A (27:11)
And I'm thinking this is maybe the entire conceit of maga. Maga is a handshake between the establishment and the rubes. What happened to us? What happened to you guys in 2016? We. We were gonna burn it all down in 2016. We were saying, we need an outsider. We need a businessman. We need someone that's gonna destroy the establishment of both parties. The globalists, the banks, the special interests. What the happened? Here we are ten years later, and the logic of Trump Republicans is, vote for every Republican, no matter what. Vote for Lindsey Graham, vote for Kevin McCarthy, vote for Ronna McDaniel, vote for the RNC, vote for War in Iran. We don't care if we build a wall or have mass deportations. The entire conceit of MAGA was to get a nation of people that were ready to revolt and get them back onto the plantation. A nation of people that were unreasonable, thought the elections were rigged, thought they were being screwed by free trade, mass immigration, foreign wars. They were ready to burn it all down and get them back onto the plantation. Being dutiful Republican voters and accepting all the compromises that came with that. And that's actually a perfect segue into our first story, which is about this editorial from the Wall Street Journal. And like I said, I'm reading the Journal today. And for those that don't know, the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is a super Zionist and a spook. He got his citizenship from the Reagan administration, working with the intelligence agencies, building satellites. Owner of Fox News, New York Post, friend of Netanyahu. And his paper, Wall Street Journal is like the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Commerce, of the business interest. And there's a very interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal. It's an editorial and it talks about the mass deportations. And like I said at the top of the show, there has been so much said about mass deportations from a cultural and political lens. When we think about immigration, what we really think about is a cultural social issue. We think about a largely white majority, an increasingly small white majority that is frustrated with the influx of immigrants who have a different culture, speak a different language, have created this underclass lifestyle where they're dependent on welfare, where they never assimilate, and where they're actually changing the texture of life of most cities in America because of these ethnic enclaves they're creating. They're browning America. And this is how we typically think about it. And so when we think about illegal immigration, we think about issues of society. Should these people stay in our country? Are they contributing? Are they good people? Are they real Americans? What does it mean to be American? Aren't we all immigrants? And what does it mean to be an immigrant? What's the difference between a settler and and an economic migrant? These are the types of conversations that we have. And then there's also a political conversation. Well, they're all going to vote Democrat and the Democrats want to amnesty them because they're a fixture of the Democrat machine politics. And people say the Democrats are the party of the marginalized and the racial and ethnic minorities and so on and so forth. And we've talked about these angles throughout the past year. We've talked about the pushback from the radical left, how they're fighting ice. We've talked about how the Democrat Party shielded the immigrants. We have talked about how the Democrats are resisting this legislatively, how their allies in the media are putting the pressure on the administration, how Republicans don't like that, the issues in the media because of the midterms. But this is the angle which is actually the most important aspect. And it is also the one that is never talked about. Now, for context, two years ago, I predicted that mass deportations would not happen. It's why I didn't vote for Trump. And you can go back, all these shows are on Rumble. You can go back and watch my show from 2024, two years ago. And I said explicitly, I said, I will not vote for Trump because the mass Deportations are never gonna happen. And I knew it for a fact and I was confident. Why was I confident? How did I know it? Well, I said it back then. It's not just about me. It's about the ironclad logic of these kinds of factors here. The reason why is because two years ago I said, during this election in 2024, what is the central determining factor of, of the success of the Democrats or the Republicans for that matter? It's the economy. How well the incumbent party does in the election is dependent on how good the economy is doing. And what is happening in the economy in 2024. Inflation. Prices are going up. They're going up because of all the money printing. They're going up because of supply chain disruptions. They're going up for a variety of reasons. Inflation is high. That is one of the number one quantitative metrics to predict which party is gonna win the election. Now the Republicans are promising mass deportations. People are saying they're gonna win the election because they're promising mass deportations. I said in 24. The reason you're not gonna get mass