Is Pam Bondi Miriam Adelson’s Tool to Censor Americans ?

0:00You You

1:00You You

2:00You You

3:00You You You You You You You You

4:00You You You You You You You Who You You The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. So here is Donald Trump sending a letter to the Norwegian government demanding, chastising them for not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize last year and saying because of this, he's changing his foreign policy, that the foreign policy even if he was right, which he's not, the Norwegian Prime Minister, I believe, issued a statement after saying he's already

5:03explained to Trump that this is an independent committee that hands out this award, not the actual government itself. But on top of that, and even if the government maybe has a little influence and sway, it's not like they give out this award, but on top of that, this is a foreign government. And based on whether Donald Trump gives the award or not, he says that this changes as foreign policy, how he looks at the landscape. It's absolutely baffling because this really does say that Trump is basing his policy around what international awards and escalates he could get, not what's best for the United States of America. On top of that, Donald Trump actually does have the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Machado from the Venezuelan opposition figure who took the Nobel Peace Prize, put around her neck and then called for the United States to invade and sanction

6:04her country. And then, of course, once the United States did that and kidnapped the country's president, Trump dismissed her, saying she doesn't have the popular support needed to lead the country. But even after that, she actually gifted the Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump. She gave her award to him. So he has the physical award, but because when you go on Wikipedia, on into the future and you say who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025, it's going to say Miss Machado and not Mr. Trump. And because of that, he says that he's changing his foreign policy to be more American centric. Well, if that was actually true, first of all, what the hell is an American? What has he been doing the past year that his first priority wasn't what's best for the United States of America in the first place? Not that he's actually done their plans to do that, but he's saying here that that wasn't even his foreign policy goal this whole first year. It's very alarming if he's saying, hey, I'm now going to be more unrestrained.

7:07During this year, he claims he should won the Nobel Peace Prize. He fueled the proxy more in Ukraine. He signed the largest arm steel ever with Taiwan. He bombed Iran. He bombed Somalia record pace. He bombed ISIS in Syria after the al-Qaeda government there killed three U.S. soldiers, so it's confusing why I did that. He bombed drug boats or suspected drug boats in Latin America and the Eastern Pacific. And he kidnapped the president of Venezuela all while threatening probably a half dozen to another dozen countries. Oh, the strides in Nigeria, I forgot about those. So he thinks that that record should have won him a Nobel Peace Prize. But now he says, I'm going to be more unrestrained. And you really worry that this does mean that he is considering a major action when it comes to Greenland. Now I'm not quite sold that he's actually going to conduct what is a military invasion that people actually recognize as a military invasion.

8:08I think he'll find some other way to get this done. But I really do think this is all centered around Trump's ego and what he considers building his legacy. And so he wants, again, every school child in the United States to look at a piece of the map, Greenland, that's going to be colored in the same as the United States and they're going to wonder why there's a big chunk of American territory disconnected from the rest of the country. And in his mind, every school teacher will talk about how the great Donald Trump had spanned it, the United States, more than any president had in a hundred years and added this really important and mineral-rich territory to the United States. Sure you see these other benefits with the tech industry building, data center there, the minerals available. I really think very little of this is about actual security, actual concerns that Russia or China are going to invade and take it over. Ukraine is right in that store to Russia, by the way, and they can't complete an invasion

9:11of that country. So how the hell are they going to manage to invade and occupy Greenland when it's NATO? Like, you know, this is Danish colony, so it's a part and protected under the NATO alliance. Completely absurd. How would China do this? How would China maintain the supply lines to keep their military bases occupying Greenland? It's a complete fiction that this could possibly happen. And Trump's whole idea behind it is, oh, once it's controlled by America, we'll have American protection, but it already has that under NATO. So our president is really unhinged. He feels completely unrestrained and everything he does is about how he believes his legacy is going to be perceived. And because the man is an absolute lunatic, the legacy he wants to create isn't actually doing the dirty work necessary to make this country great again to give Americans more economic chances at home, bring down prices, make home ownership more available.

