You're going to be
treated like someone who doesn't count. Someone who doesn't matter, somebody who can be disrespected, someone who can be
ripped off, somebody who could be underinsured, somebody who can be suppressed.
So, let me tell you something, and that is you don't have to go out of
your way. just in your ordinary shopping, you get ripped off.
You you become more of an advocate. You move into a citizen dimension. Some of
the examples in this book just full of examples called citizen self-respect.
A a woman was kept on a tarmac in Michigan for hours with her fellow passengers.
The plane heated up. It was awful. And so when she got out, she looked into it
and she saw there's no remedy for the passengers. So she started a book, a a group called
Flyers Rights. Kate Henny was her name. And until she stopped getting support
because people often uh look the other way and think other people are going to
support these citizen groups, she made a lot of changes on on the basis of of her
experience. She became a citizen advocate. And there are people who've done this recently that have been in the
news the in the food safety area. They've mobilized because of their bad
experiences with junk food, contaminated uh food. So this is full of examples.
And so your your daily role as a a consumer, a worker, a taxpayer, voter,
whatever, you can go out of your personal role uh and develop an
additional civic energy, civic protest,
civic advocacy, and some of you are going to be so excited you're going to join existing citizen groups that want
more members and more supporters around the country focusing on Congress, for example. you'll get the the Capitol
hillcitizen.com the the new uh Capitol Hills citizen
newspaper that we're putting out. You'll connect with some local groups on housing and really basic community
necessities that are recognized by left-right families who don't fall prey
to the divide and rule tactics of the ruling classes because they want the same things for their children and for
themselves. public services, adequate uh benefits that they've already paid into,
as well as clean air, clean water, and other protections locally in the
community and the neighborhood. This is why I call this my most important book.
This is a short book, very readable, full of examples, but it's very
personal. The chapters are chapter names that have never been uh written about
before in a in a preface. I the citizen,
I the worker, I the consumer shopper, I the taxpayer, I the voter, I the parent,
I the veteran, I the philanthropist. People say philanthropy, I'm not a philanthropist. Are you kidding?
Lower and middle inome people give a higher portion of their money to charity than rich people. They're all
philanthropists. They can all decide where to put their money, how to aggregate their money, how to talk to
enlightened rich people to to fund activities which we outline in this book
at the local level. So you can get a autographed copy of this book if you're
inclined that way. Uh you can go to nater.org and it describes the book. Or you can
get it directly from the publisher, Seven Stories Press. Uh or you can get
it in other ways. You buy books online or from your independent bookstores
called citizen selfrespect has a nice commentary very brilliant
commentary by Patty Smith on the front page as well as other incoms that I
appreciate including yours Chris Hedges. Thank you very much. winner of the Pulitzer Prize for for war and author of
the book War is a force that gives meaning
is that gives meaning and I always thought that's one of your greatest
books because it really cuts deep into the selfrespect or lack of by citizens
around the country who have allowed themselves to lose their government have it be taken over by corporations
into a military corporatist plutoaucracy.
Great. Thanks, Ralph. Uh that's uh civic self-respect.
Uh I want to thank uh Diego, Max, Sophia, Thomas, and Victor who produced
the show. You can find me at chrisedges.substack.com.
[Music]

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

George Galloway DESTROYS Starmer as Trump CAVES to Israel | Larry Johnson & Patrick Henningsen
by Danny Haiphong
Streamed live on Sep 29, 2025 #starmer #israel #trump

The desperation of the US & UK backed Israeli regime has reached crisis levels as George Galloway's detainment and the rejection of Netanyahu worldwide signals the walls are closing in. This mega panel of analysts and journalists from the UK and US will break down what the crisis facing the empire really means as Israel's demise hastens.

JOINING: Patrick Henningsen, Larry C. Johnson and Matt Kennard



Transcript

Welcome back to the show. It's your host Danny Haiphong. Please do hit the like button. That helps boost this show in
YouTube's algorithm. And we have a big one today. As Israel's genocidal war on
Palestine and the region continues unabated, its isolation grows and the US
and the UK have doubled down on their support for Netanyahu and the Israeli regime. And they've set their sights on
domestic opposition. In the Labor Prime Minister uh UK Kier Starmer's
government, we saw a friend of the show George Galloway, host of Moes and former British MP be detained at Gatwick
airport under the terrorism act for a total of nine hours between he and his
wife. And one of the questions asked by the heavily armed police was what were
their views on Gaza and why did they have them? Now Netanyahu himself is talking about using Tik Tok as a weapon
of war following the Trump sale of that uh uh social media outlet. And uh even
as the European leaders and Donald Trump himself are talking about peace, no one
believes them. So one has to ask what explains this desperation? What explains
this crackdown? What does it mean in the wider view of both geopolitics and the world situation? to do all of this, to
talk about all of this. I have very special guests. First time on the show, I'm going to introduce Matt Canard. He
is an investigative journalist and author. He has done incredible work and
author of many books and articles, especially on the UK's role in the Gaza
genocide. Matt, good to see you. Great to be with you. Thanks for joining. Thanks for having me. It's good to be
here. Of course. Then we have Patrick Henningston. He is the co-founder of 21st Century Wire. He also has his own
Substack as well, journalist and a commentator. Patrick, good to see you.
Great to be with you, Danny. And then we have former CIA analyst and geopolitical commentator Larry Johnson.
Good to see you today, Larry. I'm here. Thanks. All right. Yes. Well, Matt, I wanted to
start with you. You know, we have a situation where uh George Galloway, a British MP for many many many many
years, actually sat in the rooms where the terrorism act was discussed. He was
detained at the airport. He joins uh many who have been harassed under the
terrorism act. people like Asa Win Stanley who's a friend of this show of electronic and Richard Medhhurst another
friend of this show uh and British journalist Syrian British journalist uh and Kit Clarenburg and so many others uh
this was um George's words himself about what exactly happened in the airport and
I will just play that really quickly and then get your commentary. Here we go.
M airport in England but it is not the
reason that they stated. We were questioned myself for around 4
hours datri for around 5 hours and then
released without charge. For what charge could there possibly have been? How
could we, me and Guyatri have anything to do with terrorism? How? Well, we
certainly were not enlightened during the collective nine hours of
questioning. Not a single effort was made to show cause for having detained
me and her with armed officers in public
in an English airport. Not a single question. And they ranged far and wide
right down to Gatri's famous fingernail painted in the Palestinian colors. Why?
Why is your fingernail painted in the Palestinian colors? What's your attitude
to the conflict in Gaza? Who persuaded you of this point of view? Why do you
admire Mr. Lavough? Why are you so friendly to China? A country with which
Britain maintains absolute and full diplomatic relations and every big
company in the United Kingdom is doing business with China and we're not they
would dearly love to be. What does that have to do with terrorism? What are my views on Xi Jinping have to do with
terrorism? What are my views on Lavough have to do with terrorism?
So Matt, uh, you know, you're no stranger to both UK
politics, its complicity in the genocide in Gaza, as well as this terrorism act. So what are your impressions of this?
How do you see this in the bigger picture of what's going on uh both in the region, West Asia, visav Israel, and
uh the rest of the world? Yeah. Well, uh firstly uh the the detention of Galloway and his wife is a
massive escalation because um up till now you haven't had prominent
politicians uh being detained uh under terrorism act at airports. So I mean
Galloway is one of the most prominent figures over the last 25 years in British politics. You know he was a MP
i.e. an elected representative of British parliament for 16 years. He was one of the leading voices uh against the
war in Iraq, leading voices for Palestine for many decades and also testified quite famously in in US
Congress about the war in Iraq. Um so to detain him uh is quite is quite a reach.
But again it comes uh uh at a time when we're literally seeing our rights being
stripped away piece by piece and it's all being done using the terrorism act. So this is an act which was passed in
2000 when Tony Blair was a was the prime minister. Um and it is a hugely
repressive and authoritarian piece of legislation and it allows the police effectively to do what they want. uh
especially at airports but even outside of airports. You mentioned Asa Win Stanley in your introduction and in
October 2024 uh this again was unprecedented. His house was raided by uh police uh in a
dawn raid. They took all his uh journalistic devices and he wasn't arrested or charged with anything. Now,
up to that point, I didn't even think the police could do that in England, but apparently they can break into your house and take in all your take all your
stuff and not even charge you or um uh or arrest you. So, we're in a very uh
sticky situation. The the other thing is that we don't have a media which uh covers this stuff. Uh you would have
thought if any any any media worth its salt or actually taking its job seriously that the Asa Win Stanley raid
would have been all over the press, i.e. on the front pages. This is this is something that is seriously scary for
for especially for journalists but for everyone and it's never been written about in the mainstream media ever. Uh
even after he won a case against the police that what they did was unlawful. So I I think and as you say it does fit
into a wider context and it's all being done effectively at the behest of Israel. Um, and the Israel lobby in this
country is extremely powerful and they're obvious I think they're they're targeting people who have become
problematic for them. And ASA has been leading on the work on the Israel lobby in this country for for the last 10
years really. And I'm sure I don't have any evidence for this, but I don't think it's too much of a reach to say that
they probably were involved in uh that that the police doing that raid. You also have recently the Palestine action
prescription which again is involves the terrorism act and prescription is again a hugely authoritarian uh uh move uh uh
even even within the context of actual terrorist groups because it means that you can't you don't have free speech.
It's an attack on free speech completely. Uh so before they prescribed Hamas uh in the early 2000s and
Hezbollah the political wing was prescribed in 2019 at the behest of the Israel lobby that that's all recorded
and the important part of that section under the terrorism act that uh prescription one is that it makes
membership of that organization illegal but I actually don't think that's the most important part of it. The most
important part of it is that it it stops being able to voice support for that organization if an organization is
prescribed. And you're seeing over well over a thousand people arrested in the
UK just for saying now I support Palestine action. Uh and that is why I think they prescribed uh Palestine
action. I don't actually think what they do is is in terms of trespassing and and
doing damage to weapons of war is is illegal. Uh they don't need any more
tools to go after those people. And actually there were there were many more people there were many people in prison before the prescription. what that
prescription was about was about dampening down on the on speech of
British people because I think and I'll finish with this. I think Israel sees what's happened in the UK as as a real
loss over the past two years, maybe more than anywhere else in the in Europe and and uh in the West because we've had
consistently the largest demonstrations against the genocide. We've had Palestine Action was founded in the UK
and it's the most effective organization for really uh uh uh damaging the Israeli
war machine. And I think that they they have now gone uh using using the tools
of repression and using the law to to try and discipline a population they've lost control of effectively. They
haven't got control of the narrative anymore. you know, even though they've got largely got the mainstream media on their side, obviously the government is
is pumping out all the usual propaganda, uh, but the people aren't buying it anymore. So, I think that what you're
seeing is a a real uh erosion of our liberties and our rights on on behalf of
of this tiny little country uh in West Asia. And obviously, it's also happening in the United States. Unprecedented
things are happening in the United States. Like for example, one really shocking thing and I know I shouldn't be shocked by this because it's become
normalized now, but that Turkish student who was grabbed off the street by ICE officers for writing this article in a
student newspaper that was critical of Israel and it wasn't even an extreme article. It was a super moderate article. I thought, wow, that is that is
that is a a really scary thing to see. And then you're also seeing Trump the other day muting the idea that um the
federal government will withdraw um uh uh disaster relief funding to any state
which votes to boycott Israel. Again, in insane scenario that you have that degree of control. This is a degree of
control you can say things about your own government, criticize them in a way that you can't criticize Israel. So it's
it's a it's a wider crackdown. But I think that that's the and I think it will get worse in the short term, but I
think it is also a sign of uh success in in in terms of the the the resistance to
Zionism and the resistance to uh the genocide because it has been effective in completely transforming the
consciousness of people around the world and and that's why we got to carry on and effectively the risk that we're
taking and obviously it wasn't nice what happened to George Galloway. It wasn't nice what happened to ASA. But compared to what they're doing in Gaza and also
in the West Bank, but especially in Gaza to the journalists, you know, they literally just massacre journalists all
the time and their families. So, we have to use the tools we have uh and we have to take the risk that maybe we wouldn't
have in a different time because if we stop using our rights or we stop seeing these as rights that we possess, then
they will just wither and die. Yeah, great points, Matt. And uh to that, Patrick, I'll turn to you. Here's
the reporting uh that was happening during the detainment of George Galloway. George Galloway claims police
detained him for nine hours. This is the kind of stuff coming out of British media. Of course, it's not much better in the United States, as you know,
Patrick. Uh but what are your comments on on this situation and where it fits
in the overall geopolitical and world situation? I think I think Matt outlined
uh the the really important salient points on this issue. Um I can just reiterate that and maybe underline it a
little bit by saying that uh you know the the term terrorism the way it's being bandied about now how arbitrarily
it's being bandied about. It's it's been watered down to such a degree it doesn't really mean anything anymore. Hence, it
can be applied to just about uh anything uh anything that exposes state crimes,
exposes state hypocrisy, exposes policy. And you need to pay attention to how the
wording around these issues are being applied. And increasingly in recent years, we'll say, well, it's a threat to
national security. Uh we're we're detaining you because of the terrorism act, but also on the grounds that you
might be a threat to national security. then it becomes national interests. So
you go all the way from you know how do you define national interests or anything that basically makes the
government uh look bad uh anything that challenges government policy that's uh
can be deemed under you know threatening national interest. This is what Marco Rubio the type of language he was applying to uh the student protesters uh
on US campuses uh who are protesting the genocide uh in Gaza. So this it's a it's
it's a real uh uh sort of evolution in uh how the language is being applied by
the state. And the bottom line on all of this is uh and I think we need to go back to the original point which also uh
outline which is the real point is by procribing the political wing the
political wing of Hamas or the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah holds a
large number of seats in the Lebanese parliament. Okay. and has done for a long time. So to quote, you know, label
them as a terrorist group at the behest of the Israeli lobby. I'm talking about the United States, Britain, uh you know,
France didn't prescribe the the funny enough the political wing of Hezbollah, I think only until recently, but years
before they didn't, the European Union, Germany, and etc. some European countries. And so this means that
there's no way that you can have any kind of a political conversation around foreign policy. So th this is to me a
huge con and the the real con is and the real danger is these these these moves
these unilateral moves by a specific set of governments i.e. allies of Israel
that the real target is international law. The real target is international
law because by uh by by attacking the political wing that means you can justify wiping out an entire parliament
like the Israelis tried to do largely successfully recently with Yemen under
the guise that these are terrorists that this country are are full of terrorists and that the population of Gaza are all
terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Therefore, you basically get cart blanch
to do whatever you want. And the the results can be absolutely horrific,
barbaric, and uh apocalyptic as we've seen over the last two years. So, it's
not just words. These aren't just words we're dealing with here. It's the concept behind them and how governments
are wielding and using them. That's really, I think, a a huge threat to international law, international order,
and and civility ciagnization
uh on the whole. I think that's what's really hanging in the balance right now.
Larry, you know, you you're you're a former CIA analyst and you know, you're also a friend of George Galloway and his
show. Yeah. How how do you see this uh attack in in the sense of uh you know Matt brought up a
kind of desperation? It definitely appears very desperate that uh the UK authorities and of course the entirety
of the UK establishment are are now going after George Galloway as a voice of resistance. That kind of speaks to
the entire situation that both Patrick and Matt laid out. What is your reaction to this?
Well, it's one thing to go after George. I mean he's he's an outspoken and articulate fellow but to go after
Guyatri his wife you know I was I was with him both in uh in Moscow I guess it
was in June and this is just absolutely outrageous for them to get treated this
way. But look it boils down to you know two things. Uh, if you want to go out
and protest, criticize, condemn, vilify China, you get a pat on the ass. Hey,
the same with Cuba. Demonize them in the West. Good on you.
It's only if you're dealing with the Zionists in Israel and uh their their click their moneyed
click which hangs on in both the Christian communities in the United States and in Europe uh or the Russians
if you express any uh counter to that narrative. I mean it's so it it's it's a
very narrow but specific attack on trying to contain
uh to defeat a particular narrative while protecting and enhancing a narrative that's literally falling apart
at the seams. So this is uh it's alarming but uh you know we've seen this
uh this tendency uh the ability of the public to be so easily manipulated
you know as an example uh we're told that Hamas we're always told it's a it's a terrorist organization
really how many actual terrorist acts have they carried out I looked into that
I tried to count them up so over a 25 year period from August 2000 through the
data set I had went through April of 2024. Mind you, the data set came from
the Israeli Foreign Ministry. So, it's not like it was a Larry Johnson created product.
uh only 105 attacks and I'm putting those in quotation marks because a lot of it were
what you'd call retaliatory strikes, vendettas,
the kind of violence we saw here in America when the Hatfield McCoys were shooting at one another.
Compare that with Hayat al-Shem which in 2018 2019
were listed in the top 10 of worldwide terrorist groups.
So in other words in just one year Hayat Tar al-Se had more terrorist attacks
than Hamas did in 25 years. And yet, who's embracing the leader, Yao
Jalani, the leader of Hayatar Asheam, now called Alshara, dressed up in his
nifty Brooks Brothers outfit, uh, trimmed beard, trimmed hair. Oh, that's
us. That's the Brits. So, the hypocrisy on this stinks. But
it's uh, you know, it's become the the modus operandi of modern day.
Yeah. And Matt, maybe you can bring us home here on on this particular issue. You know, I know that you've been the
author of many books. Uh I know you have another book forthcoming, Rogue Reporter versus the American Empire. You also
wrote Silent Coup. Could could you talk about uh you know you've done a lot of investigations on kind of the corporate
side here and you've also uh really uh have dived deep into kind of the ways in
which the UK is is really operating uh for Israel and doing everything it can
to forward Israel's interest in the region. Why is this? What are some of the bigger root causes for why someone
like George Galloway as well as the other journalists now and and there's and activists as well uh these
particular targeted groups uh they're coming under heavy fire from the UK
government itself. Uh what are some of the root causes of this from your investigations?
Oh sorry you were muted. Here you go. Okay. One causes uh it's not from my investigations but it's just the
structural factor is we don't have a constitution in this country. So, we don't have our rights protected in the same way you do in the states. Um, we
have what's called an unwritten constitution, but it's it's complicated and based on norms, and it's very very
easy to bend. And this is a this, you know, basically you realize that because
they're not written down, they don't exist. And this goes back way further than just um uh the genocide. You know,
we had Julian Assange in Bel Marsh maximum security prison for 5 years. most of that as a Raman prisoner,
someone who who was just he he his conviction had been spent and he was being held on Raman. Um uh he was also
detained in Ecuadorian embassy uh unlawfully. That was according to the UN
for 7 years before that. And barely anyone battered an eyelid when he was in Belar and Bel and they they did things
that were just you'd expect from a a dictatorship, you know, they wouldn't let people in. he wasn't allowed uh even
visits from uh uh NOS's and people like that. So there's a long there's a long history that of that and I think it just
goes to to the point which is that power will protect itself from uh uh dissident
and people who are trying to reveal the truth about them. Now, when you're brought up in the UK and I guess the US
too, you're told, well, we have a a media and a a an NGO or sorry, a civil
society sector which guards our rights and protects us from the excesses of the
state. Uh that doesn't exist in the UK at all. Uh they we are the public realm
in the UK is complete lies completely undefended because the media don't cover these issues. So for example, I
mentioned Asa's case never being mentioned in the media. Barely anything about the Assange in Bel Marsh and the
contra the the corruption in his case was ever covered. The BBC right I don't
know if you guys remember um I can't remember how many it was like maybe four years ago there was an article in Yahoo
News uh which was based on testimony of 30 former uh senior US officials who had
worked under the in the first Trump administration. And this article was about how Pompeo had been asked by Trump
to draw sketches for assassinating or killing uh and or or kidnapping Assange
in London. And and that article also said that the British had agreed to do
the shooting if if needed to. Okay. So there you have a a foreign power um uh
uh scheming to assassinate a journalist in the heart of London because they
don't like his reporting. This is such an outrage. It's it's beyond comprehension. But that article was
barely it was covered by the Guardian. Uh the only part of the BBC in which it was ever mentioned was BBC Somali. So
the only way the only way you'd know about it if you read the BBC is if you can speak Somali. Uh and that's what
we're we we live with. We live in a there's a hyper reality that's created by the media. uh and the re the real
stuff the the real stuff that reveals how the system works is just completely excised from that media and from civil
society as well and that's largely because there's been operations by the state and the corporate sector to co-opt
uh the media and civil society as you might expect because they again they don't want any kind of resistance to
what they're doing. So that's that's the situation. And and just to go to your point about the UK's role in all this,
the UK is central to the whole imperial system. And this is something I didn't really understand properly until we
started declassified UK because I'd always focused on the United States. And we all know the United States is overwhelmingly the most powerful country
in the world. Um has its military dwarfs everything else. But and I always
thought UK was a bit part player, a bit pathetic, always just hung on the coattails of the US to uh to keep keep
itself relevant. But that you realize actually we are central to the whole thing and we provide us a range of
services to the Americans which are actually quite useful. One good example of this is the when they when the empire
was decommissioned after the second war or when we're told the empire was decommissioned, it wasn't actually. We
retained loads of what are called well 14 what are called British overseas territories. One of them is on Cyprus.
So Cypress got independence in the great sort of uh decolonial period when uh uh
in in 1960 it got made independent from Britain. But not many people know even here that 3% of Cyprus was retained by
the UK and it was turned into massive intelligence and uh military
installations. one called Acriteri and one called Dealia and those have been pretty much from the start also joint
bases with the Americans unofficially because it's they're not they don't want the criate government to know but Acriteri has a permanent uh uh unit from
the US Air Force station there. Dellia is run by the GCHQ which is the UK's
largest uh intelligence agency alongside the NSA and actually Edward Snowden's leak showed that the NSA pay half of the
upkeep for the Kellia. So and and and then in when when the genocide started, you saw it became the central uh in
international site for supplying and supporting the genocide in Gaza. So regular US Air Force military transport
flights were going, carrying weapons. Regular RAF uh cargo flights were going. Um there were they started spy flights
the the British from there which are still going to till today that spend 5 hours over Gaza collecting intelligence
which is relayed to the Israeli military in real time. So you really have and in
fact the genocide itself has really kind of taken the mask off how the empire operates because all the different nodes
that the US empire and its and its accomplice Britain has around the world have have revealed themselves cuz
they've been used because this isn't just an Israeli genocide. You know this is a I I would say principally a US UK
Israeli genocide. Obviously the Germans are involved as well but in terms of the active support the US and the UK are are
central. And then you have the city of London as well, which again we don't talk about enough on the left, but the
city of London is another way that Britain retained its imperial system
because the city of London is a very interesting uh uh institution because it's a private corporation, but it it
runs a whole part of London, i.e. it's a different jurisdiction to the national jurisdiction. Uh, in fact, it was when
during the Roman invasion 2,000 years ago, it sorry, during the Norman invasion a thousand years ago, it
was um it was it it was they were granted their own uh rights, which
they've had ever since. And they have their own police force. There's no democratic system there. Institutions
vote instead of uh uh people, and it's mostly banks. and they have this uh uh
web of uh tax havens around the world which are also British overseas territories like the Virgin Islands,
Bermuda and so much of uh the dirty money around the world uh and illicit
money which is used by the richest people in the world to avoid tax it goes through these overseas territories and
so much money is going through the city of London. So obviously when you have this whole apparatus based in the UK
which is central to the imperial system you want to guard against number one people messing with it in a in a
material way but also revealing the truth about it. And the reason I believe sorry I'm rattling on but the reason I
believe that they allow what they call the free press is because it doesn't do its job. So they get to use it as a soft
power technique. You know they go around the world saying we support democracy and freedom. Look at our press. People can say what they want, but they it
would they allow it because it never impinges on their ability to uh project power or to use their power. As soon as
you have a journalist who actually takes their job seriously and really reveals the mechanics of how the whole operation
works like Julian Assange, they stick him in prison and no one even bats an eyelid. And that's what you realize that
all these rights that we're told we have, they evaporate as soon as you start taking them too seriously. Um, and
we're finding that out in a very real way because on top of everything, on top of the British establishment asserting its control, we've got a hugely powerful
Israel lobby, uh, which, uh, which has its claws in deep into our political
system, maybe the most of any foreign power after the United States. Um, and
it's uh it's it's a scary thing to see, but again, people that there's a there's
a there's a there's a confidence and a bravery that I've not seen amongst
people before because I think watching what we all have watched for the last
two years has made people just not care as much as they used to about their own
safety uh in the context and and and you're seeing that with Palestine action. It's absolutely amazing what
people are doing and I feel bad that I haven't done it but you people are going out even though they know that it's
they're a prescribed organization and you up to 14 years in prison for saying you support them and they're they're
sitting with placards saying I oppose genocide I support Palestine action and getting arrested on mass. Just yesterday
66 people were arrested outside the Labour Party conference for that. Um and they're making it unworkable. Uh which
is an amazing thing. You know the people are winning in that extent. they're making this uh draconian policy
unworkable. So yeah, that's that's my take on that. Yeah. No, great points. Um great points,
Matt. Well, uh let's move to uh a a kind of a different example of this uh
growing desperation and attempts to uh protect uh the Israeli regime on the
part of the United States and the United Kingdom. But this particular example is with Tik Tok. You know, Benjamin
Netanyahu Oh, actually, this is the wrong clip. You know, Benjamin Netanyahu has been incredibly desperate looking of
late. We had the UN dem debacle where he essentially spoke to an empty room uh
during the UN General Assembly. And then after this, he was caught talking to
social media influencers, particularly Tik Tockers, on uh Israel's essential
plan to uh take over uh this uh media outlet for its benefit. I just want to
play a bit of this and then we can start with you, Patrick.
Influencers, you said you talked about the woke right. You said I call it the woke
right. That's a brilliant the walk right because these people you
know they're not any different from the left they're insane but they're actually made on some of the
things and what we have to do is we have to secure that part of our the base of our support in the United States that is
being challenged systematically a lot of this is done with money money of NOS's
fast money of governments faster okay we have to fight back how do we fight back
to our influences I think you also brought to them if you have a chance to that that community. They're very
important. And secondly, we're going to have to use the tools of battle. You know, the the weapons change over time. You can't
fight today with the swords. That doesn't work very well. Okay? And you can't fight with the fight with cavalry. That doesn't work very well. And you
have these new things, you know, like drones, things like that. I won't get into that. But we have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefield to
engage. And the most important ones are social media. The most important purchase that is going on right now is
class. Tik Tok. Tik Tok. Number one. Number one.
And I hope it goes through because it's can be consequential. And the other one, what's the other one that's most important?
X. Very good. So there you go. Uh Patrick, this whole
sale of Tik Tok is uh for Israel a hugely important uh component of it
waging a more effective war because what essentially Netanya was also seing there is he says we fighting with the sword
isn't very effective uh to the we've seen you know hundreds of thousands of Palestinians be killed by uh essentially
Israel and UK US and UK backed sword uh but it's not effective. what's needed is
Tik Tok and social media and the rest to be taken over. Uh what's your reaction to this? How do you see this in light of
this kind of growing desperation that we see on the part of Israel uh given uh
its growing isolation in the world? Oh, uh your mic is I don't know. You're
not muted, but Oh, sorry. Go. Um you got me now. Yeah. Yep. Got you. So Netanyahu's made a stunning a
stunning self-indictment as usual. uh without meaning to. Uh but uh the the
the whole concept of um the takeover of Tik Tok was based on a false premise
that the Chinese were stealing the data of, you know, uh American teenagers who
were doing like dance acts on Tik Tok and hot takes and whatnot, viral videos,
totally fake that was engineered to get us under Joe Biden's administration. It began and continued under Trump. So you
can see the bipartisan uh uh the bipartisan US Congress and Senate working on behalf of Israel. So
it was totally disingenuous. There was no Chinese threat on Tik Tok. And what you have now you can see the endgame of
it. And so it is Israel's uh soft power has tanked basically. And it's not it's
not only tanked uh in the west but it's also tanking among even the Jewish diaspora or the international uh Jewish
community. Uh they can no longer rely on the promise that Israel is the safest
place on the planet for Jews to have a homeland etc. And a lot of that can be
held at the feet of Benjamin Netanyahu. The the other thing that I think is uh interesting is how he appropriated the
term woke right. woke right. And where that term originated from is interesting
in the aftermath of October 7th and you had Ben Shapiro and other sort of
Zionist uh mouthpieces uh flooding social media warning of uh all sorts of
you know day of rage uh Islamic sleeper cells are going to rise up and so forth. Even Charlie Kirk himself was
trafficking in those same uh that that same sort of hysteria uh in the United
States. And people were pointing out that if if if you define wokeness or as
as the right does they define wokeness as the kind of rabid uh outofcrol identity politics, well there is no
higher form of identity politics than Zionism. uh this has to be the top level
of the conception of identity politics. Uh for an ethnostate or religious state
exclusive religious state running in apartheid system that can only be described as identity politics writ
large. So that's where the term originally woke right came from was to describe people like Ben Shapiro and
then the Fox News crowd, the uh the the all the Jordan Peterson crowd, the Daily
Ride crowd then re repurposed it, reappropriated it to point at people on
the right that were opposing Israel's genocide. You see, so it was a bit of a slight of hand. And you can see
Netanyahu is is attempting to do this two years on, which is quite pathetic,
actually. And the real the the real irony of course of that is that uh identity politics is the thing uh this
is the most weaponized form of identity politics in human history is Zionism the
Zionist ideology and they're using it as a weapon in order to try to justify one
of the worst crimes against humanity of not just the modern era but I will say poss one of the one of the worst of all
time certainly in living memory. So I think the the irony of that is quite amazing. I mean you could go on and on
but the bottom line is and Nefali Bennett former Israeli prime minister said it the best. He was decrying the
fact that they had blown 120 or 150 million trying to buy influence across
social media platforms post October 7th and we're being outnumbered by pro
Palestinian posts 16 to1. 16 to1. And I'll tell you, Palestine didn't spend
any money to get that margin of victory uh in terms of hearts and minds uh
across social media. Yeah.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