deportations is because if you deport 10 million people, which is how many people came in under Joe Biden, what kind of impact do you think that will have on the economy? Just think about it. 10 million human beings, that is like if all the illegal immigrants in America, which is 30 million people. If all those people were removed, that would be like if Texas broke off from America and suddenly wasn't counted in the GDP, like Texas or Florida, if you deported even 10 million, that would be like if you took Chicago and its entire metropolitan area and you subtracted that from the US economy, it's gdp. What would that do to the GDP numbers? What would that do to the rest of the macroeconomic metrics? Well, let's say very simply, in the first place, you remove 10 million people, that is 10 million fewer consumers. That's 10 million fewer people that are spending money on clothes, on food, on gas, on cars, on energy, on rent, on healthcare, on education, all of these things. 10 million fewer consumers. That's a huge hit. Well, what else do these 10 million people do? Many of them work, many of them, many of them have jobs. 10 million people that are being employed under the table for low wages, in construction, hospitality, food delivery, all these kinds of things that are now going to have to be replaced. Replaced by native born workers that are gonna want benefits, healthcare, minimum wage. So what does that do to labor cost? It makes it go up. You have a huge disruption the illegals go out. Oh, no, we got to find their replacements. There's a period of adjustment. And when they find their native born replacements, the labor cost goes up. Cost goes up. You either have to increase prices, hello, inflation, or profits go down. And profits for who? Businesses, Wall street, the corporations that employ them. Suffice to say, you deport 10 million people, it is going to slow down the economy and it is going to increase prices. Now, you're Donald Trump in the White House. You got elected to get inflation under control. That's why Biden, or ostensibly Kamala Harris, that's why the Democrats lost the election, because prices were going up, inflation was high, stagflation was setting in. So they get killed politically over this. Trump gets into office, he needs to bring prices down. If you're a politician, this is your imperative. You wanna win in 26, you wanna win in 28, you gotta get the prices down or stabilize them. You gotta fix the economy, because if you don't, the bottom falls out from under you. If you don't fix the economy, you get a blue tsunami and, and then you get impeached, and then you lose in 28. So these are the ironclad laws of politics. It's the economy, stupid. If you wanna win the election, you gotta have a good economy. If you wanna have a good economy, you gotta have growth, you gotta have price stability. Inflation has to hit that target of 2%. And in this particular time of persistently high inflation, structural inflation, this is all the more important. Now factor in some other things. What else is Trump promising to do in 2024? He's promising a tariff schedule of 15% tariffs on all goods coming into the country. Now, I'm a tariff supporter and I don't believe that tariffs are necessarily a direct tax on consumers. However, some of the cost of the tariff is ultimately borne by the consumer. Not all of it, and I think it's worth it, but some of it is. Some of the cost of the tariff is ultimately passed down. So that's already putting upward pressure on prices. Now you're going to deport 10 million people on top of that, now you're going to deport 10 million consumers, 10 million workers, 10 million people that are employed under the table in some of these very important fields. Agriculture, construction, food, service, hospitality. I don't think so. Which is Trump going to choose? Deporting 10 million people, which is so politically costly, logistically not feasible for the government, would be unprecedented in terms of the effort required to do it. And it's gonna Destroy the economy and they get wiped in the midterms and they get wiped in 28. Or is Trump going to gesture that he's doing deportations performatively target the criminals, of which There are only 700,000 criminal illegal aliens, people that are already a drain on society and say that they did mass deportations and meanwhile they don't fuck with the illegal immigrants that are actually working. They don't mess with those good illegals that have been here for 20 years, that are contributing to society, that are bolstering the profits of Wall Street. Well, now we have our answer. So 2025, they deport 230,000 people. It's nothing. 