10:14No, it's going to be waging wars overseas, toppling governments, kidnapping their leaders, seasoned territory, even from out-of-the-states. All right, so now let's get into why actually have planned to talk about for today's show. Why didn't Trump attack Iran? This is a big question. I'm going to do my best to answer in the narrative that I think makes most sense. Mariam Adelson and Pam Bondi are committing a war on free speech and we'll hear what they have to say about that. And last up, if we have time, Dave Smith destroyed Dinesh D'Souza in a debate last week and I got some Dinesh's responses to this that I wanted to go through. All right, let's start off here with Iran and the most, you know, just foolish sender that we have in the United States, Lindsey Graham. So sure they're a very good ally right now. If the media reports are true that the Arab countries intervened on behalf of Iran to

11:14stop decisive action that was promised, that if the Arab countries are okay with Iran's eye toll is staying in power and they feel like the slaughter of people we've encouraged to go out into the streets is not necessary to stop, then they're not a very good ally. I'm going to re-evaluate my entire opinion of the Arab world alliance. Wait a minute. No. No, no, no, to the Arab world. I've tried to be very hopeful to build on the Abraham Accords, but this idea of saying one thing behind closed doors and something else in public is coming to an end. If you did, in fact, intervene to stop this action, that means you really don't understand what America's interest are and your own interest. How can you ask President Trump to do that after he's encouraged people to go out in the streets, risk their own lives?

12:14That is such a narrow view and a distorted view and quite frankly a sick view of what to do. I don't want to be aligned with that. So anytime Lady Lindsay is this upset, the rest of us should all be overjoyed. That means there was a potential for a war and it didn't happen. So that's good news. What Lindsay Graham is all bent out of shape here is, last week and as we were recording this show last Wednesday, there are a lot of reports that the U.S. was preparing to attack Iran and this wasn't just speculation or Trump people reacting to Trump making bolsterist remarks. The military everybody was prepared for this. Flives were being shut down in the Middle East. Everybody thought strides were coming. Ultimately they don't happen. And so Lindsay Graham is mad. He's had dreams of overthrowing the Ayatollah, removing that government for four decades now and he was going to get his wish to see a bunch of Iranians blown to bits by American

13:21bombs and the Islamic Republic to fall in Iran to become a failed state. That's what Lindsay Graham's wanted and that's why he's so upset here and the rest of us again should all be happy that at least for now we have a verdict this conflict. Well what Lindsay Graham does, right, is he put, he can't blame Trump, he can't blame not Nyahu. So he blames the Arab states. He blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the UAE for saying we don't want this war in the Middle East. Well why wouldn't Saudi, the Qataris, the Emirates want to war in the Middle East because their countries are full of American air bases and military bases and naval bases and if the US goes to war with Iran, if we try to destroy their government, the Iranian military is going to respond and they don't have missiles that can reach the United States of America but they do have a lot of missiles that can reach the US bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and so these countries don't want to get caught in the middle of

14:25a US and Iranian war which they will. This is purely for their own self interest in their survival, their own country and Lindsay Graham is outraged. And he's mad, he's saying that they're supporting evil and they're the worst people in the world. All they're doing is trying to prevent their country from being involved in a war that they don't want. Not to mention all these countries, they do have agreements and some building relationships with Iran and they understand that if the US goes to war with Iran and there's massive warfare out in the Persian Gulf, that's going to hurt all their oil trade and exports and things like that. So these countries are acting in their self interest in Lindsay Graham's upset. Now if Lindsay Graham really wants to be mad at the people responsible for the war in Iran not going through, then he should look at Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. This is from ASEOS, the order never came behind the scenes of Trump's Iran pullback and

15:29the article explains US officials said on Wednesday that there was a serious expectation inside the administration and belief in capitals across the Middle East including Iran that Trump would green light the strike. US troops began evacuating from the airbase in Qatar and the Navy's fifth fleece base in Bahrain. The Iranian regime was convinced a US attack was coming and issued a notice closing its airspace. It wasn't fake or a ruse a US official said while it's hard to get inside Trump's head several US officials said Netanyahu's warning and briefings from the Trump team about threats to US forces from maintaining Iranian retaliation were significant factors. So what happened was Benjamin Netanyahu a few hours before Trump is supposed to order these strides he calls Trump and he says look we're not prepared for the Iranian retaliation and when he says we he doesn't necessarily mean the Israelis because the Israelis

16:32have the air defense systems they have he means the Americans. Since the war in June the US has moved two aircraft carrier strike groups and that missile system out of the Middle East. Now the destroyers in the aircraft carrier strike groups and there's usually like three to sit to them in a strike group all carried the SM sits interceptors and the Aegis ashore interceptors which are really critical for Israel shooting down the incoming Iranian missiles and without those ships and all the war planes and other assets in the Middle East to help the Israelis down these missiles Israel understands their vulnerable. Additionally without the aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East the US was somewhat limited on its military options for Iran. In a different statement Lindsey Graham talks about well there's a smaller option and then there's maybe a larger option and so I think what Trump saw is that the smaller option wouldn't do enough to take out the Iranian government or at least his advisors