You know, uh, Larry, the crisis of
legitimacy in particular for Israel in the United States specifically is is getting, uh, quite bad to the point
where you have 60% of Generation Z Americans saying that they are in far
more in favor of Hamas than they are of Israel. And I think that this has
something to do with why Netanyahu sees the sale of Tik Tok so as such an
important weapon for itself in this time. What's your take on this, Larry?
Sorry, you're muted. I can't There we go. It goes to the broader change and revolution
um with respect to media narrative control. You know, I spent a brief stent
during my time at CIA working on what they call covert action. How you u put
plant stories to try to further a narrative. In this case, I was working
in support of the uh to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
And you know, with something like that, it was easy to portray the Soviets as the bad guys and us as the good guys,
even though that wasn't really the truth. But, you know, the narrative worked. Um, you know, the three of you
are really uh too young to remember uh the Exodus influence. Um, and the movie
Exodus with Paul Newman came out 196061, but it was it was around a lot on
television during that period. And it it pushed this entire David versus Goliath narrative in support of the Zionists
that they were these good, humble, just, you know, wanting to plant olive trees
and feed the bird kind of people and these nasty Arabs are running around
raping and killing Karen, the blonde Norwegian girl. So, you know, and that
that uh you know, when you're uh 10, 11, 12 years old getting fed that propaganda, it's you know, it has some
influence. Um the media was much much easier to control back then. Uh I just
used these statistics earlier with Judge Knap. Uh in 1968
there were a total of 54 million people that watched the three largest news
broadcast stations in in in the US CBS, ABC, NBC.
Of those three, CBS with Walter Kronite accounted for 28 million people.
uh in August of 2016, those three stations
plus Fox News, CNN, MSNBC combined had
an audience of 27 million even though the United States population from 1968
to 2016 had increased by about 140 million people. So we had far more
people far fewer watching. So that's why this whole social media space uh
particular on the internet and you know with Facebook with Tik Tok uh with uh
Twitterx that has you know it has created new
challenges for the government to try to control it and fortunately as was the
case during you know the Soviet Union when they had imposed a lot of restrictions upon what could be printed
what could be published what could be aired. Uh at that time a a subculture
called samisdat grew up in which surreptitiously
articles that would went against the the the main narrative the popular narrative were circulating. And so in spite of
government efforts to try to control shape uh and dictate what the narrative would be there was still just like you
know water seeking a way through solid rock. it finds a way. And so that's what
we're living with today. We're seeing desperate efforts of the governments in the United States, in Europe, and in
Israel to try to control the narrative. But shows like yours, like you know what
Patrick does, Judge Npalitano, Nema, the Duran, you know, you go down the list of
and and things you may even disagree with, but there's so much out there, it actually makes it almost impossible for
the government to control it. And that that's the bright side or the silver lining to this dark cloud.
Yeah. and and and Matt, I'm curious on what you think about uh where this falls
into why Israel is so um desperate to latch on to uh the information war with
regard to the sale of Tik Tok and social media in general X because here you have in Israeli media with European leaders
bowing to fringe groups, Israel must prepare uh written by actually university southern worlds UK research
fellow for the Israel Center for Grand Strategy. in the UK. Uh this shift uh Matt in
Europe in particular is not just Europe as I showed earlier. It's with younger Americans. The vast majority of people
in the United States also are incredibly opposed to what Israel is doing and see
the United States as a a big backer of this. It's it's very it's clear as day.
Where does all this fit into this uh overall uh refocus or or double down
focus on the part of Israel on information warfare?
H sorry I can't you uh well their brand is is now tainted
and uh I would say destroyed and you know uh Zionism is uh from the start has
been all about uh lobbying um gr great power to to get what it
wants. It obviously it the whole nightmare began in London with the bow for declaration in 1917 when the the
British government promised Palestine to uh the Zionist movement. And that was
that was a very kind that that they were shoehorned into that effectively by people like Chain Wiseman and they saw
what they they were successful in what they did but they saw that they needed to get the great powers on their side.
At that time, Britain was the most powerful country in the world if they wanted to get what they want. And they
know that the whole of their existence relies on the population, particularly
in the United States, but also in Europe, being on their side and supporting their government, supporting
them. And actually, I think that that has the biggest rupture with that
strategy ever has is is now in place. And I I believe it's never going to go back because the other thing is Zionism
has also always tried to market itself well it markets itself different to different sectors but it often markets
itself as this progressive force you know it's like a it's often linked to the history of persecution of the Jewish
people. It's linked to um uh uh uh progressive ideals like socialism and
stuff or lobby groups try and do that. But uh if you look at what Zionism is as
an ideology and as an idea, it's a deeply regressive supremacist settler colonial ideology. It's not it's not got
anything to do with progressive ideals or progressive sensibilities. And that whole fantasy and mythology, even the
term liberal Zionism, which is an oxymoron, which and used a lot, it it's unsustainable now and it's never going
back. So that's why and actually I think Netanyahu is going to find that out because I I actually think he's sincere
when he says that he thinks that Tik Tok getting hold of Tik Tok uh through Larry
Ellison will change the will will be consequential and get the population back on side. But I think he doesn't
understand that it's gone way too far, way too far. People's eyes are open and especially young people. And these are
the people that in the coming generations are going to be in the foreign office in the UK, in the State
Department in the US. the whole generation coming up absolutely uh hates
Israel and actually sees it as synonymous with evil, which it is. Um uh
so I I think that it won't work. And I think that uh as as it as it becomes clearer and
clearer that it won't work, then they're going to they're going to have to go to another strategy. And and they've they're even talking I mean they are
aware uh that they've lost the world in to that extent. If you if you listen to um Netanyahu's speech the other day
where he said we we have to plan for isolation and we have to plan for utarchy economically i.e. we have to
produce all our own goods because we can't trust that we won't be hit with trading bargains that's quite significant and it it as I say the whole
strategy because they know that they're a small little country to to keep the the grand powers on side when that kind
of when that umbilical cord which runs from Washington London Berlin to Tel Aviv is cut which I think it will be not
immediately but over the coming decades then it's going to be very hard for them to survive because this is a country of
9 million people you know it's got a GDP smaller than Sweden. Um, it can't survive without the United States for
like a couple of weeks, particularly militarily. So, I I I am quite hopeful that in the long term, Zionism uh is is
dying and also that they won't be able to reverse it no matter how many social media platforms they they uh they buy.
The other point is also look, they have they have huge control over social media
already and still the whole world's turned against them. You know, Meta has sensors on behalf of Israel all the
time. They've got significant numbers of former spies, Israeli spies working for them. Same with Elon Musk is a big
supporter of Israel. Um, and and it's it's not worked. So, so I I think that
it's they're going to find that out very quickly. uh the the the way the interesting question is how do we
translate that shift in public consciousness around the world into policy changes within our own government
because it is happening slowly and I'll just give you some examples from the UK particularly because it's not happening
in the same way in the US because uh Trump is so under control of Israel but here just the other day the U Royal
College of Defense Studies which is the most elite um UK military training school uh said that they will no longer
take uh Israeli personnel. Uh it's the first time they've done that since it was created by Winston Churchill in the
early 20th century. This is a huge uh significant moment. Uh they've also uh
said that they're going to recognize Palestine, which I have a problem with this whole move, but it it but it's
still something that they know will piss off the Israelis and they're still willing to do it. And this is at a time
uh we're we're 2 years in. Think about 3, four, 5 years down the line, there's going to be so much pressure on the
government that they're going to have to start uh translating public uh opinion into policy. And uh there's nothing the
Israelis can do. Uh the question is how does once they've become isolated and
they're running their utarchic economy, how do we actually dismantle it and actually have some kind of justice and
peace in uh between the river and the sea? And that's another question. And I can't see how that happens without some
kind of holy like existential war cuz Israel has nukes. This is the important
thing. You know, this is what all the different resistance groups including and governments in the region dance
around the whole time. They This is a This is a country that has a a huge nuclear weapons article arsenal and is
mad enough to use it for sure. In fact, some people said that the reason Trump bombed Iran was cuz um Netanyahu said,
"Look, we don't have the technology to get as deep as we need to to take out the nuclear facilities, so I'm going to
use a nuke." And Trump was like, "No, no, no, don't do that. I I'll bomb with the US fleet." Um I don't know if that's
true, but but the point is we that it is extremely dangerous when you have this completely insane regime. And I'm not
just saying that rhetorically. They are completely insane. They they they killed the most amount of journalists that have ever been killed by a state in one go on
on record. the just two weeks ago in Yemen, uh they they've massacred people
for for tweets. Um when you have a state like that that is a huge nuclear arsenal, this is a threat to the whole
world. It's not just a threat to the to West Asia. So uh it is a scary prospect.
Yeah. Yeah. Indeed. And uh you know uh Patrick uh the uh whole Tik Tok
situation when it comes to the sale uh there are of course reports that it's
going to be Oracle that that will uh gain majority ownership and it's a
pro-Israel tech firm whose uh uh main uh venture capitalist Larry Ellison is one
of Silicon Valley's most prominent pro-Israel figures according to the cradle and has made significant
donations to to the friends of the Israel Defense Forces. So, there's obviously a direct connection that
Netanyahu is drawing given that uh one of Israel's most wealthy and largest
friends uh will be taking control of it. What's your assessment? What's your reaction?
Well, I think it goes a lot deeper than that. Uh Danny, uh even look look at the UK the Starr uh government's pushing
hard to implement a digital ID. Uh, and who is the frontman for this project? In
fact, who's been the frontman for the digital ID in the UK since long before Kier Starmer was sworn in as prime
minister is Tony Blair. So, a war criminal Tony Blair whose uh whose
foundation has garnered uh no less than $300 million from guess who? Larry
Ellison. So clearly there's an interest uh with Larry Ellison, Oracle and these
sort this sort of tech empire to run the backend uh for databases for this uh new
uh digital ID program which basically will be ubiquitous across all systems
and centralizing uh a centralized node for every sort of citizen and it this
will be gateways for uh everything internet access social media banking uh
right to work and etc etc. So clearly this is a technocratic endun around
basic rights and right to privacy and so forth and it can be hugely politicized.
So when you consider that and Larry Ellison being Israel's one of their biggest assets uh on on the planet in
terms of a tech mogul and then you drill down even further and you realize at
some point during the founding stages of Oracle that the central intelligence
agency were uh deeply involved in this and many other similar enterprises.
Larry Johnson can probably comment on this area, but you have venture capital firms like Inqutell uh that are
routinely involved in providing the seed funding and seeding the board initially
of board members of some of these corporations. There's a joke in Brazil, Danny, I don't know if you heard it, but
the some Brazilians will will laugh and say, "We don't decide our elections. Oracle decides our elections." So all of
these uh systems, electronic voting systems, election systems have been road tested uh in so-called third world
countries by uh United States intelligence with their uh te tech
moguls. And these can also be deployed in America. They can be deployed in
Britain in across Europe and if they're not already being deployed in that fashion. So in in terms of you know
manufacturing consent or uh election outcomes uh certainly you've got a prime
minister in Britain that is absolutely will you know go to the wall for Israel no matter what they do that's pretty
pretty clear but in a in a a prime minister with a very low approval rating and right across Europe you have all
these leaders that are clinging to you know a mandate with you know 20 high 20%
low 30% and co stitch together with flimsy coalitions that so there's no way
they can represent what the public uh majority want or believe or feel. And the United States goes in for the same
thing in the United States. Um but yet and and when it comes to supporting Israel, you could end up in the next 10
years having governments that support Israel still, but people that are just totally against it. Um and I think
you're already seeing that now. So this again this gulf uh increases between
where the public are and where the elite bureaucracy are and where the big uh billionaire oligarch class are. And of
course many of those oligarchs whether they're Christians or whether they're Jewish, they're all Zionist. That's the
thing they have in common. Yeah, very good points. And I think that
can bring us to the last segment I wanted to cover. And actually it's a bit of a a breaking story. I don't know how
breaking it is really given that um it's all happening on one side uh Patrick as
you mentioned uh the kind of bureaucratic oligarch uh class side and
not so much the Palestinian side but there is news of a uh so-called uh peace
deal that Trump has unveiled uh the the details have come out after meeting with
Netanyahu in Washington and here they are it stipul ulates that the conflict
would end immediately if accepted by both Israel and Hamas. All hostages would be uh who have either died or or
who remain would be returned 72 hours of the agreement. It would also see Israel
release over 2,000 prisoners and Israel would not be able to occupy or annex Gaza. And it encourages Gaza residents
to stay in place, but there's going to be a panel of experts to rebuild and energize quote unquote the Gaza Strip.
Now, the plans of course and this has been something that has been a huge
stipulation even in the so-called recognition drive by European countries in the UK. It calls for Hamas not to
have any direct or indirect role in the governance of Gaza. Instead, handing control of the territory to a quote
unquote technocratic a-olitical Palestinian committee responsible for delivering day-to-day running of public
services. It would be overseen by a board of peace headed and shared by Trump himself and involve participation
of other world leaders and you'll like this one Matt including UK prime minister uh Tony Blair former UK prime
minister. So let's start with you Larry. you know I uh Hamas the resistance in
Palestine has not really been consulted on this uh what's your assessment on uh
or reaction to this development given that the resistance as of right now is
still fighting and fighting very hard it's a propaganda show look there are 14
other Palestinian groups the Palestinian Islamic Jihad
uh Popular Front for the liberation of Palestine. Um, you know, I I I I can't remember
them all. So, yeah, they're not going away either. Um, this may be Israel's face saving way
to try to get out of a of a very intractable situation. You know, they
launched their re offensive to wipe out Hamas in Gaza City three weeks ago. This
is the start of the third week. How are they doing? Well, the reports today are that the
Israeli helicopters were quite active evacuating casualties, Israeli
casualties from Gaza City. So, the Kasam brigade is not going anywhere. Uh the
the other thing we don't really have a lot of good information on is I guarantee you there are commercial
relationships between members of uh Israel's polite
society and Hamas. We know from the past that you know Mossad was dealing with
Hamas whether uh you know undercover or in or without cover. Nonetheless, they
had commercial relationships where money was being uh moved back and forth. Uh I
I saw the start of the press conference and who walks in with just before Donald
Trump, Jared Kushner, Mr. I want to develop the beaches in Gaza Man.
So, you know, I don't doubt that there are some nefarious plans of foot to like
the proverbial camel slipping its nose under the tent. Uh, this is to get Jared
Kushner's feet in the water there off the Gaza shores and to retake Gaza, not
by fighting and killing, but by building and taking property and forcing the
Palestinians out. So, uh, while while I hope for an end to the fighting, uh,
this is not going to solve the underlying problem. And look, we just had BB Netanyahu last week at the United
Nations, sparsely attended, I might add, uh, make
it very clear, there will be no two-state solution. Period.
So, here's Trump talking his plan, and I don't think he paid attention to what BB said last week.
Yeah. And Matt, u uh I just want to remind and unmute yourself uh first, but please uh your reaction to this. I mean,
you have Tony Blair sitting on this quote unquote board of peace headed by Donald Trump. No consultation with the
Palestinian resistance, which is to engage in heavy fighting in places like Kununas and other areas of Gaza directly
with the Israeli regime. And of course, you have the rest of the resistance that has not let up. Uh what's your take on
this uh uh breaking uh plan that Trump is trying to push through um you know on
all sides of this conflict given its complicity in it? Well, first of all, the Tony Blair
issue, I mean, it's like a horror movie really, isn't it? This guy is like a a
Dracula. He's just sucks blood wherever he goes. He's This is a guy that was uh
led my country into an illegal war in Iraq where hundreds of British soldiers
died or up to a million Iraqis were killed, the whole region was destroyed. He should be in prison. So, let alone
the fact that he's chosen to to to be part of the the governing committee or
or whatever Trump's calling it um is is sick. And uh it just again it's an
imposition. the whole they this is this is the US role in the Israel Palestine
conflict from the start. You know they they they're they've run the so-called
police peace process but they're on Israel's side and have been from the beginning. So how that that's why it's
so intractable. Uh Trump's record on on Israel is appalling. He moved the the
the embassy to Jerusalem in his first term and then there was the great march
of return at the same time and they and he didn't say a word as Israeli snipers
massacred nurses and uh health workers and peaceful protesters who were just walking to the gates of their prisons.
So uh I don't I don't recognize them as having any right to impose a solution on
Gaza. And and if you look at the I was just looking at some of the fine print of what they're saying. And they're
saying there's going to be a security buffer zone, one of which uh part of which will be the whole of the Philadelphia corridor, the refer the
border with refer. So that Gaza is going to shrink. Uh I I don't know. Obviously,
it's got Hamas obviously uh and other resistance groups have got have had no input into this um uh uh so-called deal
uh peace deal. But again, that that's emblematic of the of the way it's worked from the start. you there was a
ceasefire agreement that Hamas was basically close to 100% agreeing with and then Israel bombed the mediators in
Qatar. Uh these Israel is not going to accept anything other than what they
exactly what they want. Um and they're it's a maximalist regime. Uh and they got control of the Trump White House. So
I don't know what will happen with this whether Hamas uh probably won't accept it. But um again uh as Larry mentioned
it that you we we should listen to Israeli ministers when they tell us what their vision for Gaza is because they
have told us from the start going back to when Gallant said that he was going to starve 2.3 million people not allow
any food, water and electricity. But even more recently Smott uh uh the
finance minister said that in a few months there will be no one left in Gaza. We're going to destroy the whole
thing. Ben Gavir is uh the security minister has said similar things. So I think their idea they they in my opinion
they saw October 7th as their 9/11 and their fi as as their and the pretext to
finally solve their so-called Pal Palestinian problem. The Palestinian problem for them is a whole reservoir of
indigenous people that they've displaced and kicked off their land and put in prisons. What do you do with them? And they uh obviously people put in a prison
are going to respond and and uh uh resist. Uh and so they want to just get
rid of them. Uh and I think they they they that is their end goal. They are not This is what I look every we've all
seen the images of Gaza, right? And they're doing the same thing to Gaza City now, right? It's destroyed. They've
erased it. Every highrise has been taken down in Gaza City over the past couple of weeks. Uh and the ministers have been
celebrating it. Israel Catz was celebrating the highest highrise going down today. uh the defense minister. Um
they're not doing that to allow the Palestinians to go back. That's not what you do if you want to rebuild with what
they're doing is they're raising it. It's a year zero thing. Uh and they're
going to rebuild it without Palestinians. And there was a plan that was leaked from Netanyahu um uh maybe
about a year ago where uh where they envisioned like a new uh Dubai, you
know, like and and and the new plan from Trump does me mention special economic zones and special economic zones I've
done a lot of work on. They're basically just corporate utopias. So uh uh I I it
won't work. It won't work. And as as as have been mentioned by other people, the resistance is still fighting in Kunis,
but also in other areas in Gaza City. Today there was an operation. Um so uh
are they just going to accept the fact that they have to completely down all their weapons? They have to accept that
they're they they're living under this genocidal power and they're living under uh uh the control of Tony Blair and
Donald Trump. I don't think they will accept it and they shouldn't accept it to be honest because obviously we all want to see an end to the fighting and
the genocide but if they if if if they
put through this plan that I believe the end goal will be to completely depopulate uh Palestine and behind
closed door they're probably aware of that they're probably talking about that probably saying well it's too hard we can't move the people we want cuz they
tried you know half a million people have left Gaza city over the past week but there's still hundreds of thousands
of people there they haven't been able to do what they wanted, which was to depopulate and move everyone to al-
Mauasi near Kunis. They haven't been able to do it. So, this is maybe a stop gap where they'll stabilize it and then
they'll find more peaceful ways to or more effective ways to move the Palestinians and eventually find a third
country that will take them. That's what I believe their plan is. So, I think yeah, it's propaganda. It's uh it's
either set up for Hamas to reject or or it's set up to be the prelude to a
depopulation and and occupation, complete occupation, rebuilding it as a real estate bonanza for for the Israelis
and the Americans. Yeah. And uh you know, Patrick uh Matt
says, "Yeah, the resistance hasn't stopped." This includes also Yemen. We see the Red Sea ships continue uh to be
attacked. Those who are Israeli linked, they are getting attacked by Yemen. And
of course uh given that the Palestinian resistance and Palestinian leadership have not been uh consulted on this uh
that won't stop the the Red Sea blockade nor the um you know targeting of Israeli
strategic sites by Yemen ballistic missiles. And then there's this I wanted to play you this because uh there's a
lot of I think suspicions that of course any kind of peace plan quote unquote
pushed through by Trump is really just serving Israel. So much so that we have Netanyahu. He's been going around the
mainstream media of late almost running interference for himself trying to show
that he is not in control that there's no one in control that Israel has no role. Well, I mean, we saw this with the
whole Charlie Kirk debacle where he had to go on Twitter and then mainstream media and say, "Ah, we didn't do
anything." Over and over and over again. Here he goes again talking to mainstream media about this claim that he is in the
Israeli regime is essentially influencing and controlling the Trump administration. President Trump has been an incredible
ally of Israel, uh incredible friend. We've had uh no one like him. what he did in his first term uh in recognizing
Jerusalem as our capital, moving the American embassy there, recognizing our sovereignty over the Goran Heights,
getting out of the disastrous Iran deal, and then of course now uh joining us in
the effort to uh prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons by taking out uh
some of these nuclear sites with us. I think it's great. I read somewhere this ridiculous I mean this ridiculous lie.
President Trump does what he does because he decides what's in America's
best interest. And I've said this often. You know, I don't decide a thing for
President Trump. He is the most independent leader in Americ.
So, uh, Netanyahu, I don't know if he would ask that, but he is not he has no
uh no influence over Trump. Uh, they didn't sign anything for Trump. Uh, Patrick, your your thoughts about about
this and what this peace plan shows about Israel's interference in US politics. Well, first off the bat, uh,
reportage, uh, says the opposite, uh, that Netanyahu himself is making, uh, cabinet calls directly, uh, and via Miam
Adlesen and some of the big donors that basically purchased the White House uh, in the 2024 election. So they in fact
the uh and it's worth pointing out once again that the entire cabinet anybody
that touches national security or uh that touches foreign policy uh had to be
pro- Israel and were shortlisted by the Israeli donor class by the Israeli
lobby. Okay. So that's the level of penetration of quote foreign interference. Uh the thing they accused
Russia of doing for the last 10 years. That's the level of penetration into this uh Trump White House. So, it's
unprecedented. Uh it's never been seen before. And by the way, that's probably why they're dropping the ball so badly
on Ukraine and Russia because everybody in from the State Department right across the board are only equipped and
care about one issue and that's Israel. Period. Is it good for Israel? Is it bad for Israel? So, that's that. Look, the
the leak on this so-called peace plan was a strategic leak. That should tell you straight away this thing is a
complete scam. Okay. Uh Jared Kushner, the president-in-law, as we used to call
him, the president-in-law, uh he was the sort of guy who uh carried the Abraham
Accords. Okay. He fronted that whole uh joke of a peace plan. And the the the
feature about the Abraham Accords is that they never consulted the Palestinians. and the Palestinians weren't involved at all in this great
grand peace bargain uh for the Middle East. And Trump still believes he should get a Nobel Prize for it when in fact it
was the Abraham Accords that probably accelerated the conditions for October 7th to happen. Um so you get anything
but the Nobel Peace Prize for that. But because because of that the they're doing the same the normal Israeli
negotiation strategy is to make some kind of an impossible bargain deal um
and usually ineps absentia of the counterparty negotiating in this case Hamas and then if it's rejected or if
it's not accepted um then they say oh it's a perfectly good deal and we uh we we offered Arafat or whoever the
Palestinian negotiator whoever's alive to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians or Hamas Oh, it was a
perfectly good deal. Trump is adopting verbatim the exact same tactic. He's even using this against the Russians.
Oh, we offered a perfectly good deal and they didn't accept it. Same thing here. So, this thing is designed to fail. But
you read read the fine print on this. The fine print. If Hamas leaders agree
to leave Gaza, that's part of the conditions. Okay. So, and and so are
they going to go to Qar and they say, "Well, we'll give Qatar an amnesty as long as they comply for this this term
right here." The other place where they might go is Egypt because there's a lot of pressure on Egypt from the Egyptian
public to step up and basically uh head off what is a a huge humanitarian
disaster and just an unthinkable situation um in Gaza. And so, uh just
like clockwork, what do you have this week? go to the New York Times and they
said, "Ah, Israeli officials spokesperson is concerned that Hamas
terrorists have uh crossed over the border into the Sinai along with uh uh
anything uh like 100,000 medical evacuees uh and people fleeing uh the
Gaza Strip. Okay. So they're creating the conditions for a 1978
uh PLO South Lebanon trap. And that's was the pretext Israel used to attack
Lebanon to invade and occupy South Lebanon. And they occupied for over two
decades effectively. So they're they are engineering the identical trap with
Israel, with Egypt and the Sinai. And by doing that, if they can claim they have intelligence or they can push
Palestinians into the Sinai, that gives Israel and the IDF uh license to attack
what they call terrorist targets in Egypt. And where is that going to end? Okay. And so I I think this is the thing
you're you're looking at a a big scam that is underway now. And the last thing they have intended to do is any kind of
peace ceasefire or stop the fighting. Israel always does one thing in negotiations. that's they drag they drag
it on to change facts on the ground and right now they're they're they're just about done partitioning the West Bank.
Okay. Uh by isolating East Jerusalem and so that whole situation and and annexing
the Jordan Valley. Okay, that's all in motion right now. That's all underway.
And the to to them to the to the hard right which is all of Israel at this point. Israel has shifted so far to the
right. Um it's uh it's it's they're looking at this as the final five yards of the the end final solution for Gaza.
That that's how they are seeing it. This is how they're publicly articulating it. So all of this stuff with peace deals,
Trump ceasefire, I wouldn't trust them as far as you could throw them. And I'll leave it there.
Yeah. Yeah. And Larry and and Matt, maybe we can end with your final comments. Uh as Patrick was talking
about the folly of uh trusting negotiations that have any uh role of
the United States and Israel in them uh in the press conference about this uh he
says this Donald Trump everyone has accepted this plan. I have a feeling we're going to get a positive answers.
If not as you know BB you have our full backing to do what you have to do. And I
think that sums up exactly what the US's and Trump's posture has been on this
from the very beginning, always with that caveat in there that Israel essentially has absolutely no um no
leash on it whatsoever. Uh Larry, uh you're muted, so unmute before you start, but yes, please. You're
Well, I agree. You know, I think Patrick did a great job of outlining both the historical context that this is, you
know, this is deja vu all over again as Yogi Barra said, uh, you know, it's it's
the past repeating, uh, at least along the same chords. Maybe some of the
specific notes are off, but the basic chord structure is the same. Uh and
Netanyahu apparently at this press conference because I've been seeing you know getting some flashes across my
screen basically reiterated that you know the a Palestinian state is still
unacceptable to Israel and this entire
um fantasy about you know Israel being this Zionist state and what I mean by
fantasy is its population 80% of the population came from Europe
primarily because you go back and you look at the census that was taken first in 1922 then in 1931
uh the Jewish population in 1931 was like 174,000
uh the Palestinian population was close to 800,000
and then within 20 years uh the the numbers had and completely flipped that
you had millions of of Jews. Well, they they just fall out of the sky. So, the
you know, they've stolen the land. They're not about to give back that stolen land. And uh it's going to be up
to Hamas and the various resistance groups to either find a way to fight it,
continue fighting, and ultimately weaken Israel or or be eliminated. I I would
simply note that, you know, three weeks ago, Israel launched its operation to
take full control of Gaza City. Well, here we are three weeks later.
You've got the Israeli military, Israeli Defense Force with every single advantage an army could have. I mean,
they've got full control of the air. They've got overhead satellites. They've got all sorts of intelligence collection
systems. They have artillery. They have tanks. They have armored personnel carriers.
And yet, and they have Hamas bottled up
in a specific area. You know, that's sort of like having Jim Buouie and Davy Crockett later locked in at the Alamo.
And yet, Israel can't beat him. They can't defeat him. They've had, for God's
sake, now two years, two full years to try. And it's not, you know, you hear
all these idiot western analysts make fun about, oh, the Russians haven't taken much territory. Yeah, they're
fighting a NATO pure force, a NATO force that has almost every kind of weapon
system that Russia has. And in spite of that, Russia keeps moving forward. It keeps killing more of them, unlike the
Israelis who have a confined area locked in and they can't defeat it.
that and right you know today as I mentioned earlier they're taking more casualties and so I I think Hamas is
content to try to bleed them out if they can because Israel cannot sustain the casualties
they will uh they're already down about two million people since the start of the war.
Yeah Matt, uh your final thoughts? Uh, I I've always found this to be one of the
most um the stark points uh that Larry just brought up is you do have the
resistance just they don't they don't give up. Uh not only do they not give up, but uh essentially Gaza is itself uh
what many have said is a prison literally built to do what is happening to the Palestinians right now, a
genocide. And yet the resistance doesn't stop. And I think this is a huge problem
both for the Israeli regime and the United States which sees of course Gaza and Palestine as a big part of its
overall power projection in the region. So your final thoughts on the situation
um overall the peace plan etc. wherever you want to go with it.
Uh sorry you're muted. I I think that the resistance point is
is huge. you know, like you've had two years nearly of three nuclear armed
powers uh basically throwing everything they have got at um this small little
bit of territory, you know, so 20 mi long and 45 mi wide and they can't beat
the resistance. And again, like you mentioned, this is a prison. Most of the weapons being used are repurposed
Israeli weapons because there's no way to get weapons in. So, it is an incredible uh campaign fought by the
resist the Palestinian resistance. Um, and I agree with Larry that that the
it's the longer it goes on for Israel, the worse it's going to get because they can't move. They haven't achieved any of
their goals. Hamas and the resistance are still active.
Hundreds of thousands of people are still in the parts of Gaza that they've wanted to move. nothing has been achieved apart from a complete
obliteration of their reputation around the world and arrest warrants for their prime minister and defense minister. So,
um it they probably do want to draw it to a close, but I I I also think that as they've gone on this long, it does
create the conditions for them to carry on because they can't stop until they
get some tangible victory because they haven't the the hostages that they have got back have been got through through
exchange deals. Most of them they have they have rescued. So they did the Nisarat massacre where they killed
nearly 300 Palestinians to rescue four hostages, but the majority have been got through exchanges. If the concern was to
get the hostages back, that's what they would have focused on, but that's not been their concern. Their concern has been to obliterate Gaza. But um I do
agree with Patrick that this is designed to fail just having read uh uh in a
cursory fashion what the stipulations are because they the Israelis uh firstly never
negotiate in good faith uh and uh secondly even when they sign up to deals
they don't hold to it. You know, there was a there was a a ceasefire on the first that came into came into effect
the first day of Trump's uh term in office in January, and then in March, 2
months later, they just completely broke it, and it was going to plan. That could have been a ceasefire that would have got all the hostages home um and would
have uh uh uh uh created uh peace. But they don't want peace. They want they
want they want to destroy Gaza, and they want their final solution. and they've got their pretext which they probably
are thinking we're never going to get again. So, um I think that they're designing this for Hamas to reject it
and as Patrick say that then gives them a propaganda weapon to say well we offered everything that they they they they needed and um uh they rejected us.
The other thing is it's also suicidal on the part of Hamas because the U the the Israelis
although they say we'll do an amnesty they will hunt down and kill every single p Hamas fighter and Hamas
negotiator they did it with you know with the shallot deal in 2006 and well he was taken in 2006 but released 5
years later and they hunted down all the people that were involved in negotiating that they bombed the negotiators in
Qatar as I mentioned last month um they will there's no way that they will abide
by allowing these people to leave and set up shop in another country and not hunt them down at some point. So from
Hamas's perspective, what have they got to lose? They either continue the resistance or uh and are taken out
eventually or they they go they they put down their weapons and and surrender and they're taken out in another way. So the
Israelis there's no way out for them. So the incentive is to carry on because in
some senses they're winning. You know, Israel's not achieved any of its goals. They're bleeding out the Israeli uh
society itself. There's a lot of problems for Netanyahu domestically. So why sign up to this Trump and Netanyahu
designed so-called uh peace deal? Yeah. Yeah. It definitely smells
fraudulent given how important it is for Israel to continue its uh onslaught
here. And all those points I think are are really good ones. Gentlemen, this
was a great show today. Hey, I want to make sure everyone knows uh that you can find Larry's blog, Patrick Substack, as
well as 21st Century Wire and Matt's uh X account in the video description where
you can uh check out all of his work, journalistic work, as well as I know you have a new book coming out, Matt. Um,
anything you guys want to plug before we head out and we can have it together.
No. All right. All right. All right. So everybody, go to the video description to find all
that all those uh great things. Hit the like button before you go. There is all the places to support this channel,
Patreon, Substack, and so much more. I'll be back on the first of next month with Ben Norton and KJ No in the
evening. So I'll see you then. Evening Eastern time. Announcements forthcoming. Take care everyone. Bye-bye.

[admin]

Hegseth Order BACKFIRES As Disaster Speech Leaves Generals Stunned
The Damage Report
Sep 30, 2025 #TheDamageReport #JohnIadarola #TheYoungTurks

Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth plan to wow audiences with speech backfires immediately as Hegseth's alarming order to waste military money and time of generals from around the world crumbles in deranged speech. John Iadarola and Sen. Nina Turner break it down on The Damage Report. Leave a comment with your thoughts below!