2026, Trump has changed the policy. He says, well, we're only going after criminal illegals. And specifically, what have they done? They have made car vouchs for the illegals with jobs. When Trump passed the big beautiful bill last year, him and Stephen Miller and Brooke Rollins at Agriculture were devising a plan to give hundreds of thousands of H2A visas for illegal immigrants working on farms. It was effectively an amnesty. Go look it up. This was a negotiation. They were talking about taking all these illegal immigrants working in agriculture. Rollins is Secretary of Agriculture. And they were gonna grandfather them in and effectively say, well, you're here already. You're working on the farms. We're gonna give you a seasonal work visa to work on the farms. And they were gonna give this big carve out and shield those people from deportation and effective amnesty. Now in 2026, I hear word from the administration from inside that they are not going to do job site raids for companies with more than 50 employees. When Trump went into a Hyundai factory in Georgia and they deported 300 South Koreans, Trump himself called the governor and apologized and said he wouldn't do it again. They're making carve outs for illegal aliens. It's not zero tolerance. It's not mass deportations. They're protecting the labor. Well, now here we are, 2026, I'm gonna read to you. This is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal. This is a conservative paper of record, Murdoch owned. This is Rupert Murdoch owned, allied with the administration, mouthpiece for the business interest. This is what Wall Street Journal has to say. It says, quote, america's strength rests on sustained capital investment, but also on a growing supply of labor. More workers means more production, consumers, and demand. Doesn't that sound great? That, you know, that's what I wake up and am concerned about. I want America to just constantly have more workers, more consumption, more, more aggregate demand. It's never enough. Uh, and if we don't have enough white workers, let's bring in Mexican workers. Oh, not enough Mexican workers or they're too stupid. More Chinese workers, uh, more African workers, more refugees. And we're all gonna live together, increasing aggregate demand, buying products forever. You know, then we're gonna go to the moon and we're gonna go to Mars, and hopefully we can colonize the stars so that we can increase aggregate demand even more. I imagine a scenario where we encounter extraterrestrial life, and they can also consume products and contribute to the gross domestic product. We can only hope that we can actually expand, put people on other planetary bodies. There will be more production, consumption, and demand. Uh, but anyway, so this is how it starts. It says the Trump administration's mass deportations threatened to break that virtuous cycle. Okay, it's. It's almost beyond parody. Let me read that again. America's strength rests on its growing supply of labor. More workers means more production, consumers, and demand. The Trump administration's mass deportations threatened to break that virtuous circle. Not a vicious cycle of just constantly growing, constantly expanding the economy. No, this is a virtuous cycle of importing foreign workers to increase production and consumption and the gdp. It's a virtuous cycle. That is good. It goes on. The US Was already slowly approaching zero labor force growth as fertility fell and the population aged. So th. This is an economic problem. Right? Uh, people aren't getting married and having kids. And my first concern is, well, you know, who's gonna man the factories? Man, when I think about the travesty of men and women being alienated from one another, not pair bonding, not entering the sacrament of marriage and having children. Uh, our society is dying because it's devoid of love and connection and, and, and ultimately tradition and holiness. Yeah, but like, so who's going to man the factories if men and women aren't getting married and having lots of kids? And the. And we don't have a ton of kids. I mean, so who's going to make the stuff? Like, who's going to be insurance agents? Who is going to man the gift shops? Who's gonna do it? Who's gonna make the missiles? Who's gonna make the Stinger missiles for Ukraine if we don't have kids? Uh, this is a big problem that says what kept the country from this demographic disaster was immigration. The 3,000 person per day arrest quota for immigration enforcement looks like an act of economic self sabotage. In other words, we're not having kids. To man the factories. We, we need immigrants to make up the difference. If you start deporting illegals, we're sabotaging this plan, it says. Which is, you know, sort of the point, actually. Research from the center for migration studies finds that the undocumented workforce in the United States is large and overwhelmingly employed across key sectors of the economy. Many of the 675,000 immigrants deported last year. That's a fake number, by the way. Uh, we're working to build data centers. Manufacturing plants, energy infrastructure and housing. Who will take their place when the U. S. Has 6 million unfilled jobs? Who will build the data centers? Guys, you thought we were going to deport 30 million illegals. But wait, who's going to build the data centers so that we can have more chat GPT prompts? Who's gonna build the houses for all the illegal immigrants without the illegal immigrants? Have you even thought of that? I know everybody was excited about mass deportations. Who's gonna build the multifamily housing for all these immigrants if we don't have immigrant labor? Who's gonna build the data centers? Uh, it goes on. Deportations impot impose costs on citizens too. The Peterson institute for international economics projected in 2024 that deporting 