17:37around him told him that and so he elected to defer and now could that strides right away. Now the US is moving more military assets into the region and so I think it's more likely to see a strike maybe not within the coming week but within the coming months. Once the aircraft carrier strike group and other military assets are in place not only to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation but the US military assets in the Middle East. It's important to remember that while this could all be for show it does cost a lot of money to move all these military assets around. It's not a single tank of gas to get an aircraft carrier and a dozen or more support ships and other attached ships and submarines. From I think it was in East Asia somewhere to the Middle East. This takes time. It takes money moving all the other warplanes and other military assets around the Middle East deploying other US forces there.

18:37This is all expensive and so I do think this is more than a show force. It's a real build up towards war with Iran. The point was in the reason the strides didn't happen last week. The US and maybe more importantly Israel really wasn't ready for it. Now I want to get into some of the discussion in the White House around who was advocating for and against strides. This article from Israel Hayam how Trump stopped the strides on Iran at the last minute. I think this is really crucial. A source close to the White House said Vice President J.D. Vance, usually associated with more isolationist views, adopted a hawkish line this time. He argued Trump had drawn a public red line by warning to Iran against killing protesters and therefore had to enforce it. Now this is really big. This is a major shift and I think for all of us it should be a deal breaker with J.D. Vance going forward. One of the reasons that people are somewhat optimistic for the second Trump presidency was

19:42Tulsi Gabbard and maybe more importantly J.D. Vance were going to be in significant positions in the White House. These are two politicians who have spent their entire careers, most of them at least, advocating against regime change wars. They will point to a rock in Afghanistan and Syria and all the other regime change conflicts we've gotten into in the Middle East and over the years. They agree they acknowledge they understand that this made America weaker, that when we spent billions, trillions of dollars from our treasury, we sent thousands of our young men to their deaths and we got absolutely nothing of benefit for the American people. And so to have that voice in the White House was going to be extremely important. And then at the most crucial moment when we're on the brink of war with Iran, that voice is not telling President Trump you don't want to recreate a rock and a rod. You don't want to get embroiled in another regime change operation in the Middle East.

20:44This will be a catastrophe, Mr. President, you cannot do this. No, he was playing to Trump's ego and saying you set a red line. You told the Iranian people that if they protested and they got killed, you would take out the regime. So now regardless of what's best for the American people, what my political philosophy is, you must do this. That's that's absolute psychotic lunacy right there. We should all be absolutely terrified that the people around Donald Trump are morons. Right. JD Vance knows all the better that this would be a catastrophe for the United States. And yet he's arguing that Trump should go through with it to back up his red line. I'm sure playing on here this idea that Obama was weak because he didn't enforce his red line in Syria and didn't take out Assad after the allegations of chemical weapons attacks, which weren't even true. But that's what they're playing on here that you're going to be weak like Obama if you

21:48don't back up your red line. And I really think this sets a kind of a standard that Trump is going to have to do something to back up his words because even JD Vance is calling him out in a way. Now that article details too that there was some opposition, they say opposing them, the advocates for regime change, where Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Wyckoff and his White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. And so I just want to point out that Wyckoff does seem to be the biggest restrainer in the government at this point who has a moderate amount of influence still. So that was good to see. And Susie Wiles, I don't think there's any particular philosophy when it comes to foreign policy on what she supports or what she doesn't. But maybe she's just a rational person and the military, the military advisors were telling Trump like not only do we not have the military assets in the region to for sure knock out

22:48the Iranian government in a single strike. She also don't have the assets in the region to protect our own soldiers. And she would say for that reason, we shouldn't do that. So I think that White House debate is really interesting and really important and gives us a really important insight on JD Vance who likely will be on top of the Republican ticket in 2028 or a top contender. Now I want to move on here and talk about some remarks from Maryam Adelson and our Attorney General Pam Bondi. I think this first one is Adelson. You and Sheldon created a lot of relationship over the years with politicians at the state level, especially at the federal level. I want you to share with everyone why is it so important and how do you do it? Again, writing checks is part of it but there is more than writing just checks. So how do you do it?