Transcript

No more beards, long hair, superficial
individual expression. We're going to
cut our hair, shave our shave our
beards, and adhere to standards.
Cuz it's like the broken windows theory
of policing. It's like when you let the
small stuff go, the big stuff eventually
goes. So, you have to address the small
stuff. We don't have a military full of
Nordic pagans.
But unfortunately, we have had leaders
who either refused to call BS and
enforce standards or leaders who felt
like they were not allowed to enforce
standards.
Both are unacceptable.
Yeah, I'm obviously not a big fan of
Pete Hegsith, but I do agree with him
that standards have been going down. I
mean, up until very recently, you
wouldn't have the uh Department of
Defense run by a goddamn daytime TV
host. Look how the standards have fallen
apart over time. you wouldn't have
apparently an alleged raging alcoholic,
an alleged sexual abuser. You wouldn't
have those sorts of things as the
Secretary of Defense, but now you do.
Man, the standards have just fallen
apart. Um, but I do like what he said.
You cannot be a leader. You can't be
strong and have a beard. Uh, he
specifically said we can't have fat
generals anymore. If you're fat, if you
have a beard, I mean, obviously you
can't be a strong leader. Does he know
who occupies the White House? It's not I
don't have an issue with it, but he
appears to. Can Trump be a strong
leader? The dude's been obese since the
late 80s. JD Vance evidently needs to
shave his goddamn beard because he's
doing superficial stuff that's making
him not a good leader. So, I am now
calling on JD Vance and Matt Walsh who
are hiding their face, which I've always
found to be very suspicious behind
beers. They need to shave those goddamn
things off because according to Pete
Exit, you can't be a strong conservative
if you've got that stuff. But anyway,
look, jokes aside, that is the Fox and
Friends dude lecturing sci-woke scolding
a room full of generals and admirals.
Can you imagine being a person who has
served in the military for 32 years and
you have to fly across the world to sit
in a room and have the dude who used to
chat with Pete Ducey tell you about what
it means to be a warrior. Can you
imagine how little respect that room has
for Pete Haggsith? Okay. And then he's
going to teach them about the warrior
ethos according to him. He's even going
to plug his stupid little book. Take a
look. For too long, we've promoted too
many uniform leaders for the wrong
reasons
based on their race, based on gender
quotas, based on historic so-called
firsts.
We've pretended that combat arms and
non-combat arms are the same thing. We
became the woke department.
But not anymore. Today, at my direction,
each service will ensure that every
requirement for every combat MOS
for every designated combat arms
position returns to the highest male
standard only. When it comes to any job
that requires physical power to perform
in combat, those physical standards must
be high and genderneutral.
If women can make it, excellent. If not,
it is what it is. You might say we're
ending the war on warriors.
I heard someone wrote a book about that.
Yeah. Nobody Nobody else was saying
that. You're just saying it to promote
your stupid book. And I get that like
this entire administration is just Fox
News people running a continuing grift
and like barking at people about
wokeness or whatever, but like we we
don't we don't care about your book.
None of those generals give one godamn
tiny little nugget of a crap about your
stupid book. I'm being completely
serious here. They don't care about any
of that stuff. It's no longer the
department of woke. Oh, you know, for
decades and decades, we've only been
concerned about wokeness. That's what's
going on. This is just the Fox News
presidency. It has no bearing
relationship to the real world. And
look, his speech was self- serving and
deranged. I'm going to give you a little
bit of Donald Trump because Donald
Trump, of course, he heard that there
was a big meeting or whatever. See, he
decided to go and we're going to give
you the highlights, but just to be
clear, he didn't like prep remarks for
them. He just did his normal dementia
stream of unconsciousness. Take a look.
Identity of the Department of War. I
love the name. I think it's so great. I
think it stops worse. And I'm not a fan
of some of the ships you do. I'm a very
aesthetic person. said, "I don't like
some of the ships you're doing." And
they said, "We'd like to name it the
F47."
I said, "All right, let me think about
it." Then after thinking for about 2
seconds, I said, "Okay,
you know what that means, 47? I'm 47. So
I'm 45, 46, and 47." You know, if you
think about it, we're under invasion
from within.
No different than a foreign enemy, but
more difficult in many ways because they
don't wear uniforms. At least when
they're wearing a uniform, you can take
them out. These people don't have
uniforms. And you know what the people
say? The people in those cities where
they're being raped and shot and beat
up. You know what they say? We love the
milit. You ever see where they interview
the people on the street? I've never
seen somebody say they don't unless
they're radical and paid off because a
lot of these insurrectionists are paid
by
whether Soros or other people.
Yeah. So that was just him. He talked
about tariffs. He talked about the auto
pen. He talked about how he likes some
some ships look good and other ships
don't look good. goddamn Navy general
like admirals are watching that and
they're like this is the
commanderin-chief my god and he kept he
talked about Biden he kept trying to do
partisan stuff expecting that they would
laugh or like cheer him and they didn't
whatever limited respect they had for
either of those two men is now utterly
gone I am sure but the important part
Nina is the constant uh talk about uh
like sending the military in and
conquering US cities He said it's a war
with from within. It's the same. It's
Soros, by the way. Some Jewish
billionaire is funding an insurrection,
so we need to go conquer them. He said,
uh, we're going to use these dangerous
cities as training grounds for our
military.
Uh, Hegsith said, "We're not going to
fight with stupid rules of engagement."
Obviously, Hegith, when he was in the
media, was a massive advocate for war
criminals and people who executed
civilians. So, he's continuing to do
that now as a secretary of defense or
whatever the hell they want to call it.
And so, this is, look, this is pathetic.
It's ridiculous, but it's also
incredibly dark. Um, he's basically
saying to all these generals, get in
line. We're going to start invading
cities. What do you think?
Yeah, I was thinking about the Geneva
Convention and the rules of war. And I
put that in air quotes, and that this
dude just basically said, we're throwing
all of that out. He talked about
violence against recruits that drill
sergeants should be able to use physical
violence against their recruits. His
quote on for for too long we promoted
military leaders for the wrong reasons
like gender and race. Yeah, you have.
And it has been basically the measure
has been white men uh the majority of
the time of the existence of this
country and the existence of military in
this country. I mean, this is just
utterly ridiculous and it is a microcosm
of a larger issue that we're going to
continue to have in American society.
So, I know our producer said we got a
break. This is my answer to everything
you just said, John. I'mma have papers
all over this room. It's just is this
these people are mad, okay? And they're
going to get people hurt. It's bad
enough we're already going through what
we're going through right now. And to
just really women, you know, have to he
said it's not gonna be gendered, but it
is gendered. I mean, John, any of that
stuff.
Yeah.
Women now. It's not gonna be gender, but
women have to measure up to to a male
gender physical standards. Man, what are
you saying? Then you are saying it's
gendered. Just go ahead and say you
don't want women. You don't want blacks.
You don't want other people of color.
You certainly don't want people from the
gay community. You you don't want
anybody but a standard prototype y
that the United States that people like
you have determined are the most
worthiest in this country. Yeah. I feel
sad for those generals and those
admirals because they are trained to
take those orders and they had to sit
through this man both of those men doing
what they did and then how can you war
your way to peace. We can't. Why are we
like like you said, we're promoting war
on ci American cities and then you're
promoting war around the world.
Yeah.
This stuff is gonna blow back on
innocent people. Most of the people in
this country are innocent. They didn't
ask for this and there's going to be no
consequences or repercussions for those
people who are promoting this kind of
stuff. John, this is this is dangerous
territory
in terms of blowback. I mean, think
about how people, even people who are
like pro- mass deportation, their view
of ICE has drastically gone down because
of what they've been seeing. Think about
what this is going to do for people's
view of the National Guard and of the
branches of the military. They're going
to be conquering us.
Got a goddamn TV host and a dude who has
been mocking the very idea of service
for decades. Anti-woke scolding a room
full of actual military professionals.
Yeah,
it's utterly pathetic. We were in a very
dark place.

[admin]

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Trump Lectures the Generals
Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom
Streamed live 72 minutes ago

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump Lectures the Generals



Transcript

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Npalitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, October 1st, 2025. Colonel Lawrence
Wilkerson joins us now on the lectures President Trump and Secretary Hegsth
gave to the generals and admirals yesterday. Hang on to your seats. But first, this
my friends. If you care about your liberty and your right to control your own future, you need to hear about this.
From October 10th to 12th, Mikuel Thorp, host of the Expat Money Show, is
bringing together top experts from around the world for the Expat Money
online summit, and it's completely free to attend. You'll learn how to legally
protect your wealth, secure second residences and citizenships, reduce your
tax burden, and own property abroad. All to safeguard your freedom. This year's
focus is on Latin America, where opportunity is booming. Argentina is
shifting to free markets. El Salvador is undergoing a dramatic transformation.
And Panama and Paraguay are offering simple residency programs. A plan B is
no longer optional. It's essential. Reserve your free ticket at
expatmoneyssummit.com. And if you want VIP access with special
perks, including lifetime replay access and exclusive VIP panels, use promo code
judge for 20% off your upgrade. That's expatmoneysummit.com.
Promo code judge. Colonel, welcome here, my dear friend.
Before I ask you about some of your favorite topics, that would be former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
Secretary of Defense, or as he calls himself, Secretary of War, Pete Hegsth,
uh, and, uh, President Trump. I need your take on this. uh within hours of
hand sha shaking hands with President Trump in the Oval Office and beaming
over the Israeli acceptance of a deal negotiated by Steve Whit with Arab
leaders but not with Hamas. uh uh Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
as soon as he landed uh in uh Tel Aviv in Hebrew undermined the deal by saying
the IDF is not leaving uh Gaza even though that's a core part of the deal
and there will never be a Palestinian state even though the deal contemplates
one in five years. Does this surprise you? Not at all. Uh had he not said that and
in Hebrew and in Loki if you will he his coalition would have collapsed.
Wow. Well, was he lying when he shook hands with Trump and on American
television with every broadcast and cable network uh showing him
you asked me that question about BB Netanyahu
the rest of the face of the earth. Don't the Americans know that they're dealing
with an inveterate liar and what he shakes hands about and says uh one day
he'll repudiate the next? I think they do. I think most of the people who count within the Trump
administration do. That doesn't necessarily include Donald Trump himself. I'm sad to say. And I I'll say
something else about it, too. I think what we're looking at here is we're looking at a decision made on both sides
of the ocean, if you will, in America and in Israel, that we're going to war with Iran. So, everything else that's
happening right now is just sort of uh wind dressing to lead up to what's going
to happen. Uh Colonel McGregor, who will be on with us tomorrow, uh reports in his emails
that uh heavy American equipment fighter jets are beginning to uh land at that
enormous base uh in Doha. Right. That would be an indicator that a war is
coming and the US is going to back the Israelis. Exactly. and a a fleet of tankers have
also crossed the Atlantic and moved into that region. Not unlike the fleet that went over for our attacks on the
nuclear. What is a fleet of tankers mean Colonel? It means that the aircraft can refuel
endlessly, you know, coming out of Aluded or wherever they might come from. They can even refuel from carriers.
Right. Right. Right. So, I guess they're we're getting ready, you know, Scott Ritter, uh, Max Blumenthal,
um, the woman that runs Code Pink, her name is escaping me right now,
and Madia Benjamin and I were invited to lunch with the, uh, president of, uh,
Iran uh, last week. There's no question in my mind after listening to him and
his colleagues that they are fully prepared. Yes. uh and they uh are going to react
in a far more decisive, effective, and longlasting way against Israel than they did in June.
And as I understand it, they're going to act regionwide, not just against Israel.
What does that mean, Colonel? Well, I don't know that it means the Saudis or others in the region as much
as it means US facilities in those countries territory. I think it means
they know they're at war with the United States and so thank you very much. Here you are. Take this.
Wow. Colonel, yesterday in a rather uh pining self-indulgent talk before I
don't want to take words put words in your mouth uh before 800 generals and
admirals um visibly disappointed because he didn't expect President Trump to show
up. Secretary of uh defense made some rather peculiar arguments, but
rather than characterize it myself, I'll let you watch it. It's under a minute.
Sounds to me like he wants the United States to abandon the Geneva Conventions, which have been a hallmark
of civility since the end of World War II. Will you tell me what you think, Chris? Number 20.
Every day, we have to be prepared for war, not for defense. We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wars
to win, not to defend. Defense is something you do all the time. It's inherently reactionary and can lead to
overuse, overreach, and mission creep. War is something you do sparingly, on
our own terms, and with clear aims. We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming
and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of
engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize,
hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and
overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality and
authority for war fighters. That's all I ever wanted as a platoon leader.
I'm sure that last comment reminded them how uh
how sparing his experience in the military is. Stupid rules of engagement.
Would would those be the rules that prohibit torture, that prohibit attacking uh civilians, that prohibit
using more force than is necessary to subdue the enemy? The rules that we
wrote when we wrote the four Geneva Conventions, Colonel. Yes. And also very dramatically includes taking on boats on
the high seas and blowing them up. Yes. Due process without congressional
approval just because you can. I said yesterday on the Capitol steps, I said
we had a demonstration there and I said to a reporter, imagine you're on New York Avenue and you stumb you're a
policeman or you're a military person in DC, which there are plenty of right now, and you stumble on a guy sitting on a
five gallallon can in front of the the church there on the corner of H and New York Avenue. And there's a line down the
street, a thousand people in that line, and he's selling cocaine. and you walk up to him and you pull out your service
revolver or your M16 if you're militant, you blow him away. That's the same thing
we're talking about. You're talking about doing that. Now, it might be heinous that he's on the street corner
selling drugs and he's probably going to run when he sees you coming anyway, but you're walking up to him and blowing him
away without due process is not what you should be doing. Well, the the president
uh has said uh that he can kill people before they commit crime if he has a reasonable
belief that they're going to. I'm I'm putting words in his mouth and making it sound a little bit more elegant than he
put it. Uh the president has said uh we'll play this clip for you uh in in a
minute that American cities should be used as training ground for the military. So, can the pre-charge,
pre-trial, preconviction, public execution of Americans whose crimes have
been observed be very far behind Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson?
Not very far. And we we had this discussion when George W. Bush introduced to the border patrol within
100 nautical miles of their position. Think about that for a minute now because some of these people were at
international airports. So that means a circle with a 100 mile radius all around that airport. They can act if they think
someone is a criminal, no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, you can
act. And we did that. We did that post 911. And boy did we get a lot of people
that were angry with us for confisc confiscation of their laptops and such.
and people who are essentially put aside and interrogated who were just
businessmen coming across the southern border or wherever it might be. This is this is taking it way too far. I don't
know if you saw the interview with Edward Snowden the other day, but I had many people emailing me and saying,
"Jesus, I've never listened to this guy such depth and such wisdom. This guy's
smart. Why the hell is he in the Soviet Union?" Ah, because the Trump
administration indicted him. That's why he's in the Soviet Union. He indicted him for tell telling the truth. One of
the greatest, most profound, most courageous, truthful revelations in the modern era.
Yes. The whistleblower. Yeah. Here's President Trump on practice
in American cities. And then I'm going to ask you to grade the two speeches. San Francisco, Chicago,
New York, Los Angeles. They're very unsafe places and we're going to straighten them out one by one. And this
is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war, too. It's a war from within. Controlling
the physical territory of our border is essential to national security. We can't let these people in. We're under
invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy, but
more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms. At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take
them out. These people don't have uniforms. I told Pete, "We should use some of these dangerous cities as
training grounds for our military, National Guard, but military."
What the hell is he talking about? Using American streets as a training ground
for military in the same breath in which he says, "We're under invasion from an
enemy within." He's talking about a better coup than
the one he tried to conduct before and failed at. That's what he's talking about. And he's talking about preparing
the forces necessary to make sure that that coup doesn't fail. That's what he's
talking about. And he's not talking about it necessarily for himself. I don't think he has enough brain power
really now to deal with that sort of thing. I think he's talking about it in words having been given him and written
for him and otherwise offered to him by people like Steve Miller. And I'm sorry
to say people who might be behind Steve Miller even who are very anxious I go to
Peter Teal immediately to bring the kind of authoritarianism that once echoed
through the halls of South African government to America. What are you referring to when you said
coup, colonel? I'm talking about what I've said all along. The the January the sixth attempt
at overthrowing our government or installing Trump forever didn't fail
because the system hell. It failed because the coup plotters were utterly
incompetent. They will not make that mistake again. Wow. Colonel, can you think of anybody
now living worse than Tony Blair to become the governor general of a neoc
colonial Gaza Strip? Yes. BB Netanyahu.
Okay. I got another one. I got another one for you. Dick Cheney if he's still alive.
Yeah. Well, Dick would do a better job than either Blair or Netanyahu, but he would be ruthless.
Why Tony Blair? And why why would the Arabs ever accept somebody as singularly
responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan as he was? I have no idea except that I know that
he spent the last decade or decade and a half or so in inserting himself back
into the into the milu so that he could make lots of money and so that he could
regain some fame. He really lost a lot of his stature when he left the prime ministership, but I think he's managed
to build it back up again with the people that count.
If he becomes the governor general, would the former occupant of the opulent
residence known as number 10 Downing Street take up residence in Gaza City?
Some of them would, no question in my mind. and MI6 would be all over the place just like their air force is
flying over Gaza right now still giving information and intelligence to the IDF.
Um this you you cannot make it up about Britain's complicity in the Levant from
the beginning of time as it were up to the present. They are a malignant force
in that region of the world. They always have been. I suspect as long as the demi
paradise exists, they will continue to be. Um, I want to get back to President
Trump and Secretary Hegsth, and I've not asked you for a grade yet, and I don't mean to putting on put you on the spot
because your non-grade explanations have been uh very uh illuminating.
Um but general are excuse me colonel are generals and admirals generally fat
not generally there are too many of them in the reserve components who are and we've talked about that at the
Eisenhower media network there are quite a few both male and female officers and
NCOs in the reserve components that are not following the army's guidelines or
the Marine Corps's guidelines on Wait. Uh, but this was this was really not
what that was all about, I don't think. And I think what was it all about? I think it was all about testing. They
wanted to see and they got a really dull answer just how much they could make
that crowd not completely like but remotely at least like the crowd you
recall they had at Fort Bragg that they really I didn't know this until I read
up on it. They really vetted that crowd at Fort Bragg to the point of you can't
sit in the front row if you have any color on. You can't sit in the front row if you are going to move your eyes in
some kind of grimace when the president says something. This was detailed instruction to that crowd to make sure
what they had out there was either MAGA sympathizers or people who were scared
and weren't going to do anything unoured with regard to the commander-in-chief. They thought they were going to get
something like that at Quantico. not quite as subdued and then as rockous as
the Fort Braggin was, but they thought they were going to get cheers and applause and various insundry reactions.
They got stoisism. They got people looking at them without
any emotion whatso. Well, maybe maybe this is one of the reasons, Chris, the
uh clip of Secretary Hegsth saying, "If you feel uncomfortable, well, you can
fill in the blank." Yeah. The new compass heading is clear. Out with the Charellis, the McKenzies,
and the Millies, and in with the Stockdale, the Schwarz coughs, and the patents.
More leadership changes will be made of that I'm certain. Not because we want to, but because we must. Once again,
this is life and death. The sooner we have the right people, the sooner we can advance the right policies. Personnel is
policy. But if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink,
then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service.
Admiral Stockdale would have stood up wherever he was in that auditorium and
told that man he was a sack of and walked out.
I wish there were more. And and Patton would have stood up and maybe walked up there and smacked him upside the head and walked out. I mean
the idea that he would bring those people up asam and Schwarzkoff too bring
them up as the example of warriors is one thing but to bring them up as examples of what he's talking about
gross insubordination gross war crimes gross ignorance of the
code of conduct and everything else that makes a military the American military what it is is just unconscionable. Pety
does not know what he's talking about or he is truly an insane individual.
Here's one of the people he attacked by name talking about fidelity to the
Constitution. Former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fourstar General
Millie. You see, we in uniform are unique. We are unique
among the world's armies. We are unique among the world's militaries.
We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe. We don't
take an oath to a religion. We don't take an oath to a king or a queen or to
a tyrant or a dictator. And we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We
don't take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the constitution. And we
take an oath to the idea that is America. and we're willing to die to protect it. Every soldier, sailor,
airman, marine, guardian, and coast guardsman. Each of us commits our very
life to protect and defend that document regardless of personal price, and we are
not easily intimidated. You and I have uh both taken that oath.
I thought that was a brilliant uh a brilliant statement that he made. This is the guy that had Seth trashed.
Yes. I it reminds me of General Pal's 1992 I think it was speech to the Warsaw pack
generals and I think it was in Warsaw if I recall and he said something that got
them so mystified that many came up to him afterwards and asked him to explain and he did in some copious terms he said
I'm a soldier who takes an oath to a constitution of a people who don't
necessarily like me. And then he talked about James Madison
and the standing force and how dangerous it was and such. And they didn't get it
really. And so they began to crowd around him and ask questions. And by the time he finished answering their
questions, each one in turn, they understood what he meant.
All right, Colonel, I'm putting you on the spot. What grade would you give Pete Hegth? F.
Wow. I I have I don't have one for President Trump. I I simply don't have a grade for him. I
can't go that low. Do you uh have a feeling from your
colleagues who are still in uniform if there was a prevailing consensus similar
to yours amongst the one, two, three, and four stars that were there?
Well, here's something that people don't probably realize unless they've had experience in the military. Before these
guys came to this meeting in Quantico, I'll guarantee you they exercised what we call the old boy network. They called
Millie, they called other general officers, other flag officers and all
their services and they said, "What's your advice and they listened to these
people?" So that's one reason you saw them come and be so stoical about the addresses of both the president and the
secretary of war. And then the other thing is they are people who are more imbued with the
ethic that Millie expressed there or that Powell expressed to the Warsaw pack
than not. And so this was really a shock to their systems in some ways though I
suspect from the old boy conversations and everything they didn't get taken
completely by surprise. So you're looking at a reputation of both the sec
war and the president's invitation to participate in the takeover of America.
Wow. And as he was leaving the White House to get in a helicopter to take him to
Quantico cut number 18, he said this. I'm going to be meeting with generals
and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don't like somebody, I'm going to fire them right on the spot.
I would have loved to have seen him try that, especially with a quantity. Maybe one or two that he could have single out
that he' done some research on before and make an example out of them, but with a quantity on the spot. I'd love to
have seen him try that and seen the confrontation that would occur.
I wonder if President Trump will be taking the PT
classes that uh Secretary Headsth told the generals they're going to have to start taking
be taking a heart attack. The last president I know that tried to take a military PT test and did fairly well was
HW Bush. HW, not W. HW.
Wow. All right, Colonel. Such unpleasant uh
stuff. I I I almost can't. Oh, I know. What do you think it cost
to bring 800 admirals and generals from all across the globe and each
or most had a senior commissioned officer with them. So, a lot of human beings
and some had aids with them. In fact, you know, a flag officer rarely travels without his captain or lieutenant or
whatever aid. Um, I I would say in the hundreds of millions when you count the
jet fuel, the time away, and all that goes into it. Wow. Uh, I'm going to play Heg Seth on
fatness. Of course, Trump was backstage at the time, so we don't know what he
thought. Chris number 21. Should our enemies choose foolishly to
challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of
the war department. In other words, to our enemies,
if the Secretary of War can do regular hard PT, so can every member of our
joint force. Frankly, it's tiring to look out at combat formations or really any
formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat
generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It's a bad
look. It is bad and it's not who we are. Today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is
required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight
requirements twice a year. every year of service.
Now, the way to do that, judge, had he wanted to do that, and it's been done before. He's not the first person to do
this, was to tell the secretaries, the service secretaries, who themselves are civilians, as you well know, they then
tell the chief of service, the chief of staff of the army, the chief of staff of the Air Force, the CNO, and so forth, to
do it. You don't do that as the Secretary of Defense. that's beneath your dignity and your responsibilities.
You do advice to the president of the United States and you transmit his
orders to the war fighters in the field and their opinions and views to the
president. That's your job. That's your only job, Pety.
He's uh vicious, angry, micromanaging. Oh, by the way, he's going to have
everybody that works in the Pentagon sign an oath about non-disclosure, and
he's announcing random uh polygraph test. This is just going from bad to worse.
I heard that this morning. You know, he was confirmed by a vote of 51 to 50. One of the 51
has since said, I wish I didn't vote for him. I don't want to say who it is, a Republican senator. If that senator had
stuck to his original guns, we wouldn't be having this conversation uh because he would not have had the
51st vote that he needed. But that's history and can't be changed uh right
now. That man may regret that vote deeply before this was over with.
Yes. Um this is a little out of the blue for
you. Uh but the uh young man that murdered um Charlie Kirk
uh was texting to his uh romantic lover uh his plans to murder Kirk. The NSA had
those texts. That doesn't surprise me before before the murder. I it doesn't
surprise me at all. Does all of the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and all of the mass
surveillance of every keystroke on every mobile device and desktop in the country
do any good? We had the two al-Qaeda agents who were operating in the United States and then
went to the Far East. We had them. We knew who they were. They knew what we knew what they were plotting. And the
fight between the FBI and the CIA was so intense at that time that neither wanted
to share with the other. And so that information never got to the right places. But let me say this too. Larry
Johnson and I have been looking really closely. You know, both of us are riflemen. We shoot all the time. 30 odd
sixes, 243 Winchesterers. We shoot all the time. We don't think that man shot
Charlie Kirk. Good lord. Who did?
We don't know yet, but we are pretty sure that it was at least a 300. And it
was one of those rounds like the one that the autopsy people in Texas said
killed JFK, blew his brains out, and put him on the back of that sedan. It was a
bullet that fragments. It's a special bullet. It is not a steel jacketed round. It's not a round like you shoot
deer with. It doesn't shoot out of a 300 six. It goes into your head and
explodes. If you remember that movie about the jackal where he's out practicing with a pumpkin and he shoots
that pumpkin and the pumpkin explodes. Well, that's what we're talking about.
Wow. Well, more from Larry on that. He'll be with us on Friday. Colonel, thank you. We've been all over the place
and I deeply appreciate your uh willingness to do it. I I deeply
appreciate your intellectual honesty and personal courage in taking these people on who are ruining the military and
assaulting American culture. Thank you, Colonel. Surely, let me tell you about one other thing we passed around the our media
network. We're all on the alert. We uh what Trump
said is he's coming after us.
Coming after people like you and me. Yeah. Exactly.
God be with us. Thank you, Colonel. Surely. All the best. Be safe.
And you, my dear friend. Terrifying stuff. Coming up at 3:00, Phil Geraldi
at 4:00, Professor Jeffrey Saxs, Judge Nepal for Judging Freedom.
[Music]
[Music]

[admin]

Secretary Hegseth Remarks to Senior Military Leaders
C-SPAN
Sep 30, 2025 #cspan

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addresses senior military leaders who were summoned to Washington from their stations all over the world by the secretary for a meeting of the Pentagon's top brass. https://www.c-span.org/program/white-...



Transcript

Please take your seats. Well, Mr. Chairman, the joint chiefs, generals, admirals, commanders, officers, senior enlisted, NCOs, enlisted, and every member of our American military. Good morning.

Good morning and welcome to the War Department because the era of the Department of Defense is over. You see, the motto of my first platoon was those who long for peace must prepare for war. This is of course not a new idea. This crowd knows that. The origin dates to the 4th century Rome and has been repeated ever since, including by our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, the first leader of the War Department. It captures a simple yet profound truth. To ensure peace, we must prepare for war.

From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: war fighting: preparing for war and preparing to win. Unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit. Not because we want war. No one here wants war. But it's because we love peace. We love peace for our fellow citizens. They deserve peace, and they rightfully expect us to deliver it. Our number one job, of course, is to be strong so that we can prevent war in the first place. The president talks about it all the time. It's called peace through strength. And as history teaches us, the only people who actually deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war to defend it. That's why pacifism is so naive and dangerous. It ignores human nature and it ignores human history. Either you protect your people and your sovereignty or you will be subservient to something or someone. It's a truth as old as time. And since waging war is so costly in blood and treasure, we owe our republic a military that will win any war we choose or any war that is thrust upon us.

Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of the war department. In other words, to our enemies, FA FO. If necessary, our troops can translate that for you. Another way to put it is peace through strength brought to you by the warrior ethos. And we are restoring both. As President Trump has said, and he's right, we have the strongest, most powerful, most lethal, and most prepared military on the planet. That is true. Full stop. Nobody can touch us. It's not even close. This is true largely because of the historic investments that he made in his first term and we will continue in this term, but it's also true because of the leaders in this room and the incredible troops that you all lead. But the world and as the chairman mentioned, our enemies get a vote. You feel it. I feel it. This is a moment of urgency, mounting urgency. Enemies gather, threats grow. There is no time for games. We must be prepared. If we're going to prevent and avoid war, we must prepare now. We are the strength part of peace through strength. And either we're ready to win or we are not.

You see, this urgent moment of course requires more troops, more munitions, more drones, more patriots, more submarines, more B-21 bombers. It requires more innovation, more AI in everything and ahead of the curve. More cyber effects, more counter UAS, more space, more speed. America is the strongest, but we need to get stronger and quickly. The time is now, and the cause is urgent. The moment requires restoring and refocusing our defense industrial base, our ship building industry, and onshoring all critical components. It requires, as President Trump has done, getting our allies and partners to step up and share the burden. America cannot do everything. The free world requires allies with real hard power, real military leadership, and real military capabilities. The War Department is tackling and prioritizing all of these things. and I'll be giving a speech next month that'll showcase the speed, innovation, and generational acquisition reforms we are undertaking urgently.

Likewise, the nature of the threats we face in our hemisphere and in deterring China is another speech for another day coming soon.

This speech today as I drink my coffee. This speech today is about people and it's about culture. The topic today is about the nature of ourselves because no plan, no program, no no reform, no formation will ultimately succeed unless we have the right people and the right culture at the war department.

Against the Political Woman
by ENGELBERT HUBER

There is no place for the political woman in the ideological world of National Socialism....

The intellectual attitude of the movement on this score is opposed to the political woman. It refers the woman back to her nature-given sphere of the family and to her tasks as wife and mother. The postwar phenomenon of the political woman, who rarely cuts a good figure in parliamentary debates, signifies robbing woman of her dignity.

The German resurrection is a male event.

-- Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse

If I've learned one core lesson in my eight months in this job, it's that personnel is policy. Personnel is policy. The best way to take care of troops is to give them good leaders committed to the warfighting culture of the department. Not perfect leaders, good leaders, competent, qualified, professional, agile, aggressive, innovative, risk-taking, apolitical, faithful to their oath and to the Constitution. Eugene Sledge in his World War II memoir wrote, quote, "War is brutish, inglorious, and a terrible waste. Combat leaves an indelible mark on those who are forced to endure it. The only redeeming factors are my comrades incredible bravery and their devotion to each other.

In combat, there are thousands of variables, as I learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as so many of you did in so many more places. Leaders can only control about three of them. You control how well you're trained, mostly, how well you're equipped, and the last variable is how well you lead. After that, you're on your own. Our war fighters are entitled to be led by the best and most capable leaders. That is who we need you all to be. Even then, in combat, even if you do everything right, you may still lose people because the enemy always gets a vote. We have a sacred duty to ensure that our warriors are led by the most capable and qualified combat leaders. This is one thing you and I can control, and we owe it to the force to deliver it.

For too long, we have simply not done that. The military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay.

-- Degeneration, by Max Nordau

Some of it obvious, some of it hidden. Or as the chairman has put it, we are clearing out the debris, removing the distractions, clearing the way for leaders to be leaders. You might say we're ending the war on warriors. I heard someone wrote a book about that.

For too long, we've promoted too many uniform leaders for the wrong reasons. based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts. We've pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing. We've weeded out so-called toxic leaders under the guise of double blind psychology assessments, promoting riskaverse goal along to get along conformists instead. You name it, the department did it. Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading and we lost our way.

We became the woke department. But not anymore.

Right now, I'm looking out at a sea of Americans who made a choice when they were young men and young women to do something most Americans will not: to serve something greater than yourself, to fight for God and country, for freedom and the Constitution. You made a choice to serve when others did not. And I commend you. You are truly the best of America. But this does not mean, and this goes for all of us, that our path to this auditorium on this day was a straight line or that the conditions of the formations we lead are where we want them to be. You love your country and we love this uniform, which is why we must do better. We just have to be honest. We have to say with our mouths what we see with our eyes to just tell it like it is in plain English. To point out the obvious things right in front of us. That's what leaders must do. We cannot go another day without directly addressing the plank in our own eye. Without addressing the problems in our own commands and in our own formations.

This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department to rip out the politics. No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction, or gender delusions. No more debris. As I've said before and will say again, we are done with that I've made it my mission to uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal.

That said, the war department requires the next step. Underneath the woke garbage is a deeper problem and a more important problem that we are fixing and fixing fast. Common sense is back at the White House. So making the necessary changes is actually pretty straightforward. President Trump expects it. And litmus test for these changes. It's pretty simple. Would I want my eldest son who is 15 years old eventually joining the types of formations that we are currently wielding?

If in any way the answer to that is no or even yes, then we're doing something wrong, because my son is no more important than any other American citizen who dons the cloth of our nation. He is no more important than your son. All precious souls made in the image and likeness of God. Every parent deserves to know that their son or their daughter that joins our ranks is entering exactly the kind of unit that the secretary of war would want his son to join. Think of it as the golden rule test. Jesus said, "Do unto others that which you would have done unto yourself." It's the ultimate simplifying test of truth.

The new War Department golden rule is this. Do unto your unit as you would have done onto your own child's unit. Would you want him serving with fat, or unfit, or undertrained troops, or alongside people who can't meet basic standards? Or in a unit where standards were lowered so certain types of troops could make it in? In a unit where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance, and war fighting, the answer is not just no, it's hell no. This means at the War Department, first and foremost, we must restore a ruthless, dispassionate, and common sense application of standards. I don't want my son serving alongside troops who are out of shape or in combat unit with females who can't meet the same combat arms physical standards as men or troops who are not fully proficient on their assigned weapons, platform, or task, or under a leader who was the first but not the best. Standards must be uniform, genderneutral, and high. If not, they're not standards. They're just suggestions. Suggestions that get our sons and daughters killed when it comes to combat arms units.

And there are many different stripes across our joint force. The era of politically correct, overly sensitive, don't hurt anyone's feelings leadership ends right now at every level. Either you can meet the standard, either you can do the job, either you are disciplined, fit, and trained, or you are out.

And that's why today at my direction, and this is the first of 10 Department of War directives that are arriving at your commands as we speak and in your inbox today, at my direction, each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only. Because this job is life or death. Standards must be met. And not just met at every level. We should seek to exceed the standard to push the envelope to compete. It's common sense and core to who we are and what we do. It should be in our DNA.

Today, at my direction, we are also adding a combat field test for combat arms units that must be executable in any environment, at any time, and with combat equipment. These tests, they'll look familiar. They'll resemble the Army Expert Physical Fitness Assessment or the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test. I'm also directing that war fighters in combat jobs execute their service fitness test at a genderneutral age or male standard scored above 70%. It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War can do regular hard PT, so can every member of our joint force.

Frankly, it's tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon, and leading commands around the country and the world. It's a bad look. It is bad, and it's not who we are. So whether you're an airborne ranger or a chairborne ranger, a brand new private or a four-star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards and pass your PT test. And as the chairman said, yes, there is no PT test. But today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight requirements twice a year. every year of service. Also, today at my direction, every warrior across our joint force is required to do PT every duty day. Should be common sense. I mean, most units do that already, but we're codifying it. And we're not talking like hot yoga and stretching. real hard PT there's either as a unit or as an individual at every level from the joint chiefs to everyone in this room to the youngest private leaders set the standard.

And so many of you this do this already, active guard and reserve. This also means grooming standards: no more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We're going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards. Because it's like the broken windows theory of policing. It's like when you let the small stuff go, the big stuff eventually goes. So, you have to address the small stuff. This is on duty in the field and in the rear. If you want a beard, you can join special forces. If not, then shave. We don't have a military full of Nordic pagans.

But unfortunately, we have had leaders who either refused to call BS and enforce standards, or leaders who felt like they were not allowed to enforce standards. Both are unacceptable. And that's why today at my direction, the era of unprofessional appearance is over. No more beardos. The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done. Simply put, if you do not meet the male level physical standards for combat positions, cannot pass a PT test, or don't want to shave and look professional, it's time for a new position or a new profession.

I sincerely appreciate the proactive efforts the secretaries have already taken in some of those areas. Service secretaries. And these directives are intended to simply accelerate those efforts.