1.3 million workers could raise consumer prices by 1.1.5% within three years. As labor shortages worsen, deportations lead to the loss of jobs for citizens. According to the Hamilton Project, consumption declines. The Brookings Institute estimates that the US lost between 40 and 60 billion dollars in in consumer spending because of deportations. And that slows economic growth. There it is. I mean, he didn't think of this. Deport 10 million Venezuelans. Think of the hit to the GDP. As a businessman, a taxpayer, and an American with roots in this country that go back 400 years, I wanna see us keep growing as we have for the past 250 years. I believe the vast majority of Americans feel the same way. The question we need to ask is, what is the ROI on our investment in ice? Ice? This is the part that nobody wants to talk about. It is all about the economics. That's really what it is. At the end of the day, why is it that we need to bring in millions and millions and millions of immigrants? Well, you don't even really need to ask this and wonder aloud because it's a testable hypothesis. When did immigration increase the most? 1990. It was the 1990 Immigration act under George Bush, which basically doubled every category of immigration, green cards, chain migration. It created H1B, it created these visa programs. They. The visa lottery. Everybody knows about the 65 Hart Seller Act. It was the 1990 Immigration act, which actually increased the quotas, increased the limit of how many legal immigrants could arrive. And who gave us the 1990 Immigration Act? George Bush. A Republican. President George Bush gave us the 1990 immigration act. Chain migration Republicans. Visa lottery Republicans. H1BS Republicans. They invented it. And who lobbied for the 1990 immigration act? The Chamber of Commerce, of course, the Chamber of Commerce, representing the business interests, because they, on Wall street are measuring the macroeconomic trends. They are measuring the collapsing fertility rate. They're measuring the trend in terms of population growth and the future workforce and the size of people which will be beneficiaries of the government. Retirees, dependents, as opposed to productive people. And so they lobbied for us to accept more Hispanics, more Asians to do these jobs that Americans could not do because there's not enough of us, because we're not being born. And this is why then the propaganda was created. There's all sorts of political interest behind it as well. But this is just the narrative that serves as the pretext. America's gonna become a big and welcoming country, and we are a nation of immigrants. And the American dream is for everybody. And the blessings of liberty were secured not just for white men, but for people from anywhere. Why was this mythology created? So that white people would get comfortable with their replacements. White people would get comfortable with the economic migrants pouring in from the countries that still have a high fertility rate who are going to replace the children that white people never had and we're not going to have. And what is the incentive to bring these people in? It's literally just a math equation. If you're a business and you're making things or selling a service, what's your number one cost? You got to pay rent on your factory, on your. On your farm or whatever. You got to pay for the land usage, you got to pay for your taxes. You got to pay for your capital, your machinery, your equipment. But probably your biggest cost is your labor. It's the people that are working there. If you're running a farm, it's the people that are picking the grapes, picking the berries. If you're running a hotel, it's the people that are turning over the rooms, turning over the beds and the bathrooms. If you're a construction company, it's the people that are hammering the nails that are doing the work. So they want immigrants to come over here and work as cheaply as possible. Immigrants that are gonna come here. And because they are not actually citizens, or in some cases they are. But there's another way in which the workers are dependent on their employers. Like in the case of H1BS, they want people that are going to come over and in a word, accept a lower quality of life, lower wages, becoming an underclass, dependent on government to subsidize their lifestyle with some small wages. And if you could get that cost down with a constantly increasing supply of labor and people that are working basically without regulation, you keep that cost as low as possible. And that means your profits can go up. If the cost goes down, the profits go up, the revenue is fixed. If you could get the cost down, you get to keep more of what you bring in. It's. It's that simple. And so Wall street, which buys and sells the companies, and the companies which are becoming conglomerates and highly centralized, well, it is in their economic interest to have this endless supply of labor as a distinct class. The people that own the businesses, whether they're running the businesses themselves or they just own the stocks or they're the asset managers, they want to keep the supply of labor flowing so that profits go up so that their assets appreciate in value and they get richer. And those