23:50Can you allow me no to answer? You choose. No, we can just end the clip there. That's the only relevant part. The reason that she can't answer that question. The reason she says, I can't allow me not to answer is because all she does is write checks. That's her whole game. She owns a large number of our politicians on particular issues. It's not that she could, you know, prescribes all their votes when it comes to how they're going to vote on immigration issues or economic issues. But when it comes to the Middle East, she owns the vote of so many of our politicians because of the chats her and her husband have written over the years. Now, I think as Americans, we should all have a very visceral reaction to this. This woman who clearly has a very strong Adelson, right? She's not from the United States of America, owns our politicians. And the president has talked about it openly in recent months since he's returned to the

24:54White House. And people ask her these questions openly at conferences that are supporting her end goal. So it's not like these are people making adversarial remarks are trying to smear and slander her. They're just saying the opian open and obvious truth, which is her and her husband have written hundreds of millions of dollars in chats to Trump and primarily other Republicans. And that money has bought their support for the state of Israel, not the United States. We have a major person in the United States, a billionaire in the United States from, I guess, Palestine originally, but now from Israel. And she is writing chats to our politicians to buy her their votes on the issue that matters most to her, which is a foreign country. I don't know how there's not massive outrage with this, but it does get even worse here as Maryam Adelson introducing Pam Bondi to talk about the U.S.

25:55crackdown on speech. Her leadership, the Department of Justice, has made combating antisemitism a top priority, especially in response to the alarming rise in incidents following October 7th. She brings moral clarity, resolve, and an unwavering commitment to justice, to this critical fight. Please welcome my friend, the 87th Attorney General of the United States, Pamela Bondi. Maryam Adelson is amazing. What she has done for Israel, for our country, and for this world is second to none. Thank you, my friends. The sad truth is, for way too long, antisemitism has been allowed to grow unchecked in this country.

27:01Too many institutions have abdicated their moral responsibility to speak up. Too many so-called leaders have stayed quiet. Actions have consequences, and inaction has consequences. So pause it there, Chris. Now, I do want to point out, I see the chat is very active, happy to see all of you in there. If you are in the chat, make sure you're subscribed to the show. We are live every Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 4.45 Eastern. If you're in the ads chat, or if you're watching on ads, head on over to YouTube, subscribe to the show. It really helps us out. We're trying to break through the algorithm here. It's not easy. Your comments, your lights, and all of that make a big difference for us. So I want to start off here by just remarking, I think the most nefarious part about what Pam Bondi is saying here is, she's the attorney general, right? She's like the top law enforcement in the United States of America.

28:02And she's saying that the problem isn't just people making antisemitic posts, which, of course, we all know what they would say is an antisemitic post, is just either an anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian post, an anti-genocide post, right? But they're in call that anti-Israel. She's saying that there's a problem that people aren't speaking out, right? That there are people who just don't care about this particular issue or don't care enough to say that, oh, that person's bad because they're pro-Palestinian, right? This is pure left-wing political rhetoric here that we have denounced so many times over the past 10 years. This idea that you have to condemn everything, that everybody has to say, oh, that's racist and that person's bad. And now it's anti-Semitism. And the attorney general right here is absolutely laying it out that silence is not an option. You have to be pro-Israel.

29:05Let's keep rolling the clip. We've sued violent protesters under the face act for intimidating Jewish Americans worshipping at synagogues. This is the first time since its passage, the face act in 1994, that it has been used to protect a house of worship, working with Secretary Linda McMahon who has been a champion for you as well. And harmy, we have secured a $200 million settlement with Columbia University for violating the civil rights of Jewish students. And Jewish employees, we've secured a $75 million settlement with Northwestern University for anti-Semitic conduct. We've secured a $60 million settlement with Cornell. That includes provisions to halt anti-Semitic conduct. And we've launched a full investigation into University of California's system for systematic

30:09anti-Semitism. All right, so pause it there. This is just absolutely unbelievable that our attorney general is bragging about using the Department of Justice to control the narrative on an issue for a foreign government. Again, it would be one thing. I still think it would be wrong. It would be a violation of the First Amendment. But if she was just solely talking about cracking down on Americans who were engaged in anti-American speech, you at least could see how that fits into the Trump umbrella of MAGA and American first. Again, I think it's anti-American, I think it's anti-constitutional violation of free speech, but at least that fits into the mold. This idea that we need to crack that again, anti-Semitism doesn't mean people going around and painting swastika on the doors of Jewish houses are something insane and anti-Semitic. She's talking here purely about these universities not doing enough to prevent students from