On the topic of standards, allow me a few words to talk about toxic leaders. Upholding and demanding high standards is not toxic. Enforcing high standards, not toxic leadership. Leading war fighters toward the goals of high, genderneutral, and uncompromising standards in order to forge a cohesive, formidable, and lethal department of war is not toxic.

And that's why today at my direction, and this is the first of 10 Department of War directives that are arriving at your commands as we speak and in your inbox today, at my direction, each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS, for every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only.

It is our duty, consistent with our constitutional oath. Real toxic leadership is endangering subordinates with low standards. Real toxic leadership is promoting people based on immutable characteristics, or quotas instead of based on merit. Real toxic leadership is promoting destructive ideologies that are an anathema to the Constitution, and the laws of nature, and nature's god, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. The definition of toxic has been turned upside down and we're correcting that.

That's why today at my direction, we're undertaking a full review of the department's definitions of so-called "toxic leadership, bullying, and hazing" to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second-guessing. Of course, you can't do like nasty bullying and hazing. We're talking about words like "bullying" and "hazing" and "toxic." They've been weaponized, and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs. No more. Setting, achieving, and maintaining high standards is what you all do. And if that makes me toxic, then so be it.

Second, today at our direction, we're ensuring that every service, every unit, every schoolhouse, and every form of professional military education, conduct an immediate review of their standards. Now, we've done this in many places already, but today it goes across the entire Department of War. Any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms standards were changed to ensure females could qualify, must be returned to their original standard. Other standards have been manipulated to hit racial quotas as well, which is just as unacceptable. This too must end. Merit only. The president talks about it all the time. Merit-based.

Here are two basic frameworks I urge you to pursue in this process. Standards I call my staff heard all about them. The 1990 test and the E6 test. The 1990s test is simple. What were the military standards in 1990? And if they they have changed, tell me why. Was it a necessary change based on the evolving landscape of combat or was the change due to a softening, weakening or genderbased pursuit of other priorities? 1990s seems to be as good a place to start as any.

And the E6 test. Ask yourself, does what you're doing make the leadership, accountability, and lethality efforts of an E6, or frankly an 03? Does it make it easier, or more complicated? Does the change empower staff sergeants, petty officers, and tech sergeants to get back to basics? The answer should be a resounding yes. The E6 test or 03 test clarifies a lot, and it clarifies quickly, because war does not care if you're a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy. Nor does the weight of your rucksack, the size of an artillery round, or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried.

This, and I want to be very clear about this, this is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world. But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and genderneutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result. So be it.

It will also mean that weak men won't qualify, because we're not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death. As we all know, this is you versus an enemy hellbent on killing you. To be an effective, lethal fighting force, you must trust that the warrior alongside you in battle is capable, truly physically capable of doing what is necessary under fire.

You know, this is the only standard you would want for your kids and for your grandkids. Apply the War Department golden rule, the 1990 test, and the E6 test, and it's really hard to go wrong.

Third, we are attacking and ending the walking on eggshells, and zero defect command culture. A risk averse culture means officers execute not to lose, instead of to win. A risk averse culture means NCOs are not empowered to enforce standards. Commanders and NCOs don't take necessary risks or make tough adjustments for fear of rocking the boat or making mistakes. A blemish free record is what peacetime leaders covet the most which is the worst of all incentives. You, we as senior leaders need to end the poisonous culture of risk aversion, and empower our NCOs at all levels to enforce standards.
Truth be told, for the most part, we don't need new standards. We just need to reestablish a culture where enforcing standards is possible. And that's why today, at my direction, I'm issuing new policies that will overhaul the IG, EO, and MEO processes. I call it the no more walking on eggshells policy. We are liberating commanders and NCOs. We are liberating you.

We are overhauling the inspector general process. The IG has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues, and poor performers in the driver's seat. We're doing the same with the equal opportunity and military equal opportunity policies, the EO and MEO at our department. No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints. No more repeat complainants. No more smearing reputations. No more endless waiting. No more legal limbo. No more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells.

Of course, being a racist has been illegal in our formation since 1948. The same goes for sexual harassment. Both are wrong and illegal. Those kinds of infractions will be ruthlessly enforced. But telling someone to shave, or get a haircut, or to get in shape, or to fix their uniform, or to show up on time, or to work hard, that's exactly the kind of discrimination we want.

We are not civilians. You are not civilians. You are set apart for a distinct purpose. So we, as a department, need to stop acting and thinking like civilians, and get back to basics, and put the power back in the hands of commanders and NCOs. Commanders and NCOs'who make life and death decisions. Commanders and NCOs who enforce standards, and ensure readiness. Commanders and NCOs who in this war department have to look in the mirror, and they have to pass the golden rule test: my kids, your kids, America's sons and daughters.

So, I urge you all here today, and those watching, take this guidance and run with it. The core of this speech is the 10 directives we're announcing today. They were written for you. For Army leadership, for Navy leadership, for Marine Corps leadership, for Air Force leadership, Space Force leadership. These directives are designed to take the monkey off your back. and put you, the leadership, back in the driver's seat. Move out with urgency, because we have your back. I have your back and the commander-in-chief has your back.

And when we give you this guidance, we know mistakes will be made. It's the nature of leadership. But you should not pay for earnest mistakes for your entire career. And that's why today at my direction, we're making changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable, earnest, or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity. People make honest mistakes, and our mistakes should not define an entire career. Otherwise, we only try not to make mistakes, and that's not the business we're in. We need risktakers, and aggressive leaders, and a culture that supports you.

Fourth, at the War Department, promotions across the joint force will be based on one thing, merit. Colorblind, genderneutral, merit-based. The entire promotion process, including evaluations of war fighting capabilities, is being thoroughly re-examined. We've already done a lot in this area, but more changes are coming soon. We will promote top performing officers and NCOs faster, and get rid of poor performers more quickly. Evaluations, education, and field exercises will become real evaluations, not box checks, for every one of us at every level.

These same reforms happened before World War II as well. General George Marshall, and Secretary of War Henry Stimson, did the same thing. And we won a world war because of it. As it happens, when he started the job, Chairman Kaine gave me a frame and a photo to hang in my office. A matching frame and photo hangs in his. It's a photo of Marshall and Stimson preparing for World War II. Those two leaders famously kept the door open between their offices for the entirety of the war. They worked together, civilian and uniform, every single day. Chairman Kaine and I do the same. There is no daylight between us. Our doors are always open. Our job together is to ensure our military is led by the very best, ready to answer the nation's call.

Fifth, as you have seen, and the media has obsessed over, I have fired a number of senior officers since taking over. The previous chairman, other members of the joint chiefs, combatant commanders, and other commanders. The rationale for me has been straightforward. It's nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people who helped create or even benefited from that culture. Even if that culture was created by a previous president and previous secretary, my approach has been simple. When in doubt, assess the situation, follow your gut, and if it's the best for the military, make a change. We all serve at the pleasure of the president every single day. But in many ways, it's not their fault. It's not your fault. As foolish and reckless as the woke department was, those officers were following elected political leadership. An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that quote, "Our diversity is our strength." Of course, we know our unity is our strength. They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQI plus statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they're females is totally normal. They were told that we need a green fleet, and electric tanks. They were told to kick out Americans who refuse an emergency vaccine. They followed civilian policies set by foolish and reckless political leaders. Our job, my job, has been to determine which leaders simply did what they must to answer the prerogatives of civilian leadership, and which leaders are truly invested in the woke department and therefore incapable of embracing the war department and executing new lawful orders. That's it. It's that simple.

So for the past eight months, we've gotten a good look under the hood of our officer corps. We've done our best to thoroughly assess the human terrain. We've had to make trade-offs and some difficult decisions. It's more of an art than a science. We have been, and will continue to be judicious, but also expeditious. The new compass heading is clear. Out with the Charellis, the McKenzies, and the Millies, and in with the Stockdales, the Schwarzkopfs, and the Pattons. More leadership changes will be made, of that I'm certain. Not because we want to, but because we must. Once again, this is life and death. The sooner we have the right people, the sooner we can advance the right policies. Personnel is policy. But I look out at this group and I see great Americans, leaders who have given decades to our great republic at great sacrifice to yourselves and to your families. But if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service. But I suspect I know the overwhelming majority of you feel the opposite. These words make your hearts full. You love the War Department because you love what you do, the profession of arms. You are hereby liberated to be an apolitical, hard-charging, no-nonsense constitutional leader that you joined the military to be. We need you locked in on the M, not the D, the E, or the I, not the DEI, or the DIE of dime. By that I mean the M, military of the instruments of national power.

We have entire departments across the government dedicated to diplomatic, formational, and economic lines of effort. We do the M. Nobody else does. And our goofes need to master it in every domain and every scenario. No more distractions, no more political ideologies, no more debris.

Now, of course, we're going to disagree at times. We would not be Americans if we didn't. Being a leader in a large organization like ours means having frank conversations and differences of opinion. You will win some arguments, and you will lose some arguments. But when civilian leaders issue lawful orders, we execute. We are professionals in the profession of arms. Our entire constitutional system is predicated upon this understanding. Now, if this seems like a small thing, it's not.

This includes as well the behavior of our troops online. To that end, I want to thank and recognize the services for their new proactive social media policies. Use them. Anonymous online, or keyboard complaining, is not worthy of a warrior. It's cowardice masquerading as conscience. Anonymous unit level social media pages that trash commanders, demoralize troops, and undermine unit cohesion must not be tolerated. Again, 03s, E6s.

Sixth, we must train, and we must maintain. Any moment that we are not training on our mission, or maintaining our equipment, is a moment we are less prepared for preventing or winning the next war. That is why today, at my direction, we are drastically reducing the ridiculous amount of mandatory training that individuals and units must execute. We've already ended the most egregious. Now we're giving you back real time. Less PowerPoint briefings and fewer online courses, more time in the motor pool, and more time on the range. Our job is to make sure you have the money, equipment, weapons, and parts to train and maintain. And then you take it from there.

You all know this, because it's common sense. The tougher and the higher the standards in our units, the higher the retention rates in those units. Warriors want to be challenged. Troops want to be tested. When you don't train, and you don't maintain, you demoralize. And that's when our best people decide to take their talents to the civilian world. The leaders who created the woke department have already driven out too many hard chargers. We reverse that trend right now. There is no world in which high-intensity war exists without pain, agony, and human tragedy. We are in a dangerous line of work. You are in a dangerous line of work. We may lose good people, but let no warrior cry out from the grave, "If only I had been properly trained." We will not use lose war fighters because we failed to train or equip them or resource them. Shame on us if we do. Train like your warriors' lives depend on it, because they do.

To that point, basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough, and disciplined. We're empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future war fighters are forged. Yes, they can shark attack. They can toss bunks. They can swear. And yes, they can put their hands on recruits. This does not mean they can be reckless or violate the law, but they can use tried and true methods to motivate new recruits to make them the warriors they need to be.

The definition of a shark attack IS NOT getting yelled at getting off the bus. Its when you screw something up, and a Drill Sgt “drops” you, “beats” you, “focuses” you, etc., and starts the whole yelling, do pushups/burpees/bearcrawl/noyourenotdoingitfastenough etc. This in turn attracts the attention of all the other drill sgts. in your division/platoon/training group, and you get the happy fun of all 3 or 4 joining you in a mass of screaming sweat, spittle and pushups. That’s why its called a shark attack: the first smells blood and the rest join the frenzy.

-- r/WarCollege on Reddit: Why did the US Military do away with Shark Attacks in Boot Camp?

Back to basics at basic as well. Of course, and you know this, basic training is not where mission readiness should end. The nature of the evolving threat environment demands that everyone in every job must be ready to join the fight if needed. A core credo of the Marine Corps is "every Marine a rifleman." It means that everyone, regardless of MOS, is proficient enough to engage an enemy threat at sea, in the air, or in a so-called rear area. We need to ensure that every member of our uniform military maintains baseline proficiency in basic combat skills, especially because the next war, like the last, will likely not have a rear area.

Finally, as President Trump rightly pointed out when he changed the department name, the United States has not won a major theater war since the name was changed to the Department of Defense in 1947. One conflict stands out in stark contrast, the Gulf War. Why? Well, there's a number of reasons, but it was a limited mission with overwhelming force and a clear end state. But why did we execute and win the Gulf War the way we did in 1991? There's two overwhelming reasons. One was President Ronald Reagan's military buildup gave an overwhelming advantage. And two, military and Pentagon leadership had previous formative battlefield experiences. The men who led this department during the Gulf War were mostly combat veterans of the Vietnam War. They said never again to mission creep or nebulous endstates. The same holds true today. Our civilian and military leadership is chock full of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who say never again to nation building and nebulous endstates.

This clear-eyed view, all the way in the White House, combined with President Trump's military buildup, postures us for future victories if, and we will, when we embrace the War Department, and we must. We are preparing every day. We have to be prepared for war, not for defense. We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wars to win, not to defend. Defense is something you do all the time. It's inherently reactionary, and can lead to overuse, overreach, and mission creep. War is something you do sparingly, on our own terms, and with clear aims. We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters.

That's all I ever wanted as a platoon leader. And it's all my E6 squad leaders ever wanted. Back to that E6 rule. We let our leaders fight their formations, and then we have their back. It's very simple, yet incredibly powerful.

A few months ago, I was at the White House when President Trump announced his liberation day for America's trade policy. It was a landmark day. Well, today is another liberation day. The liberation of America's warriors in name, in deed, and in authorities. You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct, and don't necessarily belong always in polite society. We are not an army of one. We are a joint force of millions of selfless Americans. We are warriors. We are purpose-built, not for fair weather, blue skies, or calm seas. We were built to load up in the back of helicopters, five tons or Zodiacs in the dead of night in fair weather or fowl to go to dangerous places to find to find those who would do our nation harm and deliver justice on behalf of the American people in close and brutal combat if necessary.

You are different. We fight not because we hate what's in front of us. We fight because we love what's behind us. You see, the Ivy League faculty lounges will never understand us. And that's okay, because they could never do what you do. The media will mischaracterize us. And that's okay, because deep down they know the reason they can do what they do is you. In this profession, you feel comfortable inside the violence so that our citizens can live peacefully. Lethality is our calling card, and victory our only acceptable end state.

In closing, a few weeks ago at our monthly Pentagon Christian prayer service, I recited a commander's prayer. It's a simple yet meaningful prayer for wisdom for commanders and leaders. I encourage you to look it up if you've never seen it. But the prayer, it ends like this

:

And most of all, Lord, please keep my soldiers safe, lead them, guide them, protect them, watch over them, and as you gave all of yourself for me, help me give all of myself for them. Amen.

I have prayed this prayer many times since I've had the privilege of being your secretary, and I will continue to pray this prayer for each of you as you command and lead our nation's finest. Go forth and do good things, hard things. President Trump has your back, and so do I. And you'll hear from him shortly. Move out and draw fire, because we are the War Department. Godspeed.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

LIVE: Trump and Hegseth deliver remarks to gathering of generals
NBC News
Streamed live on Sep 30, 2025

Watch live coverage as President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth address a gathering of military brass in Quantico, Virginia. The two are expected to discuss military achievements and the future of the Department of Defense.


[at 2:10:25 the video experiences major interference]

Transcript

[Pres. Donald J. Trump] THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETE. A GREAT JOB YOU'RE DOING, TOO. FANTASTIC JOB.

I'VE NEVER WALKED INTO A ROOM SO SILENT BEFORE. THIS IS VERY. OH, DON'T LAUGH, DON'T LAUGH. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU JUST HAVE A GOOD TIME. AND IF YOU WANT TO APPLAUD, YOU APPLAUD. AND IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING YOU WANT, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I'M SAYING, YOU CAN LEAVE THE ROOM. OF COURSE, THERE GOES YOUR RANK. THERE GOES YOUR FUTURE. BUT YOU JUST FEEL NICE AND LOOSE, OKAY? BECAUSE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

AND I WAS TOLD THAT, "SIR, YOU WON'T HEAR A MURMUR IN THE ROOM." I SAID, WE GOTTA LOOSEN THESE GUYS UP A LITTLE BIT. SO YOU JUST HAVE A GOOD TIME.

BUT I WANT TO THANK SECRETARY HEGSETH AND GENERAL CAIN, GENERAL RAISING CAIN FOR A REASON. THEY CALL HIM THAT. WHEN I HEARD HIS NAME, I SAID, YOU'RE THE GUY I'M LOOKING FOR. THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AND SO MANY OTHERS IN THIS ROOM WHO TOGETHER REPRESENT THE GREATEST AND MOST ELITE FIGHTING FORCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. WE'RE VERY PROUD OF OUR MILITARY. I REBUILT THE MILITARY DURING MY FIRST TERM. IT'S ONE OF THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS WE HAD, THE GREATEST ECONOMY IN HISTORY. AND I BUILT THE MILITARY. THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS I SAY MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

AND I ALSO KEPT US SAFE AT THE BORDERS. WE HAD VERY GOOD BORDERS. WE DIDN'T HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN FROM JAILS, AND PRISONS, AND EVERYTHING LIKE TOOK PLACE OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. THEY'LL NEVER FORGET WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS WITH THE INCOMPETENCE. THERE COULD BE NO HIGHER HONOR THAN TO SERVE AS YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF. IT IS A GREAT HONOR. I LOOK AT YOU, YOU JUST INCREDIBLE PEOPLE. CENTRAL CASTING, I MIGHT ADD, TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNWAVERING DEVOTION TO THE ARMED FORCES, AND TO THE COUNTRY THAT WE'VE ALL SWORN A SACRED OATH TO DEFEND. WE ALL HAVE THAT OATH, EVERY ONE OF US.  

I'M THRILLED TO BE HERE THIS MORNING TO ADDRESS THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP OF WHAT IS ONCE AGAIN KNOWN AROUND THE WORLD AS THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR. I KNOW PETE SPOKE ABOUT IT. HE GAVE A GREAT SPEECH. I THOUGHT, GREAT SPEECH. I DON'T WANT HIM TO GET SO GOOD. I HATE THAT YOU KNOW, I HATE IT. I ALMOST FIRED HIM. I SAID, " I DON'T WANT TO GO ON AFTER THAT." NO, HE GAVE HE GAVE A GREAT SPEECH.

BUT HE TALKED ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF WAR. WE WERE SITTING THERE. I SAID, "DIDN'T IT USED TO BE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR?" AND HE GOES, "YES, SIR. THEY CHANGED IT LIKE IN THE EARLY 50s. SO WE WON THE FIRST WORLD WAR, WE WON THE SECOND WORLD WAR, WE WON EVERYTHING INBETWEEN, AND EVERYTHING BEFORE THAT. WE ONLY WON. AND THEN WE WENT IN A WAY THAT WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST SIGN OF WOKENESS, AND WE CHANGED IT TO 'DEFENSE' INSTEAD OF 'WAR.'" AND I SAID, "WHAT DO YOU THINK? HOW DO YOU THINK IF WE CHANGE IT BACK, WOULD THAT BE A NICE IDEA?" AND PETE LOVED IT IMMEDIATELY.

SOME PEOPLE THINK THOUGHT ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, THEY GAVE IT A LITTLE THOUGHT. BUT IN THE END WE DID IT. AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST, IT'S SO POPULAR, IT'S I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MET WITH FURY ON THE LEFT, BUT THEY'RE SORT OF GIVING UP. I MUST BE HONEST WITH YOU. THEY'VE HAD IT. THEY'VE HAD IT WITH TRUMP. THEY'VE BEEN AFTER ME FOR SO MANY YEARS NOW. HERE WE ARE, HERE WE ARE. COME TO THE WHITE USE ANY TIME YOU'D LIKE. NO, THEY'VE GIVEN UP THE BAD. A LOT OF BAD PEOPLE. BUT ALL OVER IT'S BEEN SO POPULAR, IT'S BEEN A VERY POPULAR. I REALLY THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO SORT OF FIGHT IT THROUGH. THERE'S BEEN NO FIGHT. THERE'S BEEN NO FIGHT. LIKE WHEN I CALLED THE GULF OF AMERICA, THE GULF OF AMERICA, BECAUSE TO ME, IT WAS ALWAYS THE GULF OF AMERICA I COULD NEVER UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE 92% OF THE FRONTAGE, AND FOR YEARS, ACTUALLY 350 YEARS, THEY WERE THERE BEFORE US. IT WAS CALLED THE GULF OF MEXICO. I JUST HAD THIS IDEA. I'M LOOKING AT A MAP. I'M SAYING, "WE HAVE MOST OF THE FRONTAGE. WHY IS IT GULF OF MEXICO? WHY ISN'T IT THE GULF OF AMERICA?" AND I MADE THE CHANGE, AND WENT SMOOTHLY.

I MEAN, WE HAD A COUPLE OF FAKE NEWS OUTLETS THAT REFUSED TO MAKE THE CHANGE. AND THEN ONE OF THEM, AP, TOOK US TO COURT, AND WE WON. AND THE JUDGE, WHO WAS A SOMEWHAT LIBERAL JUDGE, SAID THE NAME IS THE GULF OF AMERICA, BECAUSE AP REFUSED TO CALL IT THE GULF OF AMERICA, THEY WROTE. THEY'RE NOT A GOOD OUTFIT, BY THE WAY. THEY CALL IT THE GULF OF MEXICO. I SAID, "NO, THE GULF OF AMERICA IS THE NAME." AND THE JUDGE ACTUALLY SAID THAT, IN FACT, YOU CAN'T EVEN GO INTO THE ROOM BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE NAME IS THE GULF OF AMERICA. GOOGLE MAPS CHANGED THE NAME. EVERYBODY DID, BUT AP WOULDN'T. AND THEN WE WON IN COURT. HOW ABOUT THAT? ISN'T THAT SO COOL?

Here’s what is known so far about the AP’s lawsuit against the Trump White House over the “Gulf of America” naming dispute and press access:

Background

In January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14172, directing U.S. federal agencies to refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America.”

The Associated Press (AP) announced it would continue using “Gulf of Mexico” (while acknowledging the administration’s preferred term) because of its broad international readership and consistency with long-established usage.

On February 11, 2025, the White House indefinitely barred AP journalists from certain press pool events (e.g. the Oval Office, Air Force One), citing the AP’s refusal to adopt the new naming convention.

On February 21, 2025, AP sued three White House officials (Taylor Budowich, Karoline Leavitt, Susie Wiles) in Associated Press v. Budowich, alleging that excluding the AP constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Court Rulings & Developments

District Court (Judge McFadden)

On April 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden (appointed by Trump) granted AP’s request for a preliminary injunction, ordering the White House to restore the AP’s access to White House events while the lawsuit proceeds. He held that the government cannot exclude journalists based on their viewpoints if it provides access to others.

The ruling, however, was stayed to allow the administration to appeal.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (3-judge panel)

On June 6, 2025, a three-judge panel issued a 2-1 decision granting, in part, the Trump administration’s request to stay (pause) the district court’s injunction while appeal proceeds. In other words, they allowed continued restrictions on AP’s access in certain spaces (like the Oval Office or Air Force One) pending full review.

The majority opinion held that some restricted spaces are more akin to nonpublic forums where the President has discretion over press access, thus making the AP’s likelihood of prevailing less certain in those areas.

The panel did not stay (i.e. kept open) the part of the injunction relating to less restrictive spaces, such as the “East Room,” suggesting that the AP might retain access to certain parts of the White House where the First Amendment constraints are stronger.

Judge Pillard dissented, arguing the stay should not have been granted at all.

Further Appeals / Status

On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals denied AP’s emergency petition for en banc (full court) review of the stay order.

Thus, the partial stay remains in effect while the merits of the case are litigated.

Current Outcome & What It Means

The AP obtained a significant victory in the district court: the restoration of its press access during litigation.

But that victory is not fully enforceable yet because the appeals court has stayed (paused) the injunction in certain restricted spaces, so the AP does not yet have guaranteed access to all White House areas.

The case is still ongoing on appeal; no final judgment on the merits (i.e. whether the AP’s exclusion was unconstitutional) has been issued....

The courts are not deciding the legality of renaming the Gulf of Mexico.

Here’s the distinction:

Executive Order 14172 (Jan. 2025) — Trump ordered federal agencies to use “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.” That order itself has not been challenged in court (at least not by AP).

AP’s lawsuit (Associated Press v. Budowich) — The issue before the court is not whether Trump can rename the Gulf. It’s whether the White House can punish or exclude a news organization (the AP) from press access because it refuses to comply with that naming directive.

So the courts are adjudicating press access and viewpoint discrimination, not the geographic renaming power of the President....

Here’s a roundup of how the left, media, governments, and others responded (and continue to respond) to Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” The reactions were broadly skeptical, critical, and often described the move as symbolic or even absurd.

Key reactions and criticisms

From Mexico & other governments

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum responded with sarcasm and firmness: she said that for Mexico, “it is still the Gulf of Mexico … for the entire world it is still the Gulf of Mexico.”

Sheinbaum also quipped that Trump could rename North America “América Mexicana” in response, to highlight how strange the name change was.

The change drew ire from Mexican officials, who saw it as an overreach into shared geography and a dismissal of Mexico’s historical claims to the region.

Some foreign geographic authorities also resisted: e.g. the UK’s “Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use” recommended retaining “Gulf of Mexico.”

Media, commentators, and the left

Many media outlets (especially on the left or mainstream press) rejected or mocked the renaming, saying they would continue using “Gulf of Mexico.” For instance, The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, and other news organizations announced they would not adopt “Gulf of America.”

Columns characterized the move as a publicity stunt, symbolic posturing, or a distraction from real policy issues.

Some commentators likened it to authoritarian or propagandistic impulses — i.e. trying to dictate how people must refer to geography, in a top-down way.

Others pointed out that renaming a long-established body of water, recognized internationally, doesn’t change its historical, scientific, or legal identity.

Critics also saw it as part of a broader “nationalism” or “America First” branding move, more aesthetic politics than substantive policy.

Public opinion & polling

Polling suggested a large majority of Americans opposed the renaming. For example, a Marquette University poll found 71% opposed renaming the Gulf to “Gulf of America,” and 29% supported it.

In Florida, a poll of 871 registered voters showed 58% opposed, 31% supported.

More broadly, in early 2025, it became one of the least popular actions of Trump’s second term.

Players who complied or partially complied

Some industries and federal agencies moved to implement the change internally: e.g. maps, federal agencies (via the Interior Department) began updating to “Gulf of America” in some contexts.

Google Maps and Apple Maps reportedly changed labels (for U.S. users) to “Gulf of America” in alignment with the executive order.

Some states and state governments (especially Republican-led ones) considered or adopted the new name in official communications or education standards in alignment with the federal directive.

In short: the response from the left and from many media and international observers was largely negative — seeing the move as symbolic, overreaching, or even absurd, rather than a serious policy change. The consensus was that changing a centuries-old geographical nomenclature unilaterally doesn’t alter underlying reality or international recognition.

-- chatgpt, 10/3/25

THE SECRETARY BEAUTIFULLY DESCRIBED. THE NAME CHANGE REFLECTS FAR MORE THAN THE SHIFT IN BRANDING. IT'S REALLY A HISTORIC REASSERTION OF OUR PURPOSE AND OUR IDENTITY AND OUR PRIDE. THAT'S WHEN WE GO WITH THE WORD "WAR." AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT WAR, BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAVE NEW WARS. BUT YOU HAVE TO BE THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO DO IT.

I SAID, I" HAVE SETTLED SO MANY WARS SINCE WE'RE HERE. WE'RE HERE ALMOST NINE MONTHS, AND I'VE SETTLED SEVEN. AND YESTERDAY WE MIGHT HAVE SETTLED THE BIGGEST OF THEM ALL. ALTHOUGH, I DON'T KNOW, PAKISTAN/INDIA WAS VERY BIG. BOTH NUCLEAR POWERS. I SETTLED THAT. BUT YESTERDAY, IT COULD BE THE SETTLEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST THAT HASN'T HAPPENED FOR 3000 YEARS. I SAID, "HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN FIGHTING?" "3000 YEARS, SIR." THAT'S A LONG TIME. BUT WE GOT IT, I THINK SETTLED. WE'LL SEE. HAMAS HAS TO AGREE. AND IF THEY DON'T, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY TOUGH ON THEM. BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT ALL OF THE ARAB NATIONS, MUSLIM NATIONS HAVE AGREED. ISRAEL HAS AGREED. IT'S AN AMAZING THING. IT JUST CAME TOGETHER. WAR IS VERY STRANGE, YOU KNOW, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH WAR.

There’s no final “peace treaty.” Trump rolled out a 20-point Gaza plan in late Sept/early Oct 2025; Hamas said it accepted parts, Israel said it would begin stage one (hostage releases), but the deal remains in negotiation. Netanyahu publicly backed the plan’s operational pieces while re-affirming there will be no Palestinian state under him.

-- Chatgpt.com, 10/3/25

THE EASIEST ONE OF THEM ALL IS PUTIN. I SAID, NUMBER ONE, IT'S A WAR THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IF I WERE PRESIDENT, IF THE ELECTION WERE RIGGED, IF I WERE PRESIDENT, THAT WAR WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, NOT EVEN A LITTLE CHANCE. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN FOR FOUR YEARS. BUT I KNEW PUTIN VERY WELL, AND I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE EASY BECAUSE I KNOW HIM SO WELL. WELL, THAT WOULD TURN OUT TO BE THE HARDEST OF THEM ALL. WE HAD SOME THAT WERE NOT SETTLE-ABLE, AND THEY ALL GOT SETTLED. SO IF THIS WORKS OUT THAT WE DID YESTERDAY WITH THE MIDDLE EAST, THEN THAT'S MORE THAN A WAR. THAT'S LOTS OF WARS. THAT'S ALL COMBINED. THAT'S A LOT OF WARS.

MANY OF YOU WERE OVER THERE, IN MANY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES, IN MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. THAT'S A BIG PART OF THE EARTH. BUT IF THAT WORKS OUT, IT WOULD BE EIGHT-PLUS. I COULD GIVE MYSELF 2 OR 3 FOR THAT ONE.

AND THEN WE JUST HAVE THE ONE TO SETTLE. WE HAVE TO SETTLE IT UP WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN AND ZELENSKY. GOING TO GET THEM TOGETHER AND GET IT DONE.

...there's something I want to say that's always been difficult for me to say. "I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit." I've never been relaxed enough around anyone to be able to say that. You give me confidence in myself. I know we've only known each other for four weeks and three days......but to me, it seems like nine weeks and five days. The first day seemed like a week. And the second day seemed like five days. And the third day seemed like a week again. And the fourth day seemed like eight days. But the fifth day you went to see your mother......and that seemed just like a day. But then you came back, and later......on the sixth day, in the evening, when we saw each other......that started seeming like two days. So in the evening, it seemed like two days spilling into the next day......and that started seeming like four days. So, at the end of the sixth day......on into the seventh day, it seemed like a total of five days. And the sixth day seemed like a week and a half. I have it written down, but I can show it to you tomorrow if you want to see it. Anyway, I've decided that tomorrow......when the time is right, I'm going to ask you to marry me. If that's okay with you, just don't say anything. You've made me very happy.

-- Steve Martin, in The Jerk, written by Steve Martin, Carl Gottlieb, and Michael Elias, directed by Carl Reiner

BUT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT IS THROUGH STRENGTH. I MEAN, IF WE WERE WEAK, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN TAKE MY PHONE CALL. BUT WE HAVE EXTREME STRENGTH. WE HAD THE HORROR SHOW IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH IS REALLY THE REASON, I THINK THAT PUTIN WENT IN. HE SAW THAT HORROR SHOW BY BIDEN AND HIS TEAM OF INCOMPETENT PEOPLE, AND THAT SHOWED, I THINK IT GAVE HIM A PATH IN. I WASN'T THERE ANY LONGER. I WATCHED THAT AND I WAS SO, SO HORRIBLE. I THINK IT WAS THE MOST EMBARRASSING DAY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. AND NOW WE'RE BACK. THAT'S IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY OF THAT CRAP HAPPEN, I CAN TELL YOU. THAT WAS TERRIBLE. SO TERRIBLE.

TOGETHER, WE'RE REAWAKENING THE WARRIOR SPIRIT. AND THIS IS A SPIRIT THAT WON AND BUILT THIS NATION. AND FROM THE CAVALRY THAT TAMED THE GREAT PLAINS TO THE FEROCIO[?], UNYIELDING POWER OF PATTON, BRADLEY, AND THE GREAT GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR, THESE ARE ALL GREAT MEN IN THIS EFFORT. WE'RE A TEAM. AND SO MY MESSAGE TO YOU IS VERY SIMPLE. I AM WITH YOU, I SUPPORT YOU, AND AS PRESIDENT, I HAVE YOUR BACKS 100%. YOU'LL NEVER SEE ME WAVER A LITTLE BIT. IT'S THE WAY IT IS. AND THAT INCLUDES OUR GREAT POLICE OFFICERS, AND FIREMEN, AND ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING SO WELL TOGETHER.

OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE OUR MILITARY STRONGER, TOUGHER, FASTER, FIERCER, AND MORE POWERFUL THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN BEFORE. I REBUILT OUR NUCLEAR, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, BUT WE'LL UPGRADE THAT ALSO, AND JUST HOPE WE NEVER HAVE TO USE IT. WE HAVE TO HOPE WE NEVER HAVE TO USE IT BECAUSE THE POWER OF THAT IS SO INCREDIBLE. I SEE THINGS, I DON'T THINK THEY'D SHOW IT TO YOU. I REALLY WOULDN'T WANT TO TO SHOW IT TO YOU. BUT WHEN YOU SEE THE RESULT OF WHAT'S LEFT, YOU NEVER WANT TO USE THAT. NEVER, NEVER, EVER.