are your billionaires. Those are your billionaire class. That is your billionaire corporate business owning class, which is subsidizing the Republican party. And at the end of the day, that is the dirty little secret of the G O P. Let me put it to you simply. The Republican party subsists on donations and funding from the billionaire business class, but they subsist on votes from, from the middle and working class. That's where they get their votes. They get their votes from states like West Virginia where they're coal miners, states like Texas where they're cattle ranchers, states like Indiana where they used to make things, where they used to be factories, but they get their funding from Wall Street. So how do you reconcile these two positions? Because these are economically at odds with one another. Well, you create someone like Trump and Trump is going to play up the cultural, social angle and even the economic angle for the voters and say build the wall, deport them all. We speak English, not Spanish. Thi. This is countries for Americans, heritage Americans, whatever. Then you get elected and you don't deport the illegals that are actually working. You, you make a show of it. Cause you need those voters, you deport the criminals. You make these gestures, you convince them somehow that you're doing something that you're not actually doing. And then when you Actually go to work as the president, you protect the economic interests of your donors, of the billionaires. And that's the dirty secret of the G O P. Why are you not getting mass deportations? It's not because Stephen Miller didn't figure it out, okay? That's not why. Look, they, they got $90 billion for ICE. They've got the Immigration Naturalization act, they have the jurisdiction, they have the money, they have the authority, they could do it. And they were doing it. When Trump first got in, ICE was accidentally deporting people from their jobs. They were arresting people at the meat packing plant, they were arresting people at the Hyundai plant, they're arresting people in the Home Depot, depot parking lots. They can do it. They were doing it. Trump told them to stop. He explicitly and specifically told Stephen Miller to stop doing those things. Why? Because he got the call. He got the call from the asset managers, he got the call from the banks, he got the call from Wall Street. They got nervous, they read the news, they saw job site raid, illegal immigrants not showing up to work, afraid of being deported. And these people that watched the news closely to get the edge, trading stocks and speculating, they said, oh, we got a problem. We have persistently high inflation, we have a Federal Reserve chairman that won't bring interest rates down, we have a tariff war and a trade war with China and, and now in the middle of all this, our slaves are not going to work. Cuz they're afraid that they'll get deported by Trump. So they called Trump up, they called up the commerce secretary, they called up all the different people in the cabinet and they said shut it down. Our slaves are afraid to go to work. And if we can't get them to go to work, then we gotta hire American. And Americans want healthcare, Americans want a living wage. Americans need to be trained up because they've been excluded from this job market for 30 years because a decision was made that they would be replaced by foreigners cuz that's cheaper. So Trump called up Stephen Miller and said we gotta stop. We're gonna give H2A visas, H1A visas to the illegal farm workers. He said we're not gonna deport people from job sites. We're not gonna go to a job site with more than 50 workers. We're not gonna implement e verify. Instead we're gonna have these visible patrols of ice, right? We're gonna have ice just walking down the street, Border patrol parading around downtown Chicago so that all these liberals can take their pictures and go on TikTok and, and Republicans will say, oh boy, the deportations are happening. Look, there they are in uniform, parading around the streets, okay? That's the trick. That's the conceit. They never intended to deport anybody, and this is why. Because you deport 10 million people and GDP is negative. You deport 10 million people and inflation ticks up, prices are going to go up 2%. So they'll never do it. And you have to understand structurally what is happening. To get elected, Republicans need billions of dollars. Who has a discretionary funds to contribute billions of dollars every two years to throw into a sinkhole for an election? The capitalist class, the billionaires. That's who has the money to do it. Ken Griffin, the Bernard Marcus at Home Depot, U Line, the, the one of the other big Republican donors. These are the people that have the money to put up for the Republicans year over year. So the Republicans gotta keep the business interest happy in the House, in the Senate, in the White House and the state races. And so as long as that is the case, you're not gonna get your deportations. The, the economic interest, the capitalist interest is always going to win out. And, and listen, I'm not a communist, okay? When I say capitalist, I mean the people that own capital, I mean the privately accumulated capital, the people that have