31:12protesting either for the Palestinians against the genocide or against the special relationship between the United States and Israel. We cannot allow our Justice Department to control the narrative, the political discussion in this country, particularly not one is for the benefit of another foreign country. All right, so last week there was a phenomenal debate between Dave Smith and Dinesh D'Souza on the zero hedge debate circuit. I think it was actually on the Judging Freedom channel on YouTube, tons of people turned in, and Dave Smith just destroyed Dinesh D'Souza. I remember like halfway through the debate, Dinesh was like, you're only example of a failed regime change is the Iraq war and then Dave absolutely blew that out of the water and everything else he said. But afterwards, as most losers of public debates do, they run to ads and they post some clips on themselves and they say, ah, look here, I actually run the debate, won the debate.

32:16So this is a couple clips that Dinesh posted, right? So this isn't like me cherry picking some clips of Dinesh looking bad during the debate. This is actually what he thought his highlights of the debate war. So let's roll this first clip. The United States right in the aftermath of World War II, and forced regime change on a whole bunch of societies, including notably Japan and Germany. And the results have been excellent. In the Cold War, you had innumerable examples of regime change. Chau Chescu was out in Romania, there were tyrannical governments out in East Germany, in Poland, in Bulgaria, is anyone going to say regime change in the Soviet Union was not a good idea when the Communist Party abolished itself and got rid of it? But what he leaves out there is the tens of millions of civilians that had to be slaughtered in order to do that. And the decades and decades and decades of military occupation that followed. And so if you're telling me that anyone in the United States of America has the stomach

33:18for anything like that right now, we both know that's just completely off the table. Even if you can get past the little pesky morality of it, there's just no way that anyone has the stomach or the political will for anything like that today. The fact is that if you're going to do a regime change, well, the only way to really have a say in what government follows is you have to militarily occupy the place. You guys with your regime change philosophy, you have a Holocaust's worth of dead people on your conscience. We haven't been subject to a World War II style attack. The Chinese came over and let's just say bomb Chicago and took out the city. I think we'd have a lot of appetite for responding very aggressively. You said that if you knock out the government, you have a responsibility to go and run the country. False, false and false again, all you have to do is go and find the rival thugs who are more friendly to you and say to them, in this case, by the way, they happen to be called the Northern Alliance, we're giving the country to you. When the British, for example, defeated an opponent, they didn't necessarily feel we've

34:19got to go over there. No, you basically get your friends in there and they deal with you on a different basis than the bad guys. So again, this is what the United States made him look good in that debate where he go, you know, we have all these examples of failed regime change wars in US military conflicts over the past three decades. My entire lifetime, right, I'm 35 years old. My entire lifetime is just one failed US military intervention intervention after another that made the world less stable that didn't advance American interests that cost the American people money and cost the lives of our young men and women to fight in those conflicts. And he rolls it all the way back to World War II and says, look at the successes of Japan and Germany. But we still subsidize the defenses of those countries all this time later. So yes, they are still, you know, oriented in the American alliance, you know, American

35:21block now, but it's not as if the Germany would still panic if we left NATO, Japan would panic if we left East Asia. They would say, no, you have to say you have to keep your tens of thousands of troops that we still have in these countries. And sure, the troops in Japan and Germany are no longer out trying to pacify the people who are opposed to the US occupation because they've accepted it at this point and they found ways to benefit off being a part of the American empire and, you know, subsidize their defense by having the American people pay for it. But this is not an example of why we should go and conduct a regime change operation today. And I think Dave did a really good job of smashing Dinesh's argument, hammering on the morality point, right? Like people just like to say, oh, you know, Germany and Japan were huge successes. Well, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and fire bombed most of their cities.

36:22We killed millions of people in Germany in World War II, right? We completely reduced many of their cities to rubble. Americans rightly don't have any stomach for that today, right? We don't want to see our government have to go into Iran, destroy most of their cities, kill three million people and then have 10, 20, 30,000 of our troops in that country for the next seven decades, while our government dumps billions of dollars into it in order to claim that we somehow made the Middle East a better place. Americans don't believe this anymore. All right, everyone, that's where I'm going to wrap it up today. Thank you all so much for tuning into the show. I'll be sure you're subscribed to the channel really does help us out and like and share this video. We'll be back with another episode on Wednesday.