WE WERE A LITTLE BIT THREATENED BY RUSSIA RECENTLY, AND I SENT A SUBMARINE. NUCLEAR SUBMARINE? THE MOST LETHAL WEAPON EVER MADE. NUMBER ONE, YOU CAN'T DETECT IT. THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE 25 YEARS AHEAD OF RUSSIA AND CHINA. IN SUBMARINES, RUSSIA IS ACTUALLY SECOND IN SUBMARINES. CHINA'S THIRD. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE COMING UP, COMING UP. THEY'RE WAY LOWER IN NUCLEAR, TO BE EQUAL. THEY'RE COMING UP. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT GOOD WITH NUCLEAR. YOU COULD HAVE 1/20 OF WHAT YOU HAVE NOW AND STILL DO THE DAMAGE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT'D BE SO HORRENDOUS.

BUT I ANNOUNCED THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON HIS MENTION OF "NUCLEAR," AND IT WAS REALLY A STUPID PERSON THAT WORKS FOR HIM, MENTIONED THE WORD "NUCLEAR." I MOVED A SUBMARINE OR TWO. I WON'T SAY ABOUT THE TWO OVER TO THE COAST OF RUSSIA, JUST TO BE CAREFUL, BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET PEOPLE THROW AROUND THAT WORD. I CALL IT "THE 'N' WORD." THERE A TWO "N" WORDS, AND YOU CAN'T USE EITHER OF THEM. YOU CAN'T USE EITHER OF THEM. AND FRANKLY, IF IT DOES GET TO USE, WE HAVE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE. WE HAVE BETTER. WE HAVE NEWER. BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T EVER WANT TO EVEN HAVE TO THINK ABOUT. BUT WHEN SOMEBODY MENTIONS IT, THAT SUBMARINE STARTED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, AND IT'S JUST LURKING. BUT I'M SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO USE IT. BUT IT'S AN AMAZING, IT'S UNDETECTABLE. TOTALLY. THEIRS IS TOTALLY DETECTABLE. WE CAN DETECT THEM EASILY. WE GO RIGHT TO THE SPOT. BUT WE HAVE A GENIUS APPARATUS THAT DOESN'T ALLOW DETECTION. IT DOESN'T ALLOW DETECTION AT ALL, BY ANYBODY, ABOVE WATER OR BELOW WATER. IT'S INCREDIBLE. WE'RE WAY AHEAD OF EVERYBODY IN THAT AND OTHER THINGS AS A RESULT OF THE EXCITING RENEWAL OF THE SPIRIT OF OUR ARMED FORCES. AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IT'S REALLY REACHING THAT SPIRIT, UNPRECEDENTED HEIGHTS OVER THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS, NEW ENLISTMENTS, I'M SO PROUD OF THIS, HAVE SURGED TO RECORD HIGHS, THE HIGHEST WE'VE EVER HAD. AND WE USED TO HAVE RECRUITING SHORTAGES. IF YOU REMEMBER, ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I WAS AT THE BEGINNING STAGE OF A CAMPAIGN, AND THINGS CAME OUT THAT YOU COULDN'T GET PEOPLE TO JOIN THE ARMED FORCES. AND BY THE WAY, THE POLICE, ALSO FIRE DEPARTMENT. I ALWAYS PUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN BECAUSE THEY'RE GREAT, THEY'RE GREAT. AND I GOT 95% OF THEIR VOTE TOO. THAT HELPS WHEN YOU GET 95% OF THE VOTE.

Did Trump get 95% of firemen's votes?

Short answer: No. There’s no credible evidence Trump got 95% of firefighters’ votes.

The main firefighters’ union (IAFF) endorsed Biden in 2019 and then declined to endorse anyone in 2024, signaling a split membership — not a 95% Trump landslide.

National exit polls don’t even report a “firefighters” category, so there’s no authoritative vote share for that occupation.

Local snapshots vary (e.g., Philadelphia IAFF Local 22 backed Trump in 2020 after an internal vote that was ~65% among participants — not 95%, and not representative nationwide).

A large 2024 survey of first-responders (not just firefighters) found Trump around 70%, still far from 95% and not a scientific, firefighters-only measure.

Bottom line: the 95% claim isn’t supported by reliable data.

-- chaptgpt, 10/03/25

YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO QUESTION THEM, BUT THEY'RE GREAT, AND THEY'RE BRAVE IN OUR INNER CITIES, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE IT'S A BIG PART OF WAR NOW. IT'S A BIG PART OF WAR. BUT THE FIREMEN GO UP ON LADDERS AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE SHOOTING AT THEM WHILE THEY'RE UP AT LADDERS. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF ANYBODY HEARD THAT, AND I SAID, "DON'T TALK ABOUT IT MUCH," BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO. FIREMEN ARE INCREDIBLE. THEY'RE UP IN ONE OF THESE LADDERS THAT GOES WAY UP TO THE SKY RESCUING PEOPLE. AND YOU HAVE ANIMALS SHOOTING AT THEM, SHOOTING BULLETS AT FIREMEN THAT ARE WAY UP IN IN DEATH TERRITORY. YOU FALL OFF THAT LADDER, IT'S OVER. IT'S OVER. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO INSPECT YOU WHEN YOU HIT THE GROUND. AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE SHOOTING BULLETS AT THEM. AND SOME OF THESE INNER CITIES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN. SO I ALWAYS MENTION THE FIREMEN BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY A BIG PROBLEM WE HAVE. THEY ARE UNBELIEVABLE. LIKE YOU, THEY'RE UNBELIEVABLE PEOPLE.

Do people shoot at firefighters when they are up on ladders fighting fires?

Short answer: it happens, but it’s rare—especially the “on the ladder” part.

Fact-checkers who went looking for cases of firefighters being “shot off ladders” couldn’t find any documented examples. There are cases of firefighters being shot at or ambushed while responding, but not specifically knocked off ladders.

Examples of gunfire targeting firefighters (not on ladders): the 2012 West Webster, NY ambush where an arsonist opened fire on arriving crews (2 firefighters killed, 2 wounded); and a June 2025 ambush near Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where a gunman shot firefighters at a wildfire (2 killed, 1 critically injured).

Chatgpt, 10/3/25

FOR THE FIRST TIME ON RECORD IN 2025, THE NAVY, AIR FORCE, AND SPACE FORCE, ALL MET OR SURPASSED THEIR RECRUITING GOALS THREE MONTHS EARLY. THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. AND THE ARMY DID EVEN BETTER. CONGRATULATIONS, ARMY. THEY MET EVERYTHING.

Short answer: the substance is true, the “first time on record/never happened before” part is unverified hype.

Navy: Said it hit its FY-2025 goal of 40,600 enlisted recruits three months early (announced June 18, 2025).

Air Force & Space Force: The Department of the Air Force announced both services met their FY-2025 goals three months early (June 30, 2025). Air Force Times added figures (AF 30,100; Space Force 797).

Army: Announced it met FY-2025 recruiting goals four months early (June 3, 2025).

Where the claim stretches: “For the first time on record… that never happened before.” That wording comes from Trump’s remarks; I can’t find an independent DoD/service historian or data series that confirms it’s the first time ever. So the early goal-meets are documented, but the “first time on record” framing is not independently substantiated.

-- Chatgpt, 10/3/25

AND THESE WERE THE HIGHEST STANDARDS, BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING IT LARGER. SO THESE WERE MUCH HIGHER STANDARDS THAN YOU HAD FOUR YEARS AGO, THREE YEARS AGO, DURING THE SLEEPY JOE BIDEN ERA. AND THE ARMY DID IT 4 MONTHS EARLY. AND YOU REMEMBER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THEY SAID BIG STORIES, THAT WE'RE WAY BEHIND WITH THE ARMY, AIR FORCE, THE NAVY, THE MARINES, WE'RE WAY BEHIND COAST GUARD, AND EVEN SPACE FORCE. I LOVE SPACE FORCE BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CREATION. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU CREATE SOMETHING, I LOVE IT. AND THE PEOPLE WE PUT IN THERE WERE GOOD. I GOT THAT RIGHT. WE PUT IN GREAT PEOPLE INITIALLY AND WE'VE REALLY DOMINATED. WE REALLY DOMINATE IN THAT SPHERE.  

NOW WE WERE WAY BEHIND CHINA AND RUSSIA, AND NOW WE DOMINATE. SPACE FORCE TURNED OUT TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT THING. I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, WHEN BIDEN CAME INTO OFFICE, HE WANTED TO TERMINATE, HE SAID, THIS THING CALLED SPACE FORCE SO WE COULD GET RID OF THAT. AND HE GOT HAMMERED BY THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM FOR EVEN SUGGESTING IT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT. AND AS TIME GOES BY, IT WILL GET MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT. BUT WE'RE NOW AT 106% OF OUR RECRUITING TARGETS FOR THE YEAR, AND THAT'S THE BEST IN FAR MORE THAN A GENERATION. AND FOR THE MARINES, MORALE IS SO STRONG THAT THE MARINE CORPS WILL MEET ITS 2026 RETENTION TARGETS BEFORE THE END OF OCTOBER, WHICH NEVER HAPPENS. AND THAT'S THE EARLIEST IT'S EVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. AND IT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD.

YOU KNOW, I FELT GUILTY, I'D GO MAKE A SPEECH IN FRONT OF NEVER PEOPLE LIKE YOU. YOU ARE THE LEADERS. BUT PEOPLE, SOLDIERS. AND I FELT EMBARRASSED, BECAUSE THERE'D BE STORIES ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE COULDN'T FILL UP OUR ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE. IT WAS DURING BIDEN'S FOUR YEARS. KYOTO, JAPAN. I CALL HIM THE AUTOPEN. IT'S HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR THING SIGNED BY AN AUTO PEN? YOU KNOW, WHEN I HAVE A GENERAL, AND I HAVE TO SIGN FOR A GENERAL, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL PAPER, THE GORGEOUS PAPER. I SAID, "THROW A LITTLE MORE GOLD ON IT. THEY DESERVE IT. GIVE ME, I WANT THE "A" PAPER, NOT THE PAPER." WE USED TO SIGN A PIECE OF GARBAGE. I SAID, "THIS MAN IS GOING TO BE A GENERAL, RIGHT?" "YEAH." "I DON'T WANT TO USE THIS. I WANT TO USE THE BIG, BEAUTIFUL, FIRM PAPER. I WANT TO USE THE REAL GOLD WRITING. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE POSITION, AND THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL." BUT HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THAT WHERE YOU, SOME KID SITTING IN THE BACK OFFICE IS HAVING IT SIGNED WITH AN AUTOPEN? I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND I THOUGHT ABOUT YOU PEOPLE FIRST. ADMIRALS, GENERALS. I SAID, "SOMEBODY WORKS HIS WHOLE LIFE. HE GETS INTO MAYBE THE ACADEMIES OR WHEREVER. BUT HOWEVER YOU GOT THERE, AND YOU GO THROUGH YEARS OF WORK, AND NOW YOU BECOME AN ADMIRAL, OR A GENERAL, OR WHATEVER." AND WHEN YOU DO, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SIGNS YOUR COMMISSION, AS YOU KNOW. AND THAT COMMISSION IS BEAUTIFULLY DISPLAYED. AND I SIGNED IT.

ACTUALLY, I LOVE MY SIGNATURE. I REALLY DO. EVERYONE LOVES MY SIGNATURE, BUT I SIGNED IT VERY PROUDLY. AND ALWAYS THINK TO MYSELF, HOW CAN YOU HAVE AN AUTOPEN SIGN THIS? IT'S JUST SO DISRESPECTFUL TO ME. IT'S JUST TOTALLY DISRESPECTFUL. AND IT TURNED OUT THAT ALMOST EVERYTHING HE DID WAS SIGNED BY AUTOPEN, EXCEPT FOR WHEN HE GAVE HIS SON HUNTER A PARDON. HE SIGNED THAT ONE. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY THE WORST SIGNATURE I'VE EVER SEEN. THAT WAS SO BAD. THE AUTOPEN LOOKS MUCH BETTER.

BUT AS LEADERS, OUR COMMITMENT TO EVERY PATRIOT WHO PUT ON THE UNIFORM IS TO ENSURE THAT AMERICAN MILITARY REMAINS THE MOST LETHAL AND DOMINANT ON THE PLANET, NOT MERELY FOR A FEW YEARS, BUT FOR THE DECADES AND GENERATIONS TO COME. FOR CENTURIES. WE MUST BE SO STRONG, THAT NO NATION WILL DARE CHALLENGE US; SO POWERFUL,THAT NO ENEMY WILL DARE THREATEN US; AND SO CAPABLE, THAT NO ADVERSARY CAN EVEN THINK ABOUT BEATING US.

AND WE'VE HAD IT. RECENTLY INDIA AND PAKISTAN WERE GOING AT IT, AND I CALLED THEM BOTH. AND IN THIS CASE I USED TRADE. I'M NOT GOING TO TRADE WITH YOU. YOU START TWO NUCLEAR NATIONS, BIG NUCLEAR. NO, NO, NO, YOU CANNOT DO THAT. I SAID, "YES, I CAN. YOU GO INTO THIS FREAKING WAR THAT I'M HEARING ABOUT." YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, THEY JUST SHOT DOWN SET[?] WAS STARTING A LOT OF BAD BLOOD. AND I SAID, "YOU DO THIS, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY TRADE." AND I STOPPED THE WAR. IT WAS RAGING FOR FOUR DAYS. BUT THAT WAS JUST THE BEGINNING, AND WE STOPPED IT. IT WAS A GREAT THING. AND THE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN WAS HERE, ALONG WITH THE FIELD MARSHAL, WHO WAS A VERY IMPORTANT GUY IN PAKISTAN. AND HE WAS HERE THREE DAYS AGO, AND I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE IT, AS BEAUTIFUL AS HE SAID IT. BUT HE SAID THAT TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WERE WITH US, TWO GENERALS, BUT A GROUP. HE SAID, "THIS MAN SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVES, BECAUSE HE SAVED THE WAR FROM GOING ON. AND IT VERY BAD, VERY, VERY BAD. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAVED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF LIVES. THAT WAS A BAD WAR." AND I WAS VERY HONORED. I LOVED THE WAY HE SAID IT. SUSIE WILES WAS THERE. SHE SAID THAT WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING.

Here’s what checks out:

Ceasefire & U.S. role: Major outlets reported a U.S.-facilitated push that helped nudge both sides to stand down and move to a ceasefire around May 10–12, 2025.

India’s position: Indian officials later rejected Trump’s claim that he brokered the ceasefire or used trade leverage to force it, saying the pause followed India’s own objectives and wasn’t tied to U.S. pressure.

Trump’s claim about “trade threats”: He’s stated multiple times that he warned both countries he would halt trade; that’s his account, echoed in Indian and Pakistani press write-ups of his remarks—not independently verified by docs or on-the-record confirmations from Delhi or Islamabad.

“Field Marshal” & praise: Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir was elevated to Field Marshal in 2025 (a rare, largely ceremonial rank). Pakistani/Arab media have carried Trump’s claim that Munir told a gathering Trump “saved millions of lives.” That praise is reported, but there’s no public transcript from Munir himself confirming the exact words.

Bottom line: Yes, there was a brief, dangerous confrontation that ended quickly, and yes, the U.S. appears to have helped de-escalate. But the sweeping assertion that Trump personally “stopped the war” by threatening to cut off trade is disputed and not corroborated by independent, on-the-record sources—especially on India’s side.

-- Chatgpt, 10/3/25

BUT WE SAVED A LOT OF THEM, SAVED A LOT OF THEM. EVEN IN AFRICA, WE SAVED THE CONGO. WITH RWANDA, THEY'VE BEEN FIGHTING FOR 31 YEARS, 10 MILLION PEOPLE DEAD, I GOT THAT ONE DONE, AND VERY PROUD OF IT.

Short answer: partly true, mostly exaggerated.

There was a U.S.-brokered deal: On June 27, 2025, Rwanda and the DRC signed a peace agreement in Washington with U.S. facilitation. That’s real.

But it didn’t “end” the conflict. Implementation has been rocky. As of Oct 3, 2025, Kinshasa refused to sign a follow-on economic pact, citing thousands of Rwandan troops still inside DRC in violation of the June deal’s withdrawal timeline. Fighting and mobilizations in the east continue. In short: not done.

“31 years of fighting”: directionally right for the era (mid-1990s to now), but the violence has been episodic and driven by multiple actors (Congo wars, Kivu/Ituri conflicts, M23, etc.), not one continuous state-to-state war.

“10 million dead”: overstated. The most-cited research puts excess deaths around 5.4–6 million since the late 1990s—not 10 million.

Trump “saved the Congo” / “got it done”: independent fact-checks say that goes too far—yes, the U.S. helped clinch a deal, but claiming the war was stopped and millions saved is unsupported, especially given ongoing violations and violence.

Bottom line: The U.S. (under Trump) did help broker a Congo-Rwanda agreement in June 2025, but the conflict is not resolved, casualty claims of 10 million are inflated, and saying the war is “over” is not accurate today.

-- chatgpt, 10/3/25

SO IF THIS WORKS OUT, WE'LL HAVE EIGHT, 8 IN 8 MONTHS. THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. NOBODY'S EVER DONE THAT. "WILL YOU GET THE NOBEL PRIZE?" ABSOLUTELY NOT. THEY'LL GIVE IT TO SOME GUY THAT DIDN'T DO A DAMN THING. THEY'LL GIVE IT TO A GUY THAT WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE MIND OF DONALD TRUMP, AND WHAT IT TOOK TO SOLVE THE WAR. SO HE'LL GET THE NOBEL PRIZE, WILL GO TO A WRITER. BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. BUT IT'S A BIG INSULT TO OUR COUNTRY. I WILL TELL YOU THAT. I DON'T WANT IT. I WANT THE COUNTRY TO GET IT. IT SHOULD GET IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. THINK OF IT. SO IF THIS HAPPENS, I THINK IT WILL. I DON'T SAY IT LIGHTLY, BECAUSE I KNOW MORE ABOUT DEALS THAN ANYBODY. THAT'S WHAT MY WHOLE LIFE WAS BASED ON. AND THIS CAN CERTAINLY CHANGE. BUT WE HAVE JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY. WE HAVE ONE SIGNATURE THAT WE NEED, AND THAT SIGNATURE WILL PAY IN HELL IF THEY DON'T SIGN. I HOPE THEY SIGN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD AND CREATE SOMETHING REALLY GREAT. BUT TO HAVE DONE EIGHT OF THEM IS JUST LIKE SUCH AN HONOR.

AND THEN WE HAVE PUTIN AND ZELENSKY, THE EASIEST ONE OF THEM ALL. I SAID, "THAT ONE I'LL GET DONE." I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING TO BE FIRST. THE OTHERS WERE MUCH HARDER. SOME OF THEM, AZERBAIJAN WAS. THIS WAS GOING ON FOR 36 YEARS. THEY SAID, "IT'S NOT SOLVABLE, SIR. YOU CAN'T, DON'T DO IT." I SAID, "I WILL DO IT, I WILL DO IT." AND I GOT ON THE PHONE WITH THE TWO COUNTRIES. THEY WERE GREAT. THEY WERE GREAT. I KNEW IMMEDIATELY, I KNEW AS SOON AS I STARTED TALKING TO HIM WE WERE GOING TO SOLVE THAT WAR. WE DID. NOW THEY'RE SO HAPPY, NOW THEY'RE FRIENDS. ONE SAID HE'S BEEN PRESIDENT FOR 22 YEARS. HE SAID, "YOU KNOW, FOR 22 YEARS I DID NOTHING BUT KILL HIS PEOPLE." THEY WERE IN THE ROOM TOGETHER AT THE OVAL OFFICE, AND THEY STARTED OFF SPREAD LIKE THIS. THEY HAVE THE BEAUTIFUL RESOLUTE DESK, AND ONE WAS HERE AND ONE WAS HERE. YOU COULDN'T GET FURTHER AWAY. THAT'S THE FURTHEST I'VE EVER SEEN TWO PEOPLE IN FRONT OF ME. AND AS THE HOUR WENT BY, THEY GOT CLOSER AND CLOSER AND CLOSER. AND AT THE END OF THE HOUR WE HAD IT DONE. AND THEY HUGGED AND HUGGED AND HUGGED. AND I SAID, "THAT'S SO NICE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO REMAIN FRIENDS." AND I SPOKE TO THEM, ONE OF THEM THE OTHER DAY, HE SAID, "NO, HE'S NOW MY FRIEND. BUT FOR 22 YEARS HE'S BEEN THE HEAD OF AZERBAIJAN FOR 22 YEARS." AND YOU KNOW, THAT WAR, THAT WAS A WAR THAT WAS NOT SOLVABLE, HE SAID FOR SEVEN YEARS. THE OTHER ONE SAID, "FOR 22 YEARS, ALL I DID WAS KILL HIS PEOPLE. THAT'S ALL I'VE DONE TO PUT A STOP TO THAT." SO WE SOLVED THAT. SO IT'S A GREAT THING. IT'S A GREAT FEELING.

Short take: there’s a real kernel here, wrapped in a lot of embellishment.

What’s true: On Aug 8, 2025, Trump hosted Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan) and Nikol Pashinyan (Armenia) at the White House, where they signed a U.S.-brokered joint declaration and initialed a peace text aimed at normalizing relations after decades of conflict. Photos and live coverage show a handshake ceremony.

What’s exaggerated/unsupported: There’s no independent reporting that the war was “solved in an hour in the Oval Office,” that the leaders “hugged and hugged,” or that everything was definitively “done.” Serious observers call the deal fragile and stress outstanding issues and implementation risks.

Context on the timeline: Saying the conflict went on “36 years” is directionally right (late-1980s roots). Claiming one leader has been in charge “22 years” fits Aliyev’s long tenure. But the “we solved it” framing overstates where things stand; follow-up analysis describes a framework that still needs careful execution.

Side note (the gaffe): In early October, European leaders were caught on video joking about Trump repeatedly mixing up “Armenia” and “Albania” while touting his role—illustrating how politicized (and sometimes sloppy) the messaging around this has been.

-- chatgpt, 10/3/25

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SAVING KOSOVO AND SERBIA. YOU'RE SAVING SO MANY LIVES DURING THIS IF YOU CAN DO IT. BUT OUR PEOPLE DESERVE NOTHING LESS THAN THE VERY BEST, AND WE'RE NEVER GOING TO LET THEM DOWN. AND IF WE CAN SOLVE WARS INSTEAD OF YOU HAVING TO FIGHT WARS, WOULDN'T THAT BE WONDERFUL? WOULDN'T THAT BE WONDERFUL? THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE FIRST EXECUTIVE ORDERS I SIGNED UPON TAKING OFFICE WAS TO RESTORE THE PRINCIPLE OF "MERIT." THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD OTHER THAN THE WORD "TARIFF." I LOVE TARIFFS. MOST BEAUTIFUL WORD, BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT ANYMORE. I SAID "TARIFF" IS MY FAVORITE WORD. I LOVE THE WORD "TARIFF."  

YOU KNOW, WE'RE BECOMING RICH AS HELL. WE HAVE A BIG CASE IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT OTHER NATIONS HAVE DONE TO US. AND WE HAVE GREAT LEGAL GROUNDS. BUT YOU STILL HAVE A CASE WOULD BE VERY BAD. SOMETHING HAPPENED. BUT I SAID MY FAVORITE WORD IN THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY IS THE WORD "TARIFF", AND PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT WAS STRANGE. AND THE FAKE NEWS CAME OVER AND THEY REALLY HIT ME HARD ON IT. THEY SAID, WHAT ABOUT LOVE? WHAT ABOUT RELIGION? WHAT ABOUT GOD? WHAT ABOUT WIFE, FAMILY? I GOT KILLED WHEN I SAID "TARIFF" IS MY FAVORITE WORD. SO I CHANGED. IT'S NOW MY FIFTH FAVORITE WORD, AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. BUT THEY HIT ME HARD.  

BUT IT IS, I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WE'VE TAKEN IN TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WE'RE RICH. RICH AGAIN, AND THEY'LL NEVER BE ANY WEALTH LIKE WHAT WE HAVE. OTHER COUNTRIES WERE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US FOR YEARS AND YEARS. YOU KNOW THAT BETTER THAN ANYBODY. AND NOW WE'RE TREATING THEM FAIRLY. BUT THE MONEY COMING IN IS, WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. THE OTHER DAY THEY HAD 31 BILLION THAT THEY FOUND. $31 BILLION. SO WE FOUND $31 BILLION. AND WE'RE NOT SURE FROM WHERE IT CAME. A GENTLEMAN CAME IN, A FINANCIAL GUY. I SAID, "WELL, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?" HE SAID, "WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME." I SAID, "CHECK THE TARIFF SHELF." "NO, SIR. THE TARIFFS HAVEN'T STARTED IN THAT SECTOR YET." I SAID, "YES, THEY HAVE. THEY STARTED SEVEN WEEKS AGO. CHECK." IT COMES BACK 20 MINUTES LATER. "SIR, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT CAME FROM TARIFFS, 31 BILLION.

Mostly spin, with a small kernel of truth.

“They found $31 billion … came from tariffs.” There’s no evidence of “found” money. However, September’s customs duties (tariff receipts) were reported around $31.3B—i.e., a normal monthly intake, not a surprise windfall.

“Tariffs started seven weeks ago.” A major tranche of Trump’s 2025 tariffs did take effect on Aug. 7, 2025, which is roughly seven weeks before late-September remarks—but collections are recorded routinely; they aren’t discovered after the fact.

Scale check. Independent trackers show tariff revenue building, but far below the outsized figures Trump often cites (e.g., “$2B a day” is false). As of mid-2025, analyses put cumulative 2025 tariff revenue in the tens to low hundreds of billions, not “trillions,” and they note tariffs are largely paid by U.S. importers/consumers.

“We’ve taken in trillions … we’re rich again.” Total federal revenue (all sources) is indeed in the trillions per year, but that’s not unique to 2025 and isn’t from tariffs alone. It’s routine tax and fee collections across the economy.

Bottom line: The $31B figure likely refers to one month’s normal tariff collections, not “found” money; the broader claims about unprecedented riches from tariffs are exaggerated or incorrect.

-- Chatgpt, 10/3/25

THAT'S ENOUGH TO BUY A LOT OF BATTLESHIPS ADMIRAL. TO USE AN OLD TERM, I THINK WE SHOULD MAYBE START THINKING. THE OLD PICTURES I USED TO WATCH. "VICTORY AT SEA." I LOVE "VICTORY AT SEA." LOOK AT THESE ADMIRALS. IT'S GOT TO BE YOUR ALL TIME IN BLACK AND WHITE. AND I LOOK AT THOSE SHIPS. THEY CAME WITH THE DESTROYERS ALONGSIDE OF THEM. AND IT MEANT NOTHING WAS GOING TO STOP. THEY WERE 20 DEEP, AND THEY WERE IN A STRAIGHT LINE, AND THERE WAS NOTHING GOING TO STOP THEM. AND WE ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THOSE SHIPS. SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY, "NO, THAT'S OLD TECHNOLOGY." I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK IT'S OLD TECHNOLOGY. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE GUNS. BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING. THE CONCEPT OF BATTLESHIP. NICE SIX INCH SIZE SOLID STEEL, NOT ALUMINUM, ALUMINUM THAT MELTS. IF IT LOOKS AT A MISSILE COMING AT, IT STARTS MELTING AS THE MISSILE IS ABOUT TWO MILES AWAY.

NOW, THOSE SHIPS, THEY DON'T MAKE THEM THAT WAY ANYMORE. BUT YOU LOOK AT IT, AND YOUR SECRETARY LIKES IT, AND I'M SORT OF OPEN TO IT. AND BULLETS ARE A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE THAN MISSILES. A LOT OF REASONS I SHOULD TAKE A VOTE. BUT I'M AFRAID TO TAKE THAT VOTE, BECAUSE I MAY GET VOTED OUT ON THAT ONE. BUT I TELL YOU, IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING. THEY WERE POWERS. THEY WERE BIG POWERS. THEY WERE JUST ABOUT AS MEAN AND SCARY AS YOU COULD BE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST CASES THAT WE WON WAS THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO ALLOW US TO PROCEED ON THE WORD "MERIT." "MERIT." SO THOSE TWO WORDS ARE RIGHT UP THERE. SO THIS IS, I WOULD SAY, THE OPPOSITE OF YOU ASK FOR A DEFINITION, THE OPPOSITE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. WE WENT THROUGH POLITICAL CORRECT, WHERE YOU HAD TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT WERE TOTALLY UNFIT TO BE DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING, FOR MANY REASONS, I WON'T GET INTO THEM. BUT FOR MANY REASONS, THEY WERE UNFIT. NOW IT'S ALL BASED ON MERIT. THAT WAS SUCH AN UNBELIEVABLE DECISION. I DIDN'T EXPECT WE WERE GOING TO WIN THAT ONE.

Short answer: he’s spinning a real Supreme Court case way past what it actually held.

The Court’s June 5, 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services was unanimous and did one specific thing: it scrapped a special, extra hurdle some lower courts imposed on so-called “reverse-discrimination” plaintiffs. The Court said Title VII uses the same prima-facie standard for everyone; it didn’t create a new “merit” rule.

The U.S. government (Solicitor General) filed an amicus brief supporting vacatur of the lower court’s ruling; the opinion even notes Ohio endorsed the Solicitor General’s position. That lets Trump say “we won,” but the case didn’t announce that federal hiring is now “based on MERIT” or that DEI is illegal. It only equalized the legal standard for bringing Title VII claims.

News/legal analyses after Ames emphasized the same point: it eliminates the “background-circumstances” add-on, but does not ban DEI or decree “merit-only” hiring.

Trump has repeatedly described the ruling as letting “us use merit again,” including in speeches, but that’s rhetoric, not the holding of the case.

Bottom line: True that the Supreme Court issued a major, unanimous Title VII ruling (Ames) that the administration supported and “won.” Not true that the Court “allowed us to proceed on the word ‘merit’” in the broad policy sense or that “now it’s all based on merit.” The ruling refines litigation standards, not nationwide hiring policy.

-- Chatgpt, 10/3/25

WE COUNT ON PEOPLE LIKE ME TO KEEP YOU OUT OF WARS, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GO INTO WARS. MANY OF THE WARS THAT I JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT, WE COULD HAVE ENTERED THOSE WARS AND SETTLED THEM IN A DIFFERENT WAY, LOSE A LOT OF OUR TROOPS, AND WE'RE GOING TO SETTLE THEM, I GUESS, DIFFERENTLY. MAYBE NOT. ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SETTLE THEM. WE JUST WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MIDDLE OF A LOT, OF LOT OF FIREPOWER. BUT WHEN WE DO NEED IT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SO READY, AND YOU KNOW IT.

BUT VERY IMPORTANTLY, WITH THAT GOAL IN MIND, I'VE COMMITTED TO SPENDING OVER $1 TRILLION ON OUR MILITARY IN 2026, AND THAT'S THE MOST IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY -- $1 TRILLION. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. I HOPE YOU LIKE THAT. MA'AMS AND SIRS, I HOPE YOU LIKE IT. THAT'S A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY. WE HAVE THE BEST OF EVERYTHING. EVERY BRANCH IS SEEING MAJOR INVESTMENTS. AND AS I ANNOUNCED IN THE OVAL OFFICE IN MARCH, WE ARE RAPIDLY MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FIRST EVER SIXTH GENERATION FIGHTER JET. I DIDN'T NAME IT. I DID NOT NAME IT. BOEING CAME IN AND THEY SAID, "SIR, THIS IS OUR SUBMITTAL. IT'S THE GREATEST FIGHTING JET EVER DONE. AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TESTING ALL THESE PLANES. ALL THE COMPANIES ARE TESTING, AND THIS ONE TESTED LIKE THROUGH THE ROOF." AND THEY SAID, "WE'D LIKE TO NAME IT THE F-47. I SAID, "LET ME THINK ABOUT IT." THEN AFTER THINKING FOR ABOUT TWO SECONDS, I SAID, "OKAY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S 47, I'M 47. SO I'M 45, 46 AND 47, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, I JUST DON'T WANT THE CREDIT FOR 46. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEIR OPEN BORDERS, AND PEOPLE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, INCLUDING JAILS AND MENTAL INSTITUTIONS. I DON'T WANT THAT ON MY RECORD. BUT I LIKE I LIKE HAVING IT.