billions of dollars in assets. Most people have no capital. Most people have a negative net worth. You have credit card debt, you're living paycheck to paycheck. You are not a capitalist because you have no capital. You don't own your home. You, you don't own your car. You're delinquent on your payments. You're living paycheck to paycheck. You have no savings, you have no stocks. You, you have no nothing. You are not a capitalist. You are a worker. Okay? Most people are becoming basically indentured servants in a sense. Everything is as a service. And we are becoming less wealthy. So you need to think in terms of the economics. You can't vote for Trump and say, I hope he's gonna do mass deportations. Why would he do that? He's gonna do mass deportations because you're uncomfortable with diversity. I don't like that. My school is all Hispanics. I voted for Trump so he can remove these people. Trump doesn't give a fuck about that. He don't live with them. You think all the immigrants live on in Mar a Lago? You think the immigrants live in Palm Beach? The immigrants work at Palm Beach. The immigrants don't live in Trump Tower. They don't live in Mar a Lago, they work in Trump Tower. They work at Mar a Lago. They, they're delivering Uber eats and door dash in the Trump Tower lobby. Okay? So there's no culture clash for Trump or Tucker or any of these people. It's a culture clash for us because, you know, we have to share the commons with them. So that's the dirty secret of the gop. You wanna know why you are never gonna get em? Because the billionaires that fund the G O P employ these people and profit off of them. That's why. It's got nothing to do with anything else. So if anybody tells you otherwise and says, well, you know, I, I feel like Trump is gonna do it. I feel like Trump is our guy. And the posters are in control. And look at this press release. Dude, fuck the press releases. People say, look, the Department of Homeland Security X account just posted a meme that doesn't matter. That's some intern. That guy is getting paid $40,000 a year. Okay? That is some shithead that is getting paid a pittance. And he's all jazzed up. He's Texas mommy and daddy. I'm working in the Capitol. I'm working in D.C. that guy has no power. That guy is a nothing. Posters are in control. JD Vance is following somebody on Twitter. The DHS account posted a press release. Yeah, that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. I wipe my ass with that. You know what matters? Jamie diamond has Trump on speed dial. That's what matters. Okay? The head of blackrock, Larry Fink, he's got Trump on speed dial. That's what matters. And those people are not nativists, okay? They're not reading V Dare. They're not nativists that want heritage Americans to preside. Like, what? They don't care about any of that. They're literally building skyscrapers for their bank, which is dependent on the macroeconomic success of the country. That has very little to do with how you feel about the fact they put a Mexican ice cream parlor in your neighborhood. You know, so it, it is, it is just a flawed way of thinking to think that these people that write substack articles have more power and more influence over the Trump government than the fucking billionaires that gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars. You see the problem? You're following some 35 year old burnout that makes 40 grand a month posting articles on chronicles and a substack telling you everything's under control. Trump is listening to us. And you think that guy has more Pull over the government than, than Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon. And that's insane. That's mental illness. So this is why you actually need an insurgent candidate that is truly disruptive. You need someone that is going to take on the billionaires. You need someone that is going to take on the money power. As Spengler wrote. You need a true Caesar like figure who is going to rally the popular power, the people power, the national power against the money power. Cause that's what it is. It's money money. You know, it's sort of like medium is the message. It has this inertia all by itself. The, the market itself has to be stopped by the state. That's what has to happen anyway. So that's that Wall Street Journal editorial. Very, very important point to understand for anybody that would place their hopes and dreams and aspirations on the next Republican being based. And did you notice this is the last thing I'll say, then we'll move on. You know what's really interesting? Have you noticed that all of a sudden some of the planners at Davos are now saying that maybe we have too many migrants? Have you noticed this? That all of a sudden Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink and Hillary Clinton, they're now saying maybe we're taking in too many migrants? Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because they got red pilled? Why do you think the United States is shutting down its borders? Why do you think the United Kingdom is gonna try to control regular migration? Is it because they had an epiphany and the people have had enough and they got based? It's because we are just now starting to see technological unemployment. We are just now starting to see the disruption to the labor market caused by AI. Soon we're going to have a very similar effect with robotics. And what do you think happens when AI and robots start replacing all the white collar and blue collar work? You're going to have a lot of unemployed people. What are you going to do with all of them now? All of those producers and workers who are also consumers, as this article says, they're now gonna become beneficiaries of the state. They're gonna be on UBI and the more of those people you have, you got a lot of problems. Cause these are a lot of people with nothing to do all day and they're gonna need very expensive health care and they're gonna need housing and they're gonna need food and other stuff. So now all of a sudden, now the central planners say I think we maybe have too many migrants. Maybe this is a problem. Well, that has everything to do with the macroeconomic trend, which is that pretty soon maybe we're not gonna have a need for labor. There's a question, you know, will there be labor? What kind of labor will there be in an economy where we have an artificial general intelligence? Now, I'm not gonna weigh in on whether these predictions are true or whether they're overstated. All I'm saying is the reason, what is true is that some of the planners are now expressing doubt. And that's calculated. Hillary Clinton doesn't say a word, which isn't choreographed. So it's not like she made it offhand remark. This reflects a changing consensus among these elite circles. And it doesn't have to do with these nativistic sentiments. It has to do with the change in the macroeconomic projections of the people that are paying her speaking fees and buying her book. That's why you're getting that. So it just speaks to the fact that that is what drives everything. And ultimately that is what we have to get in front of if we want to have real change. So, anyway, that's the Wall Street Journal. I do want to get into the situation in Iran and we're running out of time here a little bit. We're an hour in. But I, I'm gonna talk about Iran because this is a really big deal. We are into our coverage of the imminent action in Iran. And today we have another update for you. The buildup of military force continues. Second aircraft carrier strike group has entered the Mediterranean Sea as of today. That is the USS Gerald Ford, our biggest, most advanced aircraft carrier, which is joined by three destroyers, has entered the Mediterranean Sea. It is on its way to the Middle east where it will join another carrier strike group, the USS Abraham Lincoln, as well as a number of other warships, aircraft, personnel that have been forward deployed. That aircraft carrier, once in place, will put the United States in a position as soon as Saturday to launch an all out attack on Iran. This is according to the latest information from Axios and other sources close to the administration. They say that as early as Saturday we will be in a position offensively and defensively to start the attack on Iran. And this is a story from the New York Times. It says, quote, the rapid buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle east has progressed to the point that President Trump has the option to take military action against Iran as soon as this weekend, according to officials inside the Pentagon, leaving the White House with high stakes choices about pursuing diplomacy or war. Mr. Trump has given no indication that he has made a decision about how to proceed. But the drive to assemble a military force capable of striking Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles and accompanying launch sites, has continued this week despite indirect talks between the two nations on Tuesday, with Iran seeking two weeks to come back with fleshed out proposals for a diplomatic solution. Mr. Trump has repeatedly demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program, including an agreement not to enrich any more uranium. The prime minister of Israel, whose country potentially might take part in an attack, has been pushing for action to weaken Iran's ability to launch missiles at Israel. Israeli forces, which have been on heightened alert for weeks, have been making more preparations for a possible war. And a meeting of Israel's security cabinet was moved to Sunday from Thursday, according to two Israeli defense officials. Many administration officials have expressed skepticism about the prospect of reaching a diplomatic deal with Tehran. The indirect talks on Tuesday in Geneva yesterday ended with what Iran's foreign minister said was an agreement on a set of guiding principles. The U. S. Said the two sides made progress, but added that big gaps remain. So let me set the stage here for you. We'll do a little bit of background, then we'll talk about where this is going imminently. So, as you know, we are in the second leg of our campaign against Iran. It all started last year. I mean, it really. It goes back much further than that. But in the second Trump administration, it started last year. As soon as Trump got into office, Netanyahu started coming by asking us to bomb Iran's nuclear program, which we then did. We engaged Iran in negotiations, came to an impasse, and then