WE'RE INVESTING TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MODERNIZING OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENCE CAPABILITIES LIKE NEVER BEFORE, AND WE'VE BEGUN CONSTRUCTION ON WHAT WE CALL "THE GOLDEN DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD." IT WILL BE THE MOST SOPHISTICATED IN THE WORLD. YOU WATCHED IT DO WELL UNTIL THEY HAD SOME PROBLEMS AT THE END, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A LACK OF AMMUNITION, DEFENSIVE AMMUNITION. BUT THEY'VE GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF. BUT I TELL YOU, IT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SO GOOD AND WE DESERVE IT. YOU KNOW, WE HELP OTHER COUNTRIES WITH IT. WE DON'T HAVE IT OURSELVES. AND CANADA CALLED ME A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. THEY WANT TO BE PART OF IT. TO WHICH I SAID, "WELL, WHY DON'T YOU JUST JOIN OUR COUNTRY? YOU BECOME 51, BECOME THE 51ST STATE, AND YOU GET IT FOR FREE." SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MADE A BIG IMPACT, BUT IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. IT ACTUALLY MAKES US. THEY'RE HAVING A HARD TIME UP THERE IN CANADA NOW BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, WITH TARIFFS, EVERYONE'S COMING INTO OUR COUNTRY. WE HAVE MORE INVESTMENT THAN WE'VE EVER HAD BEFORE, $17 TRILLION COMING IN. AS AN EXAMPLE, IN FOUR YEARS, BIDEN DIDN'T HAVE 1 TRILLION. WE HAVE 17 TRILLION MORE THAN THAT IN EIGHT MONTHS COMING IN, AND THEY'RE COMING IN FROM CANADA, MEXICO, FROM EUROPE, FROM ALL OVER. AUTO PLANTS. EVERYBODY'S COMING BACK TO THE UNITED STATES.

Mostly spin. Here’s what checks out vs. what doesn’t:

“Tens of billions” for nuclear-deterrence modernization — true (and then some). The U.S. is spending ~$90–100B per year on nuclear forces this decade; CBO pegs $946B for 2025–2034 (triad recapitalization: Columbia SSBNs, B-21, Sentinel ICBM, LRSO, etc.).

“Golden Dome missile-defense shield” — real initiative, but not ‘already under construction.’ Trump announced Golden Dome in Jan/May 2025; Pentagon has begun contracting and program setup, not pouring concrete. Think concept + solicitations + early program office, not a finished build. (Estimates and timelines vary wildly.)

“We watched it do well until they ran low on defensive ammunition” — partly true (re: Israel). Israel’s defenses (Arrow/Iron Dome family) faced interceptor strains during heavy salvos and received resupply; that’s documented.

“We help other countries with it; we don’t have it ourselves” — misleading. The U.S. doesn’t have an Israel-style Iron Dome for the entire homeland, but it does field homeland and regional defenses (GMD in AK/CA, Aegis BMD, THAAD, Patriot, etc.). Golden Dome would be a new, much larger architecture layered over those.

“Canada called to join it” — talks are real; the ‘51st state’ bit was a quip. Ottawa has publicly said it’s in discussions about participating; media and officials have covered that repeatedly. The “be the 51st state and get it free” line is Trump’s joke, not policy.

“$17 trillion coming in … Biden didn’t have 1 trillion” — false. Actual FDI into the U.S. was $151B in 2024, and quarterly 2025 inflows are in the tens of billions, not trillions. There’s no credible series showing $17T of new investment “in eight months.”

-- Chatgpt, 10/3/25

UNDER MY BUDGET, WE WILL BE EXPANDING THE U.S. NAVY BY AT LEAST 19 SHIPS NEXT YEAR, INCLUDING SUBMARINES, DESTROYERS, ASSAULT SHIPS AND MORE. AND IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH MORE THAN THAT AS WE GO ALONG, BECAUSE WE BASICALLY DON'T BUILD SHIPS ANYMORE. WE DO BUILD SUBMARINES, BUT WE DON'T BUILD SHIPS.

YOU KNOW, IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR, THEY WERE FREIGHTERS AND DIFFERENT TYPES. BUT WE WERE DOING A SHIP A DAY, AND NOW WE DON'T DO SHIPS. AND I'M NOT A FAN OF SOME OF THE SHIPS. I'M A VERY AESTHETIC PERSON. I DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE SHIPS YOU'RE DOING AESTHETICALLY. THEY SAY, "OH, IT'S STEALTH." THEY SAY, "THAT'S NOT STEALTH, AN UGLY SHIP. IT'S NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SAY YOU'RE STEALTH.

BY THE WAY, THE B-2 BOMBERS WERE INCREDIBLE. THAT IS STEALTH. THEY WENT INTO THAT. I WAS WITH GENERAL CAINE AND PETE, WERE IN THE WE CALL IT THE WAR ROOM, BUT WE'RE WATCHING THEM GO IN, AND THEY WERE TOTALLY UNTOUCHED. THEY WERE NOT SEEN. THEY WERE LITERALLY NOT SEEN. THEY DROPPED THEIR BOMBS. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HIT ITS TARGET. IT WAS TOTAL OBLITERATION. CNN WHEN WE CAME BACK, FAKE NEWS, CNN. OH, THE CAMERA JUST WENT OFF. YOU KNOW, THEIR CAMERA, EVERY TIME I MENTIONED, THEY TURNED THE CAMERA OFF BECAUSE IT'S NEVER GOOD. THEY SAID "THIS IS A PROBLEM." BUT I DON'T BLAME THEM. YOU'RE BETTER OFF KEEPING IT OFF.  

BUT THEY HAVE SOME SCAMMER REPORTER WHO STARTED SAYING, WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE, THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE HIT THE TARGETS AS WELL AS THEY THOUGHT. IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN "OBLITERATION." HE DID HIT THE TARGETS, AND I GOT TO GIVE US A LITTLE CREDIT, RIGHT? IT WAS "OBLITERATION." IT TURNED OUT THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION SAID IT WAS "OBLITERATED." NOT ONLY DID THEY HIT THE TARGET, THEY HAD THESE CHUTES. AND THINK OF THIS HERE WAY UP IN THE SKY. THERE WAS NO MOON. IT WAS DEAD DARK. COULDN'T SEE A THING. YOU COULDN'T SEE THEM. BUT THEY HAD, I GUESS, A BEAM GOING RIGHT INTO THESE CHUTES. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BOMBS WENT RIGHT DOWN THOSE CHUTES INTO A GRANITE MOUNTAIN. I THINK IT'S THE LAST TIME THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD AIR CHUTES. THEY HAD THESE AIR CHUTES THAT WERE NICE, BEAUTIFUL. THEY WERE MEANT FOR US. BUT IT WAS TOTAL "OBLITERATION." AND NOW THEY GIVE US CREDIT FOR THAT.

“Total obliteration” is overstated. The administration used that word, and satellite photos showed extensive damage (especially at Natanz). But independent assessments and the IAEA’s public line were more cautious—“enormous damage,” yes; “destroyed” was “going too far,” and full underground damage at Fordow remained unverified at the time. A leaked intel readout reportedly said the program might be set back months, not ended.

“Atomic Energy Commission” — that agency hasn’t existed since 1974. The relevant body is the IAEA (UN nuclear watchdog) or U.S. DOE/NNSA. So attributing “obliteration” to the AEC is wrong on its face.

-- Chatgpt, 10/3/25

BUT THESE PEOPLE WERE PHENOMENAL. I TELL YOU, FOR THE AIR FORCE PEOPLE HERE, YOU CAN BE VERY PROUD THAT VITALI, WE JUST ORDERED A LOT OF NEW ONES, NEW ONES AND UPDATED ONES. BUT I'D TAKE THE OTHER ONES. LET ME TELL YOU, THEY COULDN'T HAVE WORKED ANY BETTER. SO THEY FLEW FOR 37 HOURS TOTAL, BACK AND FORTH, NO STOPS, NO NOTHING. WE HAD 52 TANKERS LOADING THEM UP, AND THAT'S A JOB I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT. TOO MUCH FLYING A TANKER LOADED UP WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FUEL. I DON'T KNOW IF I'D DO THAT JOB. SO I ASKED THE QUESTION, "WHAT HAPPENS IF IT GETS HIT, SIR?" YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? BUT THOSE GUYS, THEY'RE JUST HEROES. THEY'RE INCREDIBLE. I HAD THEM ALL TO THE OVAL OFFICE. WE HAD THE B-2 PILOTS, AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE, EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT TOOK CARE OF THEM, THE MAINTENANCE PEOPLE, JUST AS IMPORTANT. WE HAD THEM ALL TO THE WHITE HOUSE, GAVE THEM A BIG PARTY ON THE LAWN, BROUGHT SOME OF THEM INTO THE OVAL OFFICE.

BUT ON TOP OF ALL THIS, WE'LL DELIVER A HARD EARNED PAY RAISE OF 3.8% TO EVERY SOLDIER, SAILOR, AIRMAN, COAST GUARDSMAN, SPACE GUARDSMAN, AND MARINES. SOMETHING YOU WEREN'T GETTING FROM THE PAST ADMINISTRATION. THEY DID NOT TREAT YOU WITH RESPECT, THE DEMOCRATS. THEY NEVER DO.

NOT ONLY ARE WE REBUILDING OUR GREAT STRENGTH, BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YEARS, MY ADMINISTRATION IS ACTUALLY USING THAT STRENGTH TO DEFEND THE CORE AND VITAL INTERESTS OF AMERICA. AND VERY SIMPLY, WE ARE PUTTING AMERICA FIRST. AND I HAVE, SINCE I'VE BEEN ELECTED, I'VE ALWAYS PUT AMERICA FIRST. IT'S SORT OF SIMPLE, YOU KNOW. WHEN YOU THINK, MY CAMPAIGN WAS RUN ON COMMON SENSE, AND WE DID GREAT. WE GOT THE HIGHEST NUMBERS EVER RECEIVED IN TERMS OF DISTRICTS. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A BROKEN UP 2500 VERSUS 525. WE WON EVERY SWING STATE. WE WON THE POPULAR VOTE. WE WON EVERYTHING. WE W ONEVERYTHING. YOU HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAP. IT'S ALMOST ENTIRELY RED, EXCEPT THERE'S A LITTLE BLUE LINE ON EACH COAST. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO DISAPPEAR, TOO. WE DID REALLY GREAT, AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE OF OUR SUCCESS WITH THE MILITARY, THE REBUILDING OF THE MILITARY, THE VOTE THAT I GOT FROM THE MILITARY. AND THEY'RE VICIOUS PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO FIGHT VICIOUS PEOPLE. A DIFFERENT KIND OF VICIOUS. BUT THEY SPREAD ALL THESE HORRIBLE, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE UP STATEMENTS AND SAID WHAT I SAID ABOUT EVERYTHING, BUT EVEN ABOUT THE MILITARY. BUT FORTUNELY, THE MILITARY DIDN'T BELIEVE IT. IT'S HARD, YOU KNOW, THEY MAKE UP A STATEMENT. AND THEY SAID, YOU SAY WE HAD 25 PEOPLE THAT SAID HE NEVER SAID THAT -- 25. WE HAD 25 AFFIDAVITS, AND THEY SAID, "WELL, WE'RE GOING WITH IT ANYWAY." YOU KNOW, THESE SLEAZEBAGS.

Trump reportedly called fallen U.S. troops "suckers" and "losers"
ABC7
Sep 4, 2020
President Donald Trump reportedly made disparaging comments about fallen U.S. troops, including calling Marines killed in battle "losers" and "suckers."
Transcript

MULTIPLE MEDIA OUTLETS REPORTING THAT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP MADE DISPARAGING COMMENTS ABOUT AMERICA'S FALLEN TROOPS, INCLUDING CALLING U.S. MARINES KILLED IN WORLD WAR I "LOSERS AND SUCKERS." THE PRESIDENT VIGOROUSLY DENIES THIS. JORY RAND LIVE WITH MORE.

>> FOUR YEARS AGO, THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD TAPE DROPPED ON OCTOBER 1 THIS TIME AROUND, IT IS A MONTH EARLIER BUT THIS STORY COULD HAVE A LASTING IMPACT. AS OF TONIGHT, THERE IS NO TAPE OF THIS INCIDENT. THE PRESIDENT IS DENYING THE ENTIRE STORY. YOU CAN CALL IT A SEPTEMBER SURPRISE. THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE REPORTING THAT BACK IN 20, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED FALLEN U.S. SOLDIERS LOSERS AND SUCKERS FOR GETTING KILLED IN ACTION. THE ARTICLE, CITING 4 PEOPLE WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION. TONIGHT, BOTH THE AP AND "WASHINGTON POST" CONFIRMING THE STORY.

>> I FIND IT ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL FOR ANYONE TO THINK THAT AMERICANS WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN SERVICE TO OUR NATION ARE SOMEHOW LOSERS ARE SUCKERS.

>> TED LIEU, A VETERAN WHO STILL SERVES IN THE AIR FORCE RESERVE, OUTRAGED.

>> IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE WHEN THESE WORDS COME FROM THE MOUTH OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. I CALL ON DONALD TRUMP TO IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZE.

>> FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE FALLEN REACTING ON SOCIAL MEDIA TONIGHT. ONE CALIFORNIA WOMAN WRITING, THIS IS MY GRANDFATHER, A MARINE WHO TOOK MACHINE-GUN FIRE. HE WAS HONORED BY HIS COUNTRY AND BY THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE. DONALD TRUMP JUST CALLED HIM A LOSER FOR BEING WOUNDED IN ACTION. JOHN WRITING, "MY GRANDFATHER LOST AT SEA IN WORLD WAR II." TONIGHT, THE PRESIDENT DENYING THE STORY IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM THE TARMAC OF JOINT BASE ANDREWS.

>> I WOULD BE WILLING TO SWEAR ON ANYTHING THAT I NEVER SAID THAT ABOUT OUR FALLEN HEROES. THERE IS NOBODY THAT RESPECTS THEM MORE. WHAT ANIMAL WOULD SAY SUCH A THING?

>> BACK IN 2015, THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP SAID THIS ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN WHO WAS A PRISONER OF WAR FOR FIVE YEARS IN VIETNAM.

>> HE'S NOT A WAR HERO.

>> HE IS A WAR HERO.

>> HE'S A WAR HERO BECAUSE HE WAS CAPTURED. I LIKE PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T CAPTURED, OK.

>> JOE BIDEN, WHOSE SON WAS A MEMBER OF THE ARMY, CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT UMBER OF FRONTS WHILE SPEAKING.

>> THE WORDS OF A PRESIDENT MATTER. THEY MATTER.

>> THIS STORY TURNING INTO ONE OF THOSE, WHO DO YOU BELIEVE STORIES. THE FORMER BODYGUARD SAID HE NEVER HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY ANYTHING LIKE THIS. THAT AP TALKED TO A CURRENT SENIOR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL, WHO CONFIRMS THE ENTIRE STORY.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

AND THAT'S WHY THE PRESS IS REALLY LOSING ALL POWER, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T BELIEVING IT. WE NEED AN HONEST PRESS. WE NEED BORDERS. WE NEED BORDERS. WE NEED AN HONEST PRESS. WE NEED FAIR ELECTIONS. AND THOSE THREE THINGS. AND WE DON'T HAVE AN HONEST PRESS. WE HAVE A REALLY CORRUPT PRESS. BUT WE FIGHT THROUGH THE CORRUPT PRESS, AND THE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO DO THIS STUFF A LOT. YOU HAVE TO GO ON TELEVISION A LOT, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET A FAIR SHAKE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO RELY ON SOMEBODY ELSE. IT'S THEY'RE JUST, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. THEY'VE DESTROYED, THE IMAGE OF MEDIA NOW IS AT THE LOWEST POINT IT'S EVER BEEN. IT'S LOWER THAN CONGRESS. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? IT'S SOMETHING.

BUT TOGETHER WITH MANY OF YOU IN THE ROOM, WE'VE BROUGHT BACK THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT DEFENDING THE HOMELAND IS THE MILITARY'S FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. ONLY IN RECENT DECADES DID POLITICIANS SOMEHOW COME TO BELIEVE THAT OUR JOB IS TO POLICE THE FAR REACHES OF KENYA AND SOMALIA, WHILE AMERICA IS UNDER INVASION FROM WITHIN. WE'RE UNDER INVASION FROM WITHIN. NO DIFFERENT THAN A FOREIGN ENEMY, BUT MORE DIFFICULT IN MANY WAYS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WEAR UNIFORMS. AT LEAST WHEN THEY'RE WEARING A UNIFORM, YOU CAN TAKE THEM OUT. THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE UNIFORMS. BUT WE ARE UNDER INVASION FROM WITHIN. WE'RE STOPPING IT VERY QUICKLY.

[x]

AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEFENDING THE BORDERS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES, WITH YOUR HELP, WE'RE DEFENDING THE BORDERS OF OUR COUNTRY. FROM NOW ON, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THIS HAPPEN.

BIDEN LET PEOPLE COME IN FROM PRISONS, MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, DRUG DEALERS, MURDERERS. YOU KNOW, WE HAD 11,488 MURDERS ALLOWED INTO OUR COUNTRY BY THIS GUY WHO HAD NO CLUE. HE HAD NO CLUE. HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT HE HAD NO CLUE. THE PEOPLE THAT RAN THE OFFICE, THE WHITE HOUSE, WERE PEOPLE THAT SURROUNDED HIM. RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS THAT ARE BRILLIANT PEOPLE, BUT DUMB AS HELL WHEN IT CAME TO POLICY AND COMMON SENSE. AND THEY ALLOWED PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, FROM THE CONGO, THEY OPENED UP PRISONS IN THE CONGO, THEY CAME INTO OUR COUNTRY TOTALLY UNMATCHED, UNVETTED, UNCHECKED. AND FROM ALL OVER SOUTH AMERICA. NOT JUST SOUTH AMERICA. YOU KNOW, YOU THINK SOUTH AMERICA? NO. BUT FROM ALL OVER. A LOT CAME IN FROM VENEZUELA. VENEZUELA EMPTIED ITS PRISON POPULATION INTO OUR COUNTRY. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TREN DE ARAGUA, ONE OF THE WORST GANGS EVER. BUT WE TOOK CARE OF THEM. WE TOOK GOOD CARE OF THEM.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE NATIONAL GUARD IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IT'S EMBARRASSING TO SAY THIS. NOW I CAN SAY IT BECAUSE WE SOLVED IT. BUT WASHINGTON, D.C. WAS THE MOST UNSAFE, MOST DANGEROUS CITY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO A LARGE EXTENT, BEYOND. AND BEYOND THAT, GO TO SOME, YOU GO TO AFGHANISTAN. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YOU GO TO COUNTRIES THAT YOU WOULD THINK THERE'S PROBLEMS. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT. AND NOW WASHINGTON, D.C., AFTER 12 DAYS OF SERIOUS, SERIOUS INTENSITY, WE TOOK OUT 1700 CAREER CRIMINALS. IF YOU HAVE FIVE CAREER CRIMINALS, THEY CAN MAKE YOUR NUMBERS LOOK VERY BAD, BECAUSE THEY'LL COMMIT MANY CRIMES A DAY. BUT WE TOOK OUT 1700, AND THEY TOOK THEM OUT. THERE WAS NO DOUBT WHO THE BOSS WAS. THEY DID AN UNBELIEVABLE JOB. THEN THEY STARTED EVEN CLEANING. I SAID, I DON'T WANT THEM DOING THAT, SIR. OR THEY WERE CLEANING IT UP. I DROVE THROUGH IT TWO DAYS AGO. IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. PEOPLE ARE WALKING DOWN THE STREET HOLDING HANDS, MAN AND WIFE COMING FROM IOWA. THEY'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT BEING SHOT. WASHINGTON, D.C. IS NOW A SAFE CITY. IN FACT, I WENT OUT TO DINNER WITH MY CREW. I WOULDN'T DO IT. AND I FELT TOTALLY SAFE. AND NOBODY'S BEEN ATTACKED. NOBODY'S BEEN HURT. WASHINGTON, DC WENT FROM OUR MOST UNSAFE CITY TO JUST ABOUT OUR SAFEST CITY IN A PERIOD OF A MONTH. WE HAD IT UNDER CONTROL IN 12 DAYS. BUT GIVE US ANOTHER 15, 16 DAYS. IT'S PERFECT.

AND PEOPLE, OTHER THAN POLITICIANS THAT LOOK BAD, THEY THINK, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS RUN MOST OF THE CITIES THAT ARE IN BAD SHAPE. WE HAVE MANY CITIES IN GREAT SHAPE TOO, BY THE WAY. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE ONES THAT ARE RUN BY THE RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS, WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO SAN FRANCISCO, CHICAGO, NEW YORK, LOS ANGELES, THEY'RE VERY UNSAFE PLACES. AND WE'RE GOING TO STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT ONE BY ONE. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR PART FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM. THAT'S A WAR, TOO. IT'S A WAR FROM WITHIN.

CONTROLLING THE PHYSICAL TERRITORY OF OUR BORDER IS ESSENTIAL TO NATIONAL SECURITY. WE CAN'T LET THESE PEOPLE IN. YOU KNOW, WE HAD NO PEOPLE ENTER IN THE LAST FOUR MONTHS. ZERO, EVEN. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT. YOU KNOW, WE HAD MILLIONS COMING IN, POURING IN, 25 MILLION, ALL TOLD. AND OF THOSE 25 MILLION, MANY OF THEM SHOULD NEVER BE IN OUR COUNTRY. THEY WOULD TAKE THEIR WORST PEOPLE, AND THEIR PEOPLE FROM PRISONS AND JAIL, AND THEY PUT THEM IN A CARAVAN, AND THEY WALK UP. CNN WAS INTERVIEWING ONE PERSON, "OH, WHY ARE YOU COMING?" "I WANT FREEDOM." GOOD. "WERE YOU IN JAIL?" "YES." "FOR WHAT?" "MURDER". YOU HAD TO SEE THIS ANCHOR, A YOUNG WOMAN. SHE'S LIKE, I COULDN'T BELIEVE -- SHE'LL PROBABLY LOSE HER JOB. BUT BECAUSE THE LEFT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.

Short answer: mostly false or unsupported, with one kernel that’s easy to misunderstand.

“No people entered in the last four months. Zero.” — False. Encounters never dropped to zero. CBP reported ~4.6k Border Patrol encounters in July 2025, ~24.6k total nationwide in August, and ~26.2k in September—historic lows, but not zero.

What Trump world sometimes means by “zero”: “zero releases at the border.” DHS/CBP have touted “four straight months of 0 releases at the border” under new policies. That’s not the same as zero people entering or being encountered; it just means those encountered weren’t released at the border.

“25 million” came in — False. Even broad counts don’t reach that. Fact-checks and government series put total encounters since FY2021 in the ~10–11 million range (encounters ≠ people, due to repeat attempts), and estimates of undocumented residents are ~11–17 million, not 25 million “let in.”

“They’re sending us prisoners/jail inmates in caravans.” — No evidence of a government policy. Multiple fact-checks find no proof that Venezuela (or others) systematically emptied prisons to send inmates here, though some migrants have criminal histories.

“CNN interviewed a migrant who said he was in jail for murder.” — No verifiable clip. There’s no credible record of the specific CNN exchange he describes; it appears anecdotal rhetoric. (Major fact-checkers and transcripts show nothing matching that scene.)

“Controlling the border is essential to national security.” — That’s a policy view many agencies share. But it doesn’t make the specific numbers/stories above true. For the data, rely on CBP’s monthly stats.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

BUT WE'RE RUNNING IT BASED ON COMMON SENSE, AND BASED ON LOVE OF OUR COUNTRY. BUT I WANT TO SALUTE EVERY SERVICE MEMBER WHO HAS HELPED US CARRY OUT THIS CRITICAL MISSION. IT'S REALLY A VERY IMPORTANT MISSION.

AND I TOLD PETE WE SHOULD USE SOME OF THESE DANGEROUS CITIES AS TRAINING GROUNDS FOR OUR MILITARY NATIONAL GUARD, BUT MILITARY. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING INTO CHICAGO VERY SOON. THAT'S A BIG CITY WITH AN INCOMPETENT GOVERNOR. STUPID GOVERNOR. STUPID. THEY THREW HIM OUT OF HIS FAMILY BUSINESS. HE WAS SO STUPID. I KNOW THE FAMILY. HE BECOMES GOVERNOR. HE'S GOT MONEY, NOT MONEY THAT HE MADE. BUT HE RAN FOR GOVERNOR. HE WON. AND NOW HE CRITICIZES US ALL THE TIME. AND LAST WEEK, THEY HAD 11 PEOPLE MURDERED, 44 PEOPLE SHOT. THE WEEK BEFORE THAT, THEY HAD FIVE PEOPLE MURDERED, 28 PEOPLE SHOT. EVERY WEEKEND THEY LOSE 5 OR 6. IF THEY LOSE FIVE, THEY'RE CONSIDERING IT A GREAT WEEK. THEY SHOULDN'T LOSE ANY. YOU SHOULDN'T LOSE ANY. THIS IS CIVILIZATION. AND HE'S ALWAYS UP THERE SAYING WE'RE IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. WE DON'T NEED THE MILITARY. NO, THEY NEED THE MILITARY DESPERATELY.

HOW ABOUT PORTLAND? PORTLAND, OREGON, WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE A WAR ZONE? AND I GET A CALL FROM THE LIBERAL GOVERNOR. "SIR, PLEASE DON'T COME IN. WE DON'T NEED YOU." I SAID, "WELL, UNLESS THEY'RE PLAYING FALSE TAPES, THIS LOOKED LIKE WORLD WAR TWO. YOUR PLACE IS BURNING DOWN." "I MEAN, YOU MUST BE KIDDING, SIR. WE HAVE IT UNDER CONTROL." I SAID, "YOU DON'T HAVE IT UNDER CONTROL, GOVERNOR, BUT I'LL CHECK IT, AND I'LL CALL YOU BACK. I CALLED HER BACK. I SAID, "YOU, YOU. THIS PLACE IS A NIGHTMARE. IT'S PROBABLY, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE BIGGEST, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE WORST. IT'S BRUTAL. THEY GO AFTER OUR ICE PEOPLE WHO ARE GREAT PATRIOTS, AND TOUGH JOB TOO. BUT THEY LOVE IT. THEY LOVE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE CLEANING UP OUR COUNTRY."

A federal judge in Portland, Oregon temporarily blocked President Trump’s federalization of 200 members of the state’s National Guard.

On Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order filed by the City of Portland and State of Oregon, halting Trump’s deployment at least through Oct. 17, when she will hear arguments over whether to extend the restraining order.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote in her order.

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” she concluded. “Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation."...

-- Judge grants restraining order halting Trump’s deployment of Oregon National Guard, by Conrad Wilson, Oregon Public Broadcasting

AND SO, YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS WHERE THEY TOOK OVER PARTS OF SEATTLE, THEY ACTUALLY TOOK OVER A BIG PERCENTAGE OF SEATTLE. THINK OF THAT. YOU REMEMBER THAT? THAT WAS A WHILE AGO. AND I SENT IN THE TROOPS. AND THEY WERE GONE AS SOON AS I SENT THEM IN.

OH, WHEN WE SEND IN THE TROOPS, IF YOU HAVE A REAL LEADER THAT SAYS, "YOU GOT TO DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO," I PUT THAT OUT THE OTHER DAY. "YOU GOT TO DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO," BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT OUR PEOPLE HURT AS THEY STAND BY.

Speaking at a joint White House press conference following a meeting with Netanyahu, Trump said they were "beyond very close" to an elusive peace deal for the Palestinian enclave. But he warned the Islamist group Hamas that Israel would have full U.S. support to take whatever action it deemed necessary if the militants reject what he has offered.

-- Trump secures Netanyahu's agreement to Gaza deal but Hamas support in question, by Matt Spetalnick, Trevor Hunnicutt and Nidal Al-Mughrabi, Reuters, September 30, 2025

I WAS WATCHING DURING BIDEN. THEY HAD TROOPS STANDING UP LIKE THIS, BRAVE, STANDING UP AT ATTENTION, THE WAY I SHOULD STAND ALL THE TIME. AND I LIKE THIS. AND PEOPLE ARE STANDING. THEIR MOUTH IS THIS FAR AWAY FROM THEIR MOUTH, AND THEY'RE SPITTING AT THEM. THEY'RE SCREAMING AT THEM. AND THAT SOLDIER STANDING THERE, HE WANTS TO KNOCK THE HELL OUT OF THE PERSON, BUT HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING. SO THEY JUST STAND THERE, AND THEY GET ABUSED. AND THE WOMAN WAS THIS FAR AWAY FROM HIS FACE, AND SHE STARTS SPITTING IN HIS FACE, AND HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU GENERALS AND ADMIRALS, I'VE TAKEN THAT OFF. I SAY THEY SPIT, WE HIT. IS THAT OKAY? I THINK SO. THEY SPIT -- IT'S A IT'S A NEW THING -- THEY SPIT, WE HIT.

Short answer: I can’t find any credible, mainstream news reports of people spitting in U.S. soldiers’ faces during the Biden years (2021–Jan. 2025). If there’s a specific clip being cited, it’s likely misattributed or from a different time/place.

What is documented: after Biden left office, in Aug. 2025, a man in D.C. was arrested and charged for allegedly spitting on two National Guard soldiers near Union Station; later, a judge dismissed the felony case.

- chatgpt, 10/4/25

HOW ABOUT THE CARS, WHERE THE CARS ARE COMING OUT? THEY GET BRAND NEW CARS. BORDER PATROL, ICE, BEAUTIFUL, NICE NEW CARS. AND THEY'RE DRIVING ALONG, AND THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A GAUNTLET OF ROCKS BEING THROWN AT THE CAR. SO HERE'S THIS, BEAUTIFUL BRAND NEW CAR. BY THE TIME IT GOES 100 YARDS, IT'S DESTROYED. THESE GUYS HAVE PRETTY GOOD ARMS, SOME OF THEM, AND THEY'RE THROWING BRICKS AT FULL FORCE INTO THE WINDOW, AND INTO THE CAR. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A WAR ZONE. AND I SAID, "NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. FROM NOW ON, IF THAT EVER HAPPENS, AND I SAY IT HERE, YOU GET OUT OF THAT CAR, AND YOU CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO DO, BECAUSE YOU CAN DIE FROM THAT. THOSE BRICKS GO THROUGH THE WINDOWS, YOU CAN DIE." THEY'D LIKE IT TO. THEY'D LIKE IT TO GO THROUGH THE WINDOW. BUT THIS WAS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. THEY JUST KEPT DRIVING, AND BRICKS ARE HITTING THE CAR. AND I SAID, "WHY ARE THEY STOPPING?" BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDER ORDERS FROM THE PAST ADMINISTRATION TO NEVER STOP. BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT WITH US. WE STOP. AND SINCE I GAVE THAT ORDER, WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT PROBLEM. IT'S VERY INTERESTING. IT'S AMAZING.

Mostly no — with one kernel of truth.

What’s true

There have been recent incidents of rocks/bricks thrown at DHS vehicles and agents. Examples: Los Angeles–area protests where rocks were thrown at ICE/CBP vehicles (June 2025), and a man federally indicted for hurling cinderblock chunks at a Border Patrol vehicle, injuring an agent (Aug. 7, 2025). CBP also tracks “rock-throwing” in its assault/use-of-force stats.

What’s not supported / wrong

There’s no evidence of a Biden-era order telling agents to “never stop” if attacked. CBP’s use-of-force rules (in place for years and updated in 2014, 2021, 2023) require necessary, proportional force and tactical options (create distance, seek cover, etc.)—not “keep driving no matter what.”

Trump’s July 2025 “total authorization” rhetoric for ICE isn’t a legal green light to “do whatever you want.” The standing CBP/DHS policies still govern and do not permit retaliation.

“Since I gave that order, we haven’t had that problem” is false. After those remarks, there were further violent clashes—e.g., today in Chicago, DHS says agents were boxed in by cars and an armed woman was shot; DHS is deploying additional teams.

Claims about brand-new patrol cars regularly “destroyed” within 100 yards read as hyperbole; there are no corroborating mainstream reports of that pattern. (Individual damage incidents do occur, as above.)

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

IT'S JUST LIKE IN VENEZUELA. YOU'VE SEEN THE BOATS GOING. WE CAN'T FIND ANY MORE BOATS. THEY'RE CARRYING DRUGS. MASSIVE. EVERY BOAT KILLS ABOUT 25,000 PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE. THEY HAVE FENTANYL MOSTLY, AND A LOT OF OTHER DRUGS. AND WE TAKE THEM OUT. AND IT'S ON AIR. EVERYBODY GETS TO SEE IT. NOT THAT WE LIKE TO DO THAT, BUT EVERY BOAT KILLS 25,000, ON AVERAGE 20. SOME PEOPLE SAY MORE. YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THESE BOATS STACKED UP WITH BAGS OF WHITE POWDER. THAT'S MOSTLY FENTANYL, AND OTHER DRUGS, TOO. AND NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM. GENERAL KEANE SAYS, "SIR, THERE ARE NO BOATS OUT THERE, NOT EVEN FISHING BOATS. THEY DON'T WANT TO GO FISHING." I DON'T BLAME THEM. THERE'LL BE NO FISHING TODAY, YOU KNOW. BUT IT'S AMAZING WHAT STRENGTH WILL DO, BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS STOP DRUGS FROM FLOWING INTO OUR COUNTRY. IT'S DESTROYING -- WE LOST 300,000 PEOPLE DIED LAST YEAR. EVERYBODY KNOWS FRIENDS. MANY FRIENDS, PROBABLY, THAT YOU LOST A CHILD, OR ADULTS TOO. BUT YOU LOST A SON OR DAUGHTER BECAUSE OF WHAT'S COMING INTO OUR BORDER. AND WE'RE MAKING IT VERY HARD. OH, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED YET.

Short answer: there are a few real things mixed in, but most of this is wrong or wildly exaggerated.

U.S. strikes on suspected drug boats near Venezuela did happen (Sept–Oct 2025). The Pentagon publicized several interdictions/strikes; officials claimed the boats carried narcotics, though independent proof of quantities is thin because the vessels were destroyed.

“Every boat kills ~25,000 people” — no. That’s the familiar theoretical lethality talking point (multiplying a seizure’s weight by an assumed lethal dose). It’s not a real death toll. Also, most maritime “white powder” hauls in the Caribbean/Eastern Pacific are cocaine, not fentanyl; fentanyl overwhelmingly enters via land ports of entry, often in cars/trucks, not go-fast boats.

“No boats out there… not even fishing boats” (attributed to Gen. Keane) — unverified. I can’t find any credible record of Jack Keane saying that, and routine Coast Guard bulletins show plenty of interdictions and normal maritime activity continuing.

“We lost 300,000 people died last year” — false. CDC’s provisional data put U.S. drug overdose deaths at roughly 76–100k over the latest 12-month periods, not 300k, and they’ve been declining through 2025.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

LAST MONTH, I SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PROVIDE TRAINING FOR QUICK REACTION FORCE THAT CAN HELP QUELL CIVIL DISTURBANCES. THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG THING FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, BECAUSE IT'S THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN. AND WE HAVE TO HANDLE IT BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL. "IT WON'T GET OUT OF CONTROL ONCE YOU'RE INVOLVED AT ALL," THEY ALL JOKE. THEY SAY, "OH, THIS IS NOT GOOD." YOU SAW IT IN WASHINGTON. WE HAD GANGS OF TREN DE ARAGUA. 10, 12, 15 KIDS. AND THESE MILITARY GUYS WALK UP TO THEM, AND THEY TREAT THEM WITH DISRESPECT. AND THEY JUST GOT POUNDED. THEY JUST GOT POUNDED. THE GANG JUST POUNDED, AND THROWN INTO PADDY WAGONS, AND TAKEN BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY. SOME ARE SO DANGEROUS, WE DON'T WANT TO EVEN DO THAT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT SOME STONE COLD MURDERERS. WE DON'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK VERY EASILY, WE DON'T HAVE THE CONFIDENCE. WE PUT THEM IN JAILS.

BUT THESE SERVICE MEMBERS ARE FOLLOWING IN A GREAT AND STORIED MILITARY TRADITION, FROM PROTECTING FRONTIER COMMUNITIES, TO CHASING OUTLAWS AND BANDITS IN THE WILD WEST. AND OUR HISTORY IS FILLED WITH MILITARY HEROES WHO TOOK ON ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. YOU KNOW THAT PHRASE VERY WELL. THAT'S WHAT THE OATH SAYS, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. WELL, WE ALSO HAVE DOMESTIC.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, GROVER CLEVELAND, GEORGE BUSH, AND OTHERS, ALL USE THE ARMED FORCES TO KEEP DOMESTIC ORDER IN PEACE. MANY OF OUR LEADERS USED THE MILITARY TO KEEP PEACE. NOW THEY LIKE TO SAY, "OH, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE MILITARY." AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY, THE PEOPLE IN THOSE CITIES WHERE THEY'RE BEING RAPED, AND SHOT, AND BEAT UP, YOU KNOW? THEY SAY, "WE LOVE THE MILITARY." YOU EVER SEE WHERE THEY'RE INTERVIEWED? THE PEOPLE ON THE STREET, THEY'VE NEVER SEEN SOMEBODY SAY THEY DON'T, UNLESS THEY'RE RADICAL AND PAID OFF, BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE INSURRECTIONISTS ARE PAID BY WHETHER IT'S SOROS OR OTHER PEOPLE, BUT THEY'RE PAID BY THE RADICAL LEFT.

Law, not myth: It’s not true that a president is “not allowed” to use the military at home—he can, but only under narrow statutes. The Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal troops from civilian law-enforcement, except when laws like the Insurrection Act are invoked.

False/unsupported: The line that “insurrectionists are paid by Soros/the radical left” lacks credible evidence; repeated claims that protesters are paid by Soros have been debunked by independent fact-checkers.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

SO TODAY, I WANT TO THANK EVERY SERVICE MEMBER, FROM GENERAL TO PRIVATE, WHO HAS BRAVELY HELPED US SECURE THE NATION'S CAPITAL, AND MAKE AMERICA SAFE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT'S AMAZING. THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING EVERYBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY COME UP TO ME, YOUNG WOMEN: "SIR, THANK YOU." I KNOW IMMEDIATELY WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. THEY DON'T HAVE TO SAY IT. THEY WALK TO WORK NOW, TO THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CRIME IN WASHINGTON IN SO LONG, BECAUSE WE GOT THE "CAREERS" -- WE CALL THEM, THE "CAREERS," -- WE GOT THESE LUNATICS OUT. AND THEY'LL NEVER BE ANY GOOD.

YOU KNOW, I HATE TO TELL THIS TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA. "YOU COULD SPEND TIME WITH THEM. YOU COULD DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. YOU COULD SEND THEM TO THE FINEST SCHOOLS, WHICH THEY COULDN'T GET INTO ANYWAY. MENTALLY, THEY COULDN'T GET IN. BUT NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, THEY'LL NEVER BE GOOD. THEY'RE BAD. THEY'RE "CAREER" CRIMINALS. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY. SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ME TO SAY THAT, BUT MAYBE THEY WERE. CERTAINLY SOME WERE TOGETHER WITH THE LEADERS HERE TODAY.

WE'RE ALSO RESTORING A NEEDED FOCUS ON DEFEATING THREATS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE. THROUGHOUT THIS REGION, CARTEL TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WAGE A DESTRUCTION ON OUR COUNTRY, ALL BECAUSE WE HAD WEAK LEADERSHIP ON TOP. AND WE DID A GREAT JOB WITH IT FIRST TERM. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE. WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, WE'RE TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL, PROBABLY NEXT LEVEL TIMES THREE. BUT WE HAD COVID COME UP, AND WE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. WE DID A GREAT JOB WITH COVID. WE HAD THE THERAPEUTICS, GEIST [GILEAD], REGENERON, SO MANY THINGS WE DID FOR COVID. BUT WE HAD TO FOCUS ON THAT. AND EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WAS BEING DECIMATED BY COVID, SO WE HAD TO CHANGE GEAR A LITTLE BIT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.

What’s exaggerated or false

“We did a great job with COVID.” That’s opinion; the U.S. suffered one of the world’s highest death tolls. By Jan 15, 2021 (days before Trump left office), ~389,000 Americans had died; 2021 ultimately recorded 460,513 more deaths.

“Every other country was being decimated.” Many countries were hit hard, but the U.S. was among the worst-affected in absolute deaths and high among wealthy nations in per-capita mortality during waves of 2020–21.

Important context Trump leaves out

Early testing failure: The initial CDC test kit was flawed, delaying U.S. diagnostics and obscuring spread. GAO/OIG detail process and quality-control breakdowns.

Mixed public messaging: Trump at times downplayed the virus and floated unsound ideas (e.g., the April 23, 2020 “disinfectant” remarks), undercutting public-health guidance.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

BUT UNDER OUR LEADERSHIP, THE MILITARY IS NOW THE KNIFE'S EDGE IN COMBATING THIS SINISTER ENEMY. WE HAVE TO PUT THE TRAFFICKERS AND CARTELS ON NOTICE, AND WE'VE DONE THAT, AND WE PUT THEM A LOT OF THEM, WE'VE CALLED THEM A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A BIG THING TO DO. NOBODY'S DONE IT, BUT I'VE DONE IT WITH A LOT OF THEM. IT GIVES YOU A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE. "IF YOU TRY TO POISON OUR PEOPLE, WE WILL BLOW YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE." BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY LANGUAGE THEY REALLY UNDERSTAND. THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE ANY MORE BOATS ON THE OCEAN. YOU DON'T SEE ANY BOATS AROUND VENEZUELA. THERE'S NOTHING.

AS PRESIDENT, I WILL NEVER HESITATE TO DEFEND OUR PEOPLE FROM THREATS OF VIOLENCE, FROM THE HORRIBLE PLAGUE THAT'S TAKING PLACE FROM WITHIN THE IRAN NUCLEAR POWER, THE IRAN, ALL OF THE GREAT POWER THAT WE THOUGHT EXISTED. WE BLEW IT OUT TO KINGDOM. WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT. AND WE JUST REALLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT. AND IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL THING TO SEE. AND THAT'S WHAT MILITARY POWER CAN ACHIEVE.

The assertion that Iran posed no nuclear threat before the 12-Day War is contested. While Iran maintained its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, it had enriched uranium to 60%, just below weapons-grade, and by June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported Iran had enough enriched uranium for nine nuclear warheads.

However, both US intelligence and the IAEA concluded shortly before the war began on June 13, 2025, that Iran had not decided to restart its nuclear weapons program, which had been halted in 2003.

Despite this, Israel viewed Iran's nuclear advancements as an existential threat, with Mossad claiming Iran could produce a nuclear weapon within 15 days.

Analysts noted that the key factor was the political decision to weaponize, for which there was no credible evidence prior to the conflict.

Nevertheless, Iran's readiness to build nuclear weapons had been significantly advanced through a long-term program designed to shorten the timeline for weaponization, even if the final decision had not been made.

-- google ai, 10/4/25

THAT'S WHY I CHOSE RAISING CAINE. HE'S FANTASTIC, BY THE WAY. I HOPE YOU ALL AGREE. IF ANYBODY DISAGREES, COULD I PLEASE HAVE YOUR HAND? WHO DISAPPEARS AT RAISING CAINE IS NO GOOD. JUST RAISE YOUR HAND. I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED. ALL RIGHT, THAT MEANS YOU'RE OKAY. THAT MEANS THAT HE'S OKAY NOW.

I have heard that somebody had stood up while Khrushchev was listing the torture systems and the murderings that had gone on [under Stalin] and shouted "Well, if he was so bad, why didn't you get rid of him?" And Khrushchev stopped and said, "Who said that?" And there was silence in the hall. So he repeated himself. "Who said that?" And there was still silence, and he said, "Well, now you understand why we didn't do anything."

--Telling the Story of Krushchev's Anti-Stalin Tirade, by NPR, February 25, 2006

BUT I SAW HIS RESULTS. HE TOOK OUT ISIS. I WAS TOLD IT WAS GOING TO TAKE FOUR YEARS. IT TOOK FOUR WEEKS. I WENT TO SEE HIM, AND HE TOOK HIM OUT IN FOUR WEEKS. KNOCKED HIM OUT; KNOCKED HIM TO HELL. AND I WAS TOLD BY MILITARY PEOPLE IT WAS GOING TO TAKE 4 TO 5 YEARS TO DO IT. "AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE'LL HAVE IT THEN. SIR." THESE WERE THE WASHINGTON GENERALS. I CALL THEM THE GENERALS. BUT RAISING CAINE DID IT IN FOUR WEEKS, TOOK OUT 100% OF THE ISIS CALIPHATE.

The claim, more precisely, is:

“General Caine took out ISIS. I was told it would take four years. It took four weeks. He knocked out 100% of the ISIS caliphate in four weeks.”

In other words: Caine allegedly achieved total elimination of ISIS’s caliphate in one month, far faster than military projections of several years.

What the factual record supports — and what is contradicted

Caine “took out ISIS” / destroyed the caliphate Caine was one of many officers in the U.S.-led coalition. He did not have sole command over the campaign.

There is no credible evidence that the main territorial defeat of ISIS occurred in a single four-week period. The campaign against ISIS and reconquest of territory from 2014 onward was a multi-year effort.

Even after ISIS lost its major territory, the group continued to operate in other forms (insurgency, cells, affiliates). So “100% eliminated” is not accurate in operational or strategic terms.

Some projections and public commentary did suggest that finishing off remaining territory or stabilizing liberated zones would take months or years.

Trump has publicly repeated stories that Caine told him ISIS could be defeated quickly (in a week, or in weeks) if rules or tactics were changed.

However, independent verification of that claim is weak or nonexistent, and Caine himself has not publicly confirmed these dramatic versions.

In Trump’s retelling, he claims that when meeting Caine (or “Razin Caine”) at an Iraqi base, Caine said that by changing tactics, the remaining ISIS territory could be eliminated in one week.

But fact-checking sources note that Trump’s version clashes with public statements by military or policy officials, who estimated “a period of months” for the last scraps of territory.

Also, public documents and credible analyses do not support that the ISIS territorial defeat occurred suddenly in a month.

Verdict (with “General Caine” in mind)

It is not true that General Caine personally “took out ISIS” in a four-week blitz and eliminated 100% of the caliphate by himself.

The claim is a significant exaggeration, mixing a real figure (Caine) with an overstated narrative about timeline and scope.

While Caine may have been involved in operations against ISIS and may have made optimistic statements or been portrayed in political rhetoric as doing so, the claim as stated is not grounded in credible documentary or historical evidence.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

AS A RESULT OF THESE ACTIONS, AND MANY OTHERS SINCE MY INAUGURATION, WE'RE WITNESSING THE TRIUMPHANT RETURN OF PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH. WE HAVE GREAT PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH. AMERICA IS RESPECTED AGAIN AS A COUNTRY. WE WERE NOT RESPECTED WITH BIDEN. THEY LOOKED AT HIM FALLING DOWN STAIRS EVERY DAY. EVERY DAY THE GUY IS FALLING DOWN STAIRS. HE SAID, "IT'S NOT OUR PRESIDENT. WE CAN'T HAVE IT." I'M VERY CAREFUL. YOU KNOW, WHEN I WALK DOWN STAIRS, LIKE THESE STAIRS, I WALK VERY SLOWLY. NOBODY HAS TO SET A RECORD. JUST TRY NOT TO FALL, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK OUT WELL. A FEW OF OUR PRESIDENTS HAVE FALLEN, AND IT BECAME A PART OF THEIR LEGACY. "WE DON'T WANT THAT. WALK NICE AND EASY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SET ANY RECORD. BE COOL. BE COOL WHEN YOU WALK DOWN." BUT DON'T POP DOWN THE STAIRS. SO ONE THING WITH OBAMA, I HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR HIM AS A PRESIDENT, BUT HE WOULD BOP DOWN THOSE STAIRS. I'VE NEVER SEEN: BOP BOP BOP. HE'D GO DOWN THE STAIRS, WOULDN'T HOLD ON. I SAID, "IT'S GREAT. I DON'T WANT TO DO IT." I GUESS I COULD DO IT, BUT EVENTUALLY BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, AND IT ONLY TAKES ONCE. BUT HE DID A LOUSY JOB AS PRESIDENT A YEAR AGO. WE WERE A DEAD COUNTRY. WE WERE DEAD. THIS COUNTRY WAS GOING TO HELL. WE WERE DEAD IN EVERY WAY, FROM IMMIGRATION TO MILITARY. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE WEAPONS. WE'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING TO UKRAINE. WE HAD NOTHING.

AND BY THE WAY, I HAVE TO TELL YOU NOW, AS YOU KNOW, I WENT OVER AND I MET WITH NATO, AND NATO RAISED FROM 2 TO 5, WHICH EVERYONE SAID 5% OF GDP: MILLIONS. AND NOW TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE POURING IN. THEY DIDN'T PAY THE 2% BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE WERE THERE TO PAY IT, AND NOW THEY PAID THE 5%. THAT'S TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND WE'RE NOT SPENDING ANY MONEY ON THAT WAR, NOT $0.10. WE SELL OUR EQUIPMENT TO NATO. NATO PAYS US FOR THE EQUIPMENT, AND THEY GIVE IT TO UKRAINE, OR WHOEVER THEY GIVE IT TO. BUT THEY CAN KEEP IT. BUT WE'RE NOT INVOLVED. WE HAVE NO MONEY GOING OUT. BIDEN GAVE $350 BILLION, NOT SUSTAINABLE, 350 BILLION. AND WE HAVE A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED. BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT ANYMORE.

It is not correct that NATO members have instantly jumped from 2% to 5% across the board. The 5% is a future target, not an immediate conversion.

Many nations currently still spend less than 2% of GDP on defense.

The idea that they “refused to pay 2%” is hyperbolic; defense spending decisions are complex, reflect national budgets, and many NATO members were already trying (or failing) to meet 2%.

NATO spending is large and rising, but “trillions” (in U.S. dollars) poured immediately is an exaggeration. The scale of defense budgets is high, but this statement overstates the speed and magnitude.

The commitment is incremental, with plans and roadmaps over years (by 2035) to reach the 5% goal.

“We’re not spending any money on that war, not $0.10”. This is clearly false. The U.S. is spending money on supporting Ukraine, directly and indirectly. Many fact-checkers have called out claims by U.S. leaders that “we’re not spending on it” as misleading or false.

The U.S. has provided substantial military, financial, and logistical aid to Ukraine.

Even if the U.S. offloads some costs onto NATO partners via equipment transactions, that doesn’t mean U.S. spending is zero.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW WE'RE SELLING EQUIPMENT. OUR PEOPLE ARE BUYING EQUIPMENT. THEY'RE BUYING. THEY ARE BUYING THE EQUIPMENT AT FULL PRICE, A FAIR PRICE. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE'RE MAKING MONEY, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY, I DON'T WANT TO BE MAKING MONEY ON A WAR. IT'S TOO MANY PEOPLE DYING. THEY'RE LOSING 7,000 SOLDIERS A WEEK. A LOT OF THEM ARE RUSSIAN SOLDIERS. BUT BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, MOSTLY SOLDIERS, BY THE WAY. SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, IN KYIV, THEY'LL LOB A MISSILE IN, OR SOME DRONES, AND KILL SOME PEOPLE. BUT MOSTLY IT'S SOLDIERS. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE ARE LOSING 7,000 SOULS. AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT AMERICAN. THEY'RE NOT US. THEY'RE NOT YOU OR I HAVE A SPECIAL OBLIGATION. BUT THEY'RE SOLDIERS. THEY'RE YOUNG PEOPLE. THEY LEAVE THEIR PARENTS, THEY WAVE GOODBYE, AND THEN TWO DAYS LATER, THEY'RE BLOWN UP SO UNNECESSARILY. AND SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASON I WANT TO GET IT DONE. WE GOT TO GET IT DONE. IT'S CRAZY WHAT'S GOING ON. THAT'S THE WORST WAR THAT THERE'S BEEN SINCE WORLD WAR TWO. THE NUMBER OF SOLDIERS THAT ARE BEING KILLED THERE IS JUST CRAZY. FROM 5 TO 7000 SOLDIERS DIE A WEEK. THINK OF THAT. SO I THINK WE'LL GET THAT DONE. BUT THAT'S TURNED OUT TO BE THE TOUGHEST ONE.

If 5,000 to 7,000 deaths per week were happening continually, that would amount to ~260,000 to ~364,000 deaths per year, which is extremely high relative to all published estimates. There is no credible source saying the war is seeing that rate of soldier deaths each week persistently.

Some spikes in combat (heavy battles) could produce very high casualty counts in a short period, but even then, the numbers reported publicly tend to be lower, or ambiguous (mixing killed, wounded, missing).

For example: in the Battle of Bakhmut in early 2023, sources reported extremely heavy losses — in one month, the fighting was described as among the bloodiest — but the reported peak “per day” figures (for example, “400 Ukrainian soldiers killed per day” in some accounts) do not reliably scale to 5,000–7,000 per week.

In a detailed piece by Meduza and Mediazona, they cite that during the fiercest periods in Bakhmut, Russian forces may have lost up to ~1,500 troops per week (in that sector) at peak periods.

Thus, the “5,000 to 7,000 per week” figure is much higher than what appears credible given available data.

Comparison: “worst war since WWII”

The war in Ukraine is sometimes described as one of the deadliest in Europe since WWII in terms of destruction, displacement, and loss of life. Some commentators use that phrase, especially in media or political rhetoric.

However, comparing wars is complex — there have been many brutal conflicts (e.g. Korean War, Vietnam War, various civil wars, etc.). Whether Ukraine is the worst since WWII depends on which metrics: military deaths, civilian deaths, displacement, geographical scale, etc.

So the “worst war since World War II” is more of a rhetorical statement than a precise claim. It is not obviously false, but it’s not a narrowly provable fact, because “worst” is subjective unless you specify what is being measured.

chatgpt, 10/4/25

I'M SO DISAPPOINTED IN PRESIDENT PUTIN. I THOUGHT HE WOULD GET THIS THING OVER WITH. HE SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT WAR DONE IN A WEEK. AND I SAID TO HIM, "YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T LOOK GOOD. YOU'RE FOUR YEARS FIGHTING A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A WEEK. ARE YOU A PAPER TIGER?" AND IT'S A SHAME, BUT I THINK EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET THAT ONE DONE. JUST LIKE WE IN THEORY -- I WANT TO KNOCK ON WOOD BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW -- IT'S LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MIDDLE EAST DONE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A MUCH HARDER THING TO DO. I MEAN, THOUSANDS OF YEARS. BUT WE HAVE TO GET THAT WAR DONE.

That statement — “Putin should have had that war done in a week … I said to him, ‘Are you a paper tiger?’” — is not supported by any credible record and is almost certainly false or fictionalized.

Let’s unpack each part carefully:

1. “I said to him…” — Did Trump (or any Western leader) say this directly to Putin during the Ukraine war?

No credible source confirms that.

There is no record — in White House transcripts, Kremlin readouts, or major press coverage — of Donald Trump (or any U.S. leader) directly telling Vladimir Putin anything like this about the war in Ukraine.

After leaving office in January 2021, there wasn’t verifiable evidence of direct Trump–Putin contact between Jan 2021 and the Aug 2025 summit.

If Trump had told Putin he was a “paper tiger,” that would have been major international news. No reporting (Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT, or TASS) supports it.

So: the “I said to him” part is almost certainly fabricated for rhetorical or dramatic effect.

2. “He should have had that war done in a week.”

This is a gross oversimplification and doesn’t match what happened militarily.

Russia’s initial invasion plan (February 2022) did assume a rapid collapse of Ukraine — possibly within days to a few weeks — with a goal of seizing Kyiv and replacing its government.

That plan failed completely. Ukrainian resistance, logistical breakdowns, and intelligence errors turned the war into a prolonged and costly stalemate.

So it’s true that Russia’s military expected a quick victory, but false that it could ever have been “done in a week” given the scale of Ukraine’s defenses and NATO support.

The idea that “he should have had it done in a week” is political hyperbole, not a factual assessment.

3. “You’re four years fighting a war…”

This is chronologically wrong.

The full-scale invasion began February 24, 2022.

As of October 2025, that’s about 3 years and 8 months, not 4 full years.

Before that, there had been fighting in Donbas since 2014, but not an all-out war involving the entire Ukrainian state.

So even if you stretch the timeline, it’s not yet four years — another sign that this is casual speech, not a statement of fact.

4. “Are you a paper tiger?”

No verifiable record of anyone saying this to Putin exists. It appears to be rhetorical bravado — Trump often uses dramatized “dialogue” in speeches (“I told Xi,” “I told Kim,” etc.) as a storytelling device.

Fact-checkers have repeatedly documented similar lines where Trump claims to have said things to world leaders that were never confirmed by those leaders or by official logs.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

SO NOW WE'RE JUST, THINK OF IT, WE'RE A DEAD COUNTRY. I WAS WITH THE KING OF SAUDI ARABIA, GREAT GUY. I WAS WITH THE EMIR OF QATAR. I WAS WITH THE GREAT LEADERSHIP OF UAE. I WAS OVER THERE. [u]WE BROUGHT BACK $2 TRILLION AND MORE. THEY ORDERED 200 PLANES, BOEINGS. THEY ORDERED SO MUCH, AND THEY WERE GREAT, BUT THEY ALL SAID ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING. THEY SAID ONE YEAR AGO YOU WERE A DEAD COUNTRY, AND NOW YOU'RE THE HOTTEST COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. [/u]

What is true or partly verifiable

Large deals / orders of Boeing aircraft

During Trump’s May 2025 Middle East tour, there were significant aircraft orders from Gulf countries. For example:

• Qatar Airways placed a firm order for 160 Boeing 777X/787 jets (with options) worth about $96 billion during Trump’s visit.
• The UAE’s Etihad committed to a $14.5 billion order for Boeing aircraft.
• Saudi-owned AviLease (a leasing arm tied to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund) placed an order for up to 30 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft.

So yes, there are real aircraft orders being announced in that period.

The White House has claimed that over $2 trillion in investment and deal‐commitments were secured during Trump’s Gulf trip, citing Saudi, Qatar, and UAE deals.

But media and independent analysts have noted that a lot of those “trillions” are nonbinding memoranda of understanding, pledges, or long-term commitments, rather than actual money instantly exchanged.

Some reporters estimate that the sum of concrete deals is more modest (e.g. ~$700 billion) when you parse what is binding vs what is aspirational.

So, the core kernel—that big deals and pledges were made with Gulf states, including aircraft purchases—is rooted in actual announcements.

“We’re a dead country … one year ago you were a dead country, now you’re the hottest country anywhere in the world.”

“Dead country” is rhetorical — there’s no independent evidence to support that Gulf states thought the U.S. was “dead” a year ago, or used that phrase.

The “hottest country in the world” phrase is also hyperbole. It’s a political flourish, not an objective metric.

“We brought back $2 trillion and more. They ordered 200 planes. They ordered so much.”

The assertion that $2 trillion was “brought back” is questionable, because many of the figures are projected, pledged, or not yet executed deals.

“They ordered 200 planes” is plausible in the context of multiple large orders across different airlines or states, but “200 planes” is a rounded figure, and not all those orders may be firm or binding.

Also, the timeline is vague: many of these aircraft will take years to be built and delivered.

“They all said essentially the same thing.”

There is no credible reporting or public record that Saudi, Qatar, and UAE leadership each said “you were a dead country, now you’re hottest” in those words. That seems like rhetorical framing.

-- chatgpt, 10/4/25

WE ARE. WE'RE THE HOTTEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW, THE ABSOLUTE HOTTEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. THERE'S NOBODY EVEN CLOSE. PUTIN SAID THAT TO ME. WE MET IN ALASKA. WE HAD A GOOD MEETING.

My conclusion

Partially true: the phrase “we’ve become the hottest country anywhere in the world” was used at the Alaska summit as part of the remarks.

Not fully accurate: there is no clear evidence that Putin used the exact phrase “you’re the hottest country” to Trump.

Mostly rhetorical / exaggeration: calling it “the hottest country in the world” and “nobody even close” is political boastfulness rather than an empirically backed statement.

-- chat gpt,10/4/25

THEN HE WENT BACK AND STARTED SENDING DRONES INTO KYIV. I SAID, "I THOUGHT WE HAD A GOOD MEETING." BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS. BUT WE WERE A DEAD COUNTRY A YEAR AGO, AND NOW WE'RE THE HOTTEST COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THINK OF THAT. YOU COULD BE PROUD OF THAT. AND YOU MUST HAVE FELT LIKE HELL WHEN YOU HAVE A WIFE, OR A HUSBAND AT HOME, AND YOU USED TO READ THE NUMBERS THAT WE CAN'T GET PEOPLE TO JOIN THE ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, COAST GUARD. YOU MUST HAVE FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, "I HAVE A JOB THAT NOBODY WANTS THAT DOESN'T FEEL GOOD." WELL, NOW YOU HAVE A JOB THAT IS BRIMMING OVER WITH PEOPLE WANTING IT. THEY WANT IT. AND YOU'RE ABLE TO GET A MUCH HIGHER QUALITY BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE YOUR CHOICE.

YOU KNOW, YOU WANT SO MANY, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MANY, MANY PEOPLE THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO JOIN BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED THEM AT THIS MOMENT. BUT THINK OF IT, WHAT A DIFFERENCE THAT IS FROM -- I COULD JUST IMAGINE TWO YEARS AGO, YOU'RE READING FRONT PAGE ARTICLES IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, OF COURSE, AND WALL STREET JOURNAL. THEY ALWAYS GIVE US UNFAIR STORIES. BUT THEY PLAYED IT SO BIG, THEY WERE PLAYING IT SO BIG. "NOBODY WANTS TO JOIN THE ARMY, THE MARINES, THE AIR FORCE. THEY DON'T WANT TO JOIN. THEY DON'T WANT TO JOIN THE COAST GUARD AT ALL. NOBODY WANTS TO JOIN. NOBODY WANTS TO JOIN OUR POLICE FORCES ALSO." IT ALMOST WENT HAND IN HAND. AND I USED TO SAY, "BOY, YOU KNOW, I'M SPEAKING IN FRONT OF THE MILITARY TODAY, AND IT'S EMBARRASSING, BECAUSE I'M SPEAKING IN FRONT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A JOB THAT OTHER PEOPLE DON'T WANT. BUT NOW YOU HAVE A JOB THAT EVERYBODY WANTS. SO I THINK THAT HAS TO MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I LOVE BEING HERE TODAY, BECAUSE I HAVE TO SAY THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE IN THE ARMY, THE NAVY, THE AIR FORCE, THE MARINES. IF YOU THINK THE COAST GUARD AND SPACE FORCE ARE BEAUTIFUL, SPACE FORCE, IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD. AND NOW THEY'RE SIGNING UP.

BY THE WAY, SERIOUSLY BIG NUMBERS FOR THE POLICE. DANGEROUS JOB, ISN'T IT? FIRE DEPARTMENT. BUT THAT'S THE PAVING THE WAY FOR PROGRESS ONCE THOUGHT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. I MEAN, A YEAR AGO, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAS POSSIBLE. A YEAR AGO, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THE MILITARY SMALLER, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET THE PEOPLE TO JOIN. AND IT'S NICE TO BE ABLE TO CUT PEOPLE, BECAUSE OF MERIT, THAT AREN'T REALLY QUALIFIED FOR ANY REASON, A PHYSICAL REASON, A MENTAL REASON. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THEM ANYMORE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE PICK OF THE LITTER. AND THEY ALL WANT TO BE WITH YOU. THEY ALL WANT YOUR JOB. THEY WANT TO BE WITH YOU. THEY WANT TO WORK WITH YOU. THEY'LL EVEN TAKE YOUR JOB, YOU KNOW. GOT TO BE A LITTLE BIT SHARP. YOU GOT TO WATCH IT. BUT EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE WHEN I SPEAK TO YOU. AND I CAN SAY THAT AS OPPOSED TO A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS TALKING TO ROOMS WHERE THEY WERE DESPERATE TO GET PEOPLE, AND THEY COULDN'T GET THEM, WHAT A DIFFERENCE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAN MAKE. THAT'S ALL IT IS. IT'S JUST A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

YESTERDAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE, WE PUT FORWARD A PLAN FOR PEACE IN GAZA. WE ANNOUNCED IT, AND WE'RE GOING TO CREATE SOMETHING. THAT WAS MY IDEA, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I GOT DRAFTED. IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED THE BOARD OF PEACE, AND IT'S GOING TO REIGN OVER THAT TERRITORY. AND WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT DONE. AND THEY ASKED IF I'D BE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PEACE. I WASN'T COUNTING ON THAT. I HAD THE IDEA FOR THE BOARD OF PEACE, BUT I SAID YES. AND I GUESS, BECAUSE OF THAT, EVERY LEADER, EVERY EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE ON THE BOARD OF PEACE. AND WE'RE GOING TO WATCH OVER THAT VERY VOLATILE PART OF THE WORLD AND KEEP IT NONVOLATILE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET INVOLVED. WE WANT TO SAVE YOU FOR OTHER THINGS, OR SAVE YOU FOR NOTHING. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, WE DON'T WANT YOU FIGHTING WARS, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO, YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE MOST LETHAL FIGHTING FORCE IN THE WORLD. AND I WOULD SAY THAT EVEN 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO, BUT NOW I SAY IT WITH GREAT ENTHUSIASM. IT'S SO TRUE.

AND WE'RE STRIVING TIRELESSLY TO END THE TERRIBLE WAR IN UKRAINE. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALSO WORKING HARD TO GET THE ALLIES TO SHARE MORE OF THE BURDEN OF OUR DEFENSE. MUCH OF THAT IS REALLY ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. BUT ALL NATO MEMBERS HAVE COMMITTED TO THE INCREASE THAT I TALKED ABOUT. THINK OF THAT. THAT WAS UNTHINKABLE. IT USED TO BE 1%, AND WE GOT IT UP TO 2% IN MY LAST TERM. AND THEY DID NOT LIKE IT. AND NOW I GOT IT TO 5%. AND I GET ALONG GREAT WITH ALL OF THEM. IN FACT, THEY CALL ME "THE PRESIDENT OF NATO." I SAID, "I DON'T THINK SO." BUT THEY'RE GREAT. THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE. AND THEY'RE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY, AND A LOT OF MONEY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPENDING IN THE PAST. BUT I THINK PUTIN WAS A WAKE UP CALL FOR THEM, REALLY.

WE'RE NOW SELLING LARGE QUANTITIES OF AMERICAN MADE WEAPONS TO NATO, AND WE'RE GETTING REALLY FAIR PRICING, MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. IT'S MY HOPE THAT FROM EUROPE, TO ASIA, TO THE MIDDLE EAST, OUR ALLIES WILL MAKE SIMILAR COMMITMENTS TO INCREASE THEIR MILITARY CAPABILITIES. AND THIS WILL GREATLY STRENGTHEN OUR ALLIANCES. AND ALSO IT WILL MAKE WAR FAR LESS LIKELY.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE A STRONG PRESENCE LIKE WE ARE, WE ARE SUCH A STRONG PRESENCE NOW, AND I GO AROUND BRAGGING, AND I SAID, "WE HAVE THE STRONGEST MILITARY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD." I SAY, "YOU NEVER HEARD BIDEN SAY THAT." NEVER HEARD HIM SAY ANYTHING, BUT DID YOU EVER HEAR HIM SAY, "WE HAVE THE STRONGEST MILITARY?" HE DOESN'T SAY THAT. I SAY IT.

WE HAVE THE STRONGEST MILITARY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE GREAT LEADERSHIP. AND I'LL TELL YOU: PETE, AND GENERAL CAINE, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE MET THAT HAVE BEEN LIFTED UP IN RANK, AND WE GOT MANY OF THEM OUT OF HERE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, DIDN'T LIKE DOING IT, BUT WE GOT MANY OF YOU OUT OF HERE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SATISFIED. WE HAVE, WE KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYBODY.

IT WILL ALSO HELP THE UNITED STATES RAPIDLY REBUILD OUR DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE. EACH OF YOU CAN PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN GETTING ALLIES TO DO THEIR PART. SO TO THAT END, SECRETARY HEGSETH WILL SOON BE ANNOUNCING MAJOR REFORMS TO STREAMLINE MILITARY ACQUISITIONS, AND EXPEDITE FOREIGN MILITARY SALES. WE HAVE TREMENDOUS NUMBERS OF COUNTRIES THAT WANT TO BUY OUR EQUIPMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, IN MANY CASES IT TAKES TOO LONG. THEY HAVE BACKLOG. WE'RE BACKLOGGED ON ALL THE EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEW TO US A LITTLE BIT. AND I TOLD THOSE COMPANIES, "YOU BETTER GET GOING, BECAUSE WE'RE SELLING YOU A LOT OF EQUIPMENT. WE'RE GETTING COUNTRIES TO BUY YOUR EQUIPMENT. YOU GOT TO PRODUCE THE EQUIPMENT." SOME OF THE COUNTRIES I'M NOT GOING TO MENTION, BUT SOME OF THE COUNTRIES ARE BUYING A LOT, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. THEY'RE ON OUR SIDE 95%. I'LL NEVER SAY 100%, BECAUSE THEY CAN ALWAYS TURN RIGHT. YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT. BUT THEY'RE ON OUR SIDE.

THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE TO GET THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THIS EQUIPMENT, AND WE MAKE THE BEST EQUIPMENT IN THE WORLD, BUT THEY GOT TO MAKE IT FASTER. WE HAVE ORDERS FOR THE F-35. WE HAVE ORDERS FOR EVERYTHING. THE NEW F 47. WE HAVE ORDERS FOR EVERYTHING. THEY'VE GOT TO MAKE IT FASTER, A LOT FASTER AMMUNITION. THEY HAVE TO MAKE FASTER.

IN THE COMING MONTHS, WE'LL BE MAKING EVEN MORE HISTORIC ANNOUNCEMENTS TO FULLY EMBRACE THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR. I LOVE THE NAME. I THINK IT'S SO GREAT. I THINK IT STOPS WARS. THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR IS GOING TO STOP WARS. IF WE ARE AS RUTHLESS AND RELENTLESS AS OUR ENEMIES, THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES WILL BE TOTALLY UNMATCHED IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE A GROUP OF ENEMIES THAT ARE VERY RUTHLESS, AND VERY SMART, BUT THEY CAN'T MATCH US. THEY CAN'T MATCH US. THEY DON'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING US.

During the 1960s, Miles Copeland, a former CIA officer, expressed views aligning with the idea that the United States needed to adopt the amoral and devious methods of its adversaries in international politics, arguing that morality was a hindrance to success in the "game of nations".

In his 1969 book The Game of Nations, Copeland advocated for amorality in power politics, criticizing what he called the "goo-goos"—those who believed in good government and moral principles—as naive and ineffective.

He suggested that while the U.S. publicly upheld high moral standards, it was capable of matching Soviet perfidy "perfidy for perfidy" behind the scenes, implying that to compete effectively, America had to embrace the same ruthless tactics as its enemies.

The CIA’s internal journal Studies in Intelligence later noted that Copeland believed only the "devious and unprincipled" could win in international affairs.

-- google ai, 10/4/25

AGAIN. YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SAY WE'RE THE GREATEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD. BUT WE MAKE THE BEST EQUIPMENT IN THE WORLD. I WATCHED OUR ANTI-MISSILE MISSILES. I WATCHED OUR PATRIOTS JUST KNOCK THINGS OUT LIKE HITTING A NEEDLE ON THE STAGE. THERE'S A NEEDLE UP THERE, AND YOU SEND ANOTHER NEEDLE UP, AND IT HITS IT EVERY TIME. DURING THE WAR, WE WENT 14 FOR 14. WE HAD 14. THIS IS WITH IRAN. WE HAD 14 MISSILES COMING AT US. ALL 14 WERE KNOCKED OUT OF THE SKY. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

WE MAKE THE BEST EQUIPMENT, FROM SPARTA,TO ROME, TO THE BRITISH EMPIRE, TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT MILITARY SUPREMACY HAS NEVER BEEN SIMPLY A MATTER OF MONEY OR MANPOWER. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS THE CULTURE SPIRIT OF OUR MILITARY THAT TRULY SETS US APART FROM ANY OTHER NATION. OUR ULTIMATE STRENGTH WILL ALWAYS COME FROM THE FIERCE PEOPLE, THE BRILLIANT PEOPLE, WITH SUCH PRIDE AND UNBENDING WILL, AND THE TRADITIONS OF EXCELLENCE THAT HAVE MADE US THE MOST UNSTOPPABLE FORCE EVER TO WALK THE FACE OF THE EARTH. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE.

REMEMBER, WE NEVER WANT TO USE IT, BUT WE HAVE THE MOST POWERFUL NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, AND I CALL IT NUCLEAR DETERRENT OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY. NOBODY CLOSE.

THE MEN AND WOMEN IN THIS ROOM INHERIT THE LEGACY BUILT AND WON BY WASHINGTON AND JACKSON, GRANT AND PERSHING, EISENHOWER AND PATTON, NIMITZ AND LEMAY. WE CARRY FORWARD THE MAJESTIC MILITARY HERITAGE PASSED DOWN FROM FATHER TO SON, SOLDIER TO SOLDIER, AND ONE GENERATION OF WARRIORS TO THE NEXT. YOU ARE WARRIORS, YOU KNOW THAT, RIGHT? YOU'RE GREAT WARRIORS. WELL, YOU WOULDN'T BE IN THIS ROOM. YOU'RE THE BEST OF THE BEST.

FROM CONCORD BRIDGE TO FORT MCHENRY, FROM GETTYSBURG TO MANILA BAY, FROM NORMANDY TO SICILY, AND FROM THE JUNGLES OF VIETNAM TO THE DUSTY STREETS OF BAGHDAD, AMERICA'S MILITARY HAS CHARGED INTO HELLFIRE, CLIMBED UP JAGGED MOUNTAINS, CROSSED ROARING OCEANS, AND THUNDERED ACROSS DESERTS TO DEFEND OUR FLAG, OUR FREEDOM, AND OUR HOMELAND. NOBODY DOES IT LIKE YOU. NOW WE ARE DISCOVERING AMERICAN MUSCLE, REASSERTING AMERICAN MIGHT, AND BEGINNING THE NEXT CHAPTER IN AMERICAN MILITARY LEGENDS. AND LORE. THAT'S L-O-R-E. IT IS LORE WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENDING OUR WAY OF LIFE. NOTHING WILL SLOW US. NO ENEMY WILL STOP US. THEY'RE NOT. THEY CANNOT STOP US. AND NO ADVERSARY WILL STAND IN OUR WAY. THEY DON'T STAND IN OUR WAY. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO STAND IN OUR WAY. WE DON'T WANT TO EVEN PUT THEM IN THAT POSITION. BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STAND IN OUR WAY EVER AGAIN.

YOU'LL NEVER SEE FOUR YEARS LIKE WE HAD WITH BIDEN AND THAT GROUP OF INCOMPETENT PEOPLE THAT RAN THIS COUNTRY THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE, BECAUSE WE HAD THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, THE BEST OF OLDEST, THE BRAVEST THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN, THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. WITH LEADERS LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT HERE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL ROOM TODAY, WE WILL VANQUISH EVERY DANGER, AND CRUSH EVERY THREAT TO OUR FREEDOM IN EVERY GENERATION TO COME. BECAUSE WE WILL FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT AND WE WILL WIN, WIN, WIN.

I WANT TO JUST THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN, AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, AND GOD BLESS AMERICA. GOD BLESS YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

[admin]

War is Peace: Excerpt from Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
by George Orwell
© 1949 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

-- Equilibrium, The Perfect Geometry of Death Annihilates Its Author in "Equilibrium," Kurt Wimmer's Brilliant Anti-Authoritarian Film, directed by Kurt Wimmer, starring Christian Bale, Sean Bean, Taye Diggs, Emily Watson -- Illustrated Screenplay & Screencap Gallery

-- Fahrenheit 451, directed by Francois Truffaut, Novel by Ray Bradbury, starring Julie Christie and Oskar Werner -- Illustrated Screenplay & Screencap Gallery

A heavy black volume, amateurishly bound, with no name or title on the cover. The print also looked slightly irregular. The pages were worn at the edges, and fell apart, easily, as though the book had passed through many hands. The inscription on the title-page ran:

THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM
by Emmanuel Goldstein

Winston began reading:

Chapter I. Ignorance is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these groups are entirely irreconcilable...

Winston stopped reading, chiefly in order to appreciate the fact that he was reading, in comfort and safety. He was alone: no telescreen, no ear at the keyhole, no nervous impulse to glance over his shoulder or cover the page with his hand. The sweet summer air played against his cheek. From somewhere far away there floated the faint shouts of children: in the room itself there was no sound except the insect voice of the clock. He settled deeper into the arm-chair and put his feet up on the fender. It was bliss, it was eternity. Suddenly, as one sometimes does with a book of which one knows that one will ultimately read and re-read every word, he opened it at a different place and found himself at Chapter III. He went on reading:

Chapter III. War is Peace

The splitting up of the world into three great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the twentieth century. With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three super-states are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.

In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.

To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber which in colder climates it is necessary to synthesize by comparatively expensive methods. But above all they contain a bottomless reserve of cheap labour. Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, to control more labour power, to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, and so on indefinitely. It should be noted that the fighting never really moves beyond the edges of the disputed areas. The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely uninhabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate. Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world's economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. At present, when few human beings even have enough to eat, this problem is obviously not urgent, and it might not have become so, even if no artificial processes of destruction had been at work. The world of today is a bare, hungry, dilapidated place compared with the world that existed before 1914, and still more so if compared with the imaginary future to which the people of that period looked forward. In the early twentieth century, the vision of a future society unbelievably rich, leisured, orderly, and efficient -- a glittering antiseptic world of glass and steel and snow-white concrete -- was part of the consciousness of nearly every literate person. Science and technology were developing at a prodigious speed, and it seemed natural to assume that they would go on developing. This failed to happen, partly because of the impoverishment caused by a long series of wars and revolutions, partly because scientific and technical progress depended on the empirical habit of thought, which could not survive in a strictly regimented society. As a whole the world is more primitive today than it was fifty years ago. Certain backward areas have advanced, and various devices, always in some way connected with warfare and police espionage, have been developed, but experiment and invention have largely stopped, and the ravages of the atomic war of the nineteen-fifties have never been fully repaired. Nevertheless the dangers inherent in the machine are still there. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.

Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life. Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy, his large, well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants, his private motor-car or helicopter -- set him in a different world from a member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call 'the proles'. The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science'. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance -- meaning, in effect, war and police espionage -- the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist, or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject as are relevant to the taking of life. In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work. Some are concerned simply with planning the logistics of future wars; others devise larger and larger rocket bombs, more and more powerful explosives, and more and more impenetrable armour-plating; others search for new and deadlier gases, or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents, or for breeds of disease germs immunized against all possible antibodies; others strive to produce a vehicle that shall bore its way under the soil like a submarine under the water, or an aeroplane as independent of its base as a sailing-ship; others explore even remoter possibilities such as focusing the sun's rays through lenses suspended thousands of kilometres away in space, or producing artificial earthquakes and tidal waves by tapping the heat at the earth's centre.

But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the three super-states ever gains a significant lead on the others. What is more remarkable is that all three powers already possess, in the atomic bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any that their present researches are likely to discover. Although the Party, according to its habit, claims the invention for itself, atomic bombs first appeared as early as the nineteen-forties, and were first used on a large scale about ten years later. At that time some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centres, chiefly in European Russia, Western Europe, and North America. The effect was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

None of the three super-states ever attempts any manoeuvre which involves the risk of serious defeat. When any large operation is undertaken, it is usually a surprise attack against an ally. The strategy that all three powers are following, or pretend to themselves that they are following, is the same. The plan is, by a combination of fighting, bargaining, and well-timed strokes of treachery, to acquire a ring of bases completely encircling one or other of the rival states, and then to sign a pact of friendship with that rival and remain on peaceful terms for so many years as to lull suspicion to sleep. During this time rockets loaded with atomic bombs can be assembled at all the strategic spots; finally they will all be fired simultaneously, with effects so devastating as to make retaliation impossible. It will then be time to sign a pact of friendship with the remaining world-power, in preparation for another attack. This scheme, it is hardly necessary to say, is a mere daydream, impossible of realization. Moreover, no fighting ever occurs except in the disputed areas round the Equator and the Pole: no invasion of enemy territory is ever undertaken. This explains the fact that in some places the frontiers between the superstates are arbitrary. Eurasia, for example, could easily conquer the British Isles, which are geographically part of Europe, or on the other hand it would be possible for Oceania to push its frontiers to the Rhine or even to the Vistula. But this would violate the principle, followed on all sides though never formulated, of cultural integrity. If Oceania were to conquer the areas that used once to be known as France and Germany, it would be necessary either to exterminate the inhabitants, a task of great physical difficulty, or to assimilate a population of about a hundred million people, who, so far as technical development goes, are roughly on the Oceanic level. The problem is the same for all three super-states. It is absolutely necessary to their structure that there should be no contact with foreigners, except, to a limited extent, with war prisoners and coloured slaves. Even the official ally of the moment is always regarded with the darkest suspicion. War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.

Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all three super-states are very much the same. In Oceania the prevailing philosophy is called Ingsoc, in Eurasia it is called Neo-Bolshevism, and in Eastasia it is called by a Chinese name usually translated as Death-Worship, but perhaps better rendered as Obliteration of the Self. The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually the three philosophies are barely distinguishable, and the social systems which they support are not distinguishable at all. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure, the same worship of semi-divine leader, the same economy existing by and for continuous warfare. It follows that the three super-states not only cannot conquer one another, but would gain no advantage by doing so. On the contrary, so long as they remain in conflict they prop one another up, like three sheaves of corn. And, as usual, the ruling groups of all three powers are simultaneously aware and unaware of what they are doing. Their lives are dedicated to world conquest, but they also know that it is necessary that the war should continue everlastingly and without victory. Meanwhile the fact that there is no danger of conquest makes possible the denial of reality which is the special feature of Ingsoc and its rival systems of thought. Here it is necessary to repeat what has been said earlier, that by becoming continuous, war has fundamentally changed its character.

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police. Since each of the three super-states is unconquerable, each is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life -- the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs.

War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

[admin]

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Trump Lectures the Generals
Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom
Streamed live 7 hours ago

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump Lectures the Generals



Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, October 1st, 2025. Colonel Lawrence
Wilkerson joins us now on the lectures President Trump and Secretary Hegseth
gave to the generals and admirals yesterday. Hang on to your seats.

Colonel, welcome here, my dear friend.
Before I ask you about some of your favorite topics, that would be former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
Secretary of Defense, or as he calls himself, "Secretary of War," Pete Hegseth,
and President Trump, I need your take on this. Within hours of
shaking hands with President Trump in the Oval Office, and beaming
over the Israeli acceptance of a deal negotiated by Steve Witkoff with Arab
leaders, but not with Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu,
as soon as he landed in Tel Aviv, in Hebrew, he undermined the deal by saying
the IDF is not leaving Gaza even though that's a core part of the deal,
and he said there will never be a Palestinian state, even though the deal contemplates
one in five years. Does this surprise you?

Not at all. Had he not said that, and
in Hebrew and in Loki, if you will, he his coalition would have collapsed.

Wow. Well, was he lying when he shook hands with Trump, and on American
television, with every broadcast and cable network showing him --

You asked me that question about BB Netanyahu!

Don't the Americans know that they're dealing
with an inveterate liar, and that what he shakes hands about and says one day,
he'll repudiate the next?

I think they do. I think most of the people who count within the Trump
administration do. That doesn't necessarily include Donald Trump himself, I'm sad to say. I'll say
something else about it, too. I think what we're looking at here is, we're looking at a decision made on both sides
of the ocean, if you will, in America and in Israel, that we're going to war with Iran. So, everything else that's
happening right now is just sort of window dressing to lead up to what's going
to happen.

Colonel McGregor, who will be on with us tomorrow, reports in his emails
that heavy American equipment fighter jets are beginning to land at that
enormous base in Doha. Right? That would be an indicator that a war is
coming, and the US is going to back the Israelis.

Exactly. And a fleet of tankers have
also crossed the Atlantic, and moved into that region, not unlike the fleet that went over for our attacks on Iran's nuclear. What does a fleet of tankers mean Colonel?

It means that the aircraft can refuel
endlessly, you know, coming out of Aluded, or wherever they might come from. They can even refuel from carriers.

Right. Right. So I guess we're getting ready. You know, Scott Ritter, Max Blumenthal,
the woman that runs Code Pink, her name is escaping me right now
and Medea Benjamin and I were invited to lunch with the president of
Iran last week. There's no question in my mind, after listening to him and
his colleagues, that they are fully prepared. Yes. And they are going to react
in a far more decisive, effective, and longlasting way against Israel than they did in June.

And as I understand it, they're going to act regionwide, not just against Israel.

What does that mean, Colonel?

Well, I don't know that it means the Saudis, or others in the region, as much
as it means US facilities in those countries' territory. I think it means
they know they're at war with the United States, and so thank you very much. Here you are. Take this.

Wow.

Colonel, yesterday in a rather preening, self-indulgent talk before 800 generals and
admirals, who were visibly disappointed because they didn't expect President Trump to show
up, Secretary of Defense made some rather peculiar arguments, but
rather than characterize it myself, I'll let you watch it. It's under a minute.
Sounds to me like he wants the United States to abandon the Geneva Conventions, which have been a hallmark
of civility since the end of World War II. Will you tell me what you think,? Chris, Number 20.

[Hegseth] Every day, we have to be prepared for war, not for defense. We're training warriors, not defenders. We fight wars
to win, not to defend. Defense is something you do all the time. It's inherently reactionary, and can lead to
overuse, overreach, and mission creep. War is something you do sparingly, on
our own terms, and with clear aims. We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming
and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of
engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize,
hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and
overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality and
authority for war fighters. That's all I ever wanted as a platoon leader.

I'm sure that last comment reminded them how how sparing his experience in the military is. "Stupid rules of engagement."
Would would those be the rules that prohibit torture, that prohibit attacking civilians, that prohibit
using more force than is necessary to subdue the enemy, the rules that we
wrote when we wrote the four Geneva Conventions, Colonel?

Yes. And also very dramatically includes taking on boats on
the high seas, and blowing them up.

Yes.

Due process without congressional
approval just because you can. I said yesterday on the Capitol steps, I said
we had a demonstration there, and I said to a reporter, imagine you're on New York Avenue and you're a
policeman, or you're a military person in DC, which there are plenty of right now, and you stumble on a guy sitting on a
five gallon can in front of the church there on the corner of H and New York Avenue. And there's a line down the
street, a thousand people in that line, and he's selling cocaine. And you walk up to him, and you pull out your service revolver, or your M16 if you're a militant, and you blow him away. That's the same thing
we're talking about here. You're talking about doing that. Now, it might be heinous that he's on the street corner
selling drugs, and he's probably going to run when he sees you coming anyway, but you walking up to him and blowing him
away, without due process, is not what you should be doing.

Well, the president
has said that he can kill people before they commit a crime if he has a reasonable
belief that they're going to. I'm putting words in his mouth and making it sound a little bit more elegant than he
put it. The president has said -- we'll play this clip for you in in a
minute, that American cities should be used as training ground for the military. So, can the pre-charge,
pre-trial, preconviction, public execution of Americans whose crimes have
been observed be very far behind, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson?

Not very far. And we had this discussion when George W. Bush introduced to the border patrol within
100 nautical miles of their position -- that means a circle with a 100 mile radius all around that airport if that's where they are, they can act if they think
someone is a criminal, no reasonable suspicion, no probable cause, you can
act. And we did that. We did that post 9/11. And boy did we get a lot of people
that were angry with us for confiscation of their laptops and such,
and people who are essentially put aside and interrogated who were just
businessmen coming across the southern border, or wherever it might be. This is taking it way too far.

I don't
know if you saw the interview with Edward Snowden the other day, but I had many people emailing me and saying,
"Jesus, I've never listened to this guy. He has such depth, and such wisdom. This guy's
smart. Why the hell is he in the Soviet Union?"

Ah, because the Trump
administration indicted him. That's why he's in the Soviet Union. He indicted him for tell telling the truth. One of
the greatest, most profound, most courageous, truthful revelations in the modern era.

Yes. The whistleblower.

Yeah. Here's President Trump on practicing
in American cities. And then I'm going to ask you to grade the two speeches.

[quote]San Francisco, Chicago,
New York, Los Angeles. They're very unsafe places. And we're going to straighten them out one by one. And this
is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war, too. It's a war from within. Controlling
the physical territory of our border is essential to national security. We can't let these people in. We're under
invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy, but
more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms. At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take
them out. These people don't have uniforms. I told Pete, "We should use some of these dangerous cities as
training grounds for our military, National Guard, but military."
What the hell is he talking about? Using American streets as a training ground
for military in the same breath in which he says, "We're under invasion from an
enemy within."

He's talking about a better coup than
the one he tried to conduct before and failed at. That's what he's talking about. And he's talking about preparing
the forces necessary to make sure that that coup doesn't fail. That's what he's
talking about. And he's not talking about it necessarily for himself. I don't think he has enough brain power
really now to deal with that sort of thing. I think he's talking about it in words having been given him and written
for him and otherwise offered to him by people like Steve Miller. And I'm sorry
to say people who might be behind Steve Miller even who are very anxious I go to
Peter Teal immediately to bring the kind of authoritarianism that once echoed
through the halls of South African government to America. What are you referring to when you said
coup, colonel? I'm talking about what I've said all along. The the January the sixth attempt
at overthrowing our government or installing Trump forever didn't fail
because the system hell. It failed because the coup plotters were utterly
incompetent. They will not make that mistake again. Wow. Colonel, can you think of anybody
now living worse than Tony Blair to become the governor general of a neoc
colonial Gaza Strip? Yes. BB Netanyahu.
Okay. I got another one. I got another one for you. Dick Cheney if he's still alive.
Yeah. Well, Dick would do a better job than either Blair or Netanyahu, but he would be ruthless.
Why Tony Blair? And why why would the Arabs ever accept somebody as singularly
responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan as he was? I have no idea except that I know that
he spent the last decade or decade and a half or so in inserting himself back
into the into the milu so that he could make lots of money and so that he could
regain some fame. He really lost a lot of his stature when he left the prime ministership, but I think he's managed
to build it back up again with the people that count.
If he becomes the governor general, would the former occupant of the opulent
residence known as number 10 Downing Street take up residence in Gaza City?
Some of them would, no question in my mind. and MI6 would be all over the place just like their air force is
flying over Gaza right now still giving information and intelligence to the IDF.
Um this you you cannot make it up about Britain's complicity in the Levant from
the beginning of time as it were up to the present. They are a malignant force
in that region of the world. They always have been. I suspect as long as the demi
paradise exists, they will continue to be. Um, I want to get back to President
Trump and Secretary Hegsth, and I've not asked you for a grade yet, and I don't mean to putting on put you on the spot
because your non-grade explanations have been uh very uh illuminating.
Um but general are excuse me colonel are generals and admirals generally fat
not generally there are too many of them in the reserve components who are and we've talked about that at the
Eisenhower media network there are quite a few both male and female officers and
NCOs in the reserve components that are not following the army's guidelines or
the Marine Corps's guidelines on Wait. Uh, but this was this was really not
what that was all about, I don't think. And I think what was it all about? I think it was all about testing. They
wanted to see and they got a really dull answer just how much they could make
that crowd not completely like but remotely at least like the crowd you
recall they had at Fort Bragg that they really I didn't know this until I read
up on it. They really vetted that crowd at Fort Bragg to the point of you can't
sit in the front row if you have any color on. You can't sit in the front row if you are going to move your eyes in
some kind of grimace when the president says something. This was detailed instruction to that crowd to make sure
what they had out there was either MAGA sympathizers or people who were scared
and weren't going to do anything unoured with regard to the commander-in-chief. They thought they were going to get
something like that at Quantico. not quite as subdued and then as rockous as
the Fort Braggin was, but they thought they were going to get cheers and applause and various insundry reactions.
They got stoisism. They got people looking at them without
any emotion whatso. Well, maybe maybe this is one of the reasons, Chris, the
uh clip of Secretary Hegsth saying, "If you feel uncomfortable, well, you can
fill in the blank." Yeah. The new compass heading is clear. Out with the Charellis, the McKenzies,
and the Millies, and in with the Stockdale, the Schwarz coughs, and the patents.
More leadership changes will be made of that I'm certain. Not because we want to, but because we must. Once again,
this is life and death. The sooner we have the right people, the sooner we can advance the right policies. Personnel is
policy. But if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink,
then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service.
Admiral Stockdale would have stood up wherever he was in that auditorium and
told that man he was a sack of and walked out.
I wish there were more. And and Patton would have stood up and maybe walked up there and smacked him upside the head and walked out. I mean
the idea that he would bring those people up asam and Schwarzkoff too bring
them up as the example of warriors is one thing but to bring them up as examples of what he's talking about
gross insubordination gross war crimes gross ignorance of the
code of conduct and everything else that makes a military the American military what it is is just unconscionable. Pety
does not know what he's talking about or he is truly an insane individual.
Here's one of the people he attacked by name talking about fidelity to the
Constitution. Former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fourstar General
Millie. You see, we in uniform are unique. We are unique
among the world's armies. We are unique among the world's militaries.
We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe. We don't
take an oath to a religion. We don't take an oath to a king or a queen or to
a tyrant or a dictator. And we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We
don't take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the constitution. And we
take an oath to the idea that is America. and we're willing to die to protect it. Every soldier, sailor,
airman, marine, guardian, and coast guardsman. Each of us commits our very
life to protect and defend that document regardless of personal price, and we are
not easily intimidated. You and I have uh both taken that oath.
I thought that was a brilliant uh a brilliant statement that he made. This is the guy that had Seth trashed.
Yes. I it reminds me of General Pal's 1992 I think it was speech to the Warsaw pack
generals and I think it was in Warsaw if I recall and he said something that got
them so mystified that many came up to him afterwards and asked him to explain and he did in some copious terms he said
I'm a soldier who takes an oath to a constitution of a people who don't
necessarily like me. And then he talked about James Madison
and the standing force and how dangerous it was and such. And they didn't get it
really. And so they began to crowd around him and ask questions. And by the time he finished answering their
questions, each one in turn, they understood what he meant.
All right, Colonel, I'm putting you on the spot. What grade would you give Pete Hegth? F.
Wow. I I have I don't have one for President Trump. I I simply don't have a grade for him. I
can't go that low. Do you uh have a feeling from your
colleagues who are still in uniform if there was a prevailing consensus similar
to yours amongst the one, two, three, and four stars that were there?
Well, here's something that people don't probably realize unless they've had experience in the military. Before these
guys came to this meeting in Quantico, I'll guarantee you they exercised what we call the old boy network. They called
Millie, they called other general officers, other flag officers and all
their services and they said, "What's your advice and they listened to these
people?" So that's one reason you saw them come and be so stoical about the addresses of both the president and the
secretary of war. And then the other thing is they are people who are more imbued with the
ethic that Millie expressed there or that Powell expressed to the Warsaw pack
than not. And so this was really a shock to their systems in some ways though I
suspect from the old boy conversations and everything they didn't get taken
completely by surprise. So you're looking at a reputation of both the sec
war and the president's invitation to participate in the takeover of America.
Wow. And as he was leaving the White House to get in a helicopter to take him to
Quantico cut number 18, he said this. I'm going to be meeting with generals
and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don't like somebody, I'm going to fire them right on the spot.
I would have loved to have seen him try that, especially with a quantity. Maybe one or two that he could have single out
that he' done some research on before and make an example out of them, but with a quantity on the spot. I'd love to
have seen him try that and seen the confrontation that would occur.
I wonder if President Trump will be taking the PT
classes that uh Secretary Hegseth told the generals they're going to have to start taking
be taking a heart attack. The last president I know that tried to take a military PT test and did fairly well was
HW Bush. HW, not W. HW.
Wow. All right, Colonel. Such unpleasant uh
stuff. I I I almost can't. Oh, I know. What do you think it cost
to bring 800 admirals and generals from all across the globe and each
or most had a senior commissioned officer with them. So, a lot of human beings
and some had aids with them. In fact, you know, a flag officer rarely travels without his captain or lieutenant or
whatever aid. Um, I I would say in the hundreds of millions when you count the
jet fuel, the time away, and all that goes into it. Wow. Uh, I'm going to play Heg Seth on
fatness. Of course, Trump was backstage at the time, so we don't know what he
thought. Chris number 21. Should our enemies choose foolishly to
challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision, and ferocity of
the war department. In other words, to our enemies,
if the Secretary of War can do regular hard PT, so can every member of our
joint force. Frankly, it's tiring to look out at combat formations or really any
formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat
generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It's a bad
look. It is bad and it's not who we are. Today, at my direction, every member of the joint force at every rank is
required to take a PT test twice a year, as well as meet height and weight
requirements twice a year. every year of service.
Now, the way to do that, judge, had he wanted to do that, and it's been done before. He's not the first person to do
this, was to tell the secretaries, the service secretaries, who themselves are civilians, as you well know, they then
tell the chief of service, the chief of staff of the army, the chief of staff of the Air Force, the CNO, and so forth, to
do it. You don't do that as the Secretary of Defense. that's beneath your dignity and your responsibilities.
You do advice to the president of the United States and you transmit his
orders to the war fighters in the field and their opinions and views to the
president. That's your job. That's your only job, Peety.

He's uh vicious, angry, micromanaging. Oh, by the way, he's going to have
everybody that works in the Pentagon sign an oath about non-disclosure, and
he's announcing random polygraph tests. This is just going from bad to worse.

I heard that this morning. You know, he was confirmed by a vote of 51 to 50. One of the 51
has since said, "I wish I didn't vote for him." I don't want to say who it is, it's a Republican senator. If that senator had
stuck to his original guns, we wouldn't be having this conversation because he would not have had the
51st vote that he needed. But that's history and can't be changed right
now.

That man may regret that vote deeply before this was over with.

Yes. This is a little out of the blue for
you, but the young man that murdered Charlie Kirk
was texting to his romantic lover his plans to murder Kirk. The NSA had
those texts.

That doesn't surprise me --

Before, before the murder.

It doesn't
surprise me at all.

Does all of the destruction of the Fourth Amendment, and all of the mass
surveillance of every keystroke, on every mobile device and desktop in the country,
do any good?

We had the two al-Qaeda agents who were operating in the United States, and then
went to the Far East. We had them. We knew who they were. They knew what we knew, what they were plotting. And the
fight between the FBI and the CIA was so intense at that time that neither wanted
to share with the other. And so that information never got to the right places.

But let me say this too. Larry
Johnson and I have been looking really closely -- You know, both of us are riflemen We shoot all the time, .30 odd
sixes, 243 Winchesterers. We shoot all the time. We don't think that man shot
Charlie Kirk.

Good lord. Who did?

We don't know yet, but we are pretty sure that it was at least a 300. And it
was one of those rounds like the one that the autopsy people in Texas said
killed JFK, blew his brains out, and put him on the back of that sedan. It was a
bullet that fragments. It's a special bullet. It is not a steel jacketed round. It's not a round like you shoot
deer with. It doesn't shoot out of a 30-six. It goes into your head and
explodes.

If you remember that movie about the jackal, where he's out practicing with a pumpkin, and he shoots
that pumpkin, and the pumpkin explodes. Well that's what we're talking about.

Wow.

Well, more from Larry on that.

He'll be with us on Friday, Colonel, thank you. We've been all over the place,
and I deeply appreciate your willingness to do it. I deeply
appreciate your intellectual honesty and personal courage in taking these people on who are ruining the military and
assaulting American culture. Thank you, Colonel.

Surely, let me tell you about one other thing we passed around in our media
network. We're all on the alert. What Trump
said is he's coming after us.
Coming after people like you and me.

Yeah. Exactly.

God be with us.

Thank you, Colonel.

Surely.

All the best. Be safe.

And you, my dear friend. Terrifying stuff.