Israel provoked Iran into a war. And the United States intervened to cripple Iran's nuclear complex by bombing Fordo Esfahan and Natanz. And so we resolved the issue temporarily, and we resolved the issue temporarily by increasing Iran's breakout time. What is that timeline? How long will it take for Iran to get a nuclear bomb if they decide to decide they want one? What is that timeline? Before those strikes, it might've been three months. If Iran made the decision, they'd have a primitive device in three months after the strikes, maybe it's two years. So that's what that accomplished. Well, Netanyahu has started coming back, came back in December, came back again recently. He came back, I believe it was last week. And once again, Netanyahu is asking for another attack on Iran. And this time, Netanyahu is asking us to bomb their missiles. Israel says that Iran is going to preemptively Attack Israel this time, and they're going to do it with ballistic missiles. And so the United States has to go in and bomb Iran's missiles before they get a chance to do that. So this is where we are now. After Netanyahu came to visit the United States in December, these protests mysteriously started out of nowhere in Iran, and they threatened to topple the government. The United States was going to intervene, maybe to push over the regime, but we didn't have enough assets in the region. We only had one carrier strike group. We didn't have enough defensive capabilities. Our troops were vulnerable to a retaliatory strike. So Trump called it off, but at the same time that he called off the strike, he started sending in a huge force package to remedy the situation. So Trump started sending in a ton of warships into the Middle east and a ton of missile defense systems and started moving our forces outta harm's way and started moving in aircraft and cargo ships and refueling aircraft and all kinds of assets to prepare for a possible attack on Iran and to defend against a counterattack from Iran. And a couple weeks ago, Trump gave them an ultimatum, and he said, either you are going to fully surrender and capitulate to our demands, or we are going to destroy your regime. And since then, the United States has been engaged in diplomacy with Iran. I say diplomacy because that's not really what it is. They've opened up indirect talks between the US And Iran, and this was done at the behest of our other Muslim allies. Only after an intense lobbying effort from Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, the Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, did the United States relent. And they gave Iran one last chance to make a deal. Now, this is a very important thing to understand. Okay? A lot has been said about these talks. They're being called negotiations. They are nothing like that. That. That is not what this is. I've seen this for the past three weeks. I've even, you know, used improper language about this. These are not negotiations. That is not what is happening here. Okay, for the past three weeks, yes, Washington and Tehran have engaged in indirect talks. They are not negotiations. Why? Because the United States is not negotiating. Understand the difference. Last year, arguably, the United States was negotiating, and Steve Whitcoff and some of the other personnel were looking for a creative solution where Iran is gonna give some concessions, and maybe we would accept some technical concessions. But then we bombed them, and now they're weaker than ever before. They're in no position to negotiate. From the perspective of our administration, their proxy network has been destroyed. Their nuclear program has been buried underneath rubble. The only thing that really threatens Israel and our bases is their ballistic missile program. That's it. And so from the perspective of Washington and Tel Aviv, they are almost neutralized. They're badly diminished. So the United States engaging in talks is not the same as negotiations. We're not going to compromise. We're not going to change our position. What was expressed in Oman last week and what was expressed in Switzerland yesterday was not a willingness to negotiate, but rather we are giving Iran a chance to capitulate to our demands. That's what that was. Let's be very clear that the United States has been firm from the time Trump made the ultimatum several weeks ago in Oman and in Switzerland. The US Position is this is where we are. You gotta meet us here. Not we're gonna meet in the middle. Not we're gonna work something out. The White House, the press secretary, the Secretary of State, the envoy, the President, the Vice President, they have all said, our position is you're giving up enrichment and, or you're gonna die. And that's it. And Iran is trying to stall for time. Iran is begging them for negotiations. The Ayatollah gave a dispensation for Pizzan and Iraqi to negotiate, and they are, are making these concessions. Well, we'll agree to limit enrichment for three years. Well, we'll give up our stockpile of enriched uranium. And the United States is saying, that's great, we love to hear it, but there's still a long way for you to go between what you're offering and what we're asking for. The United States is not moved by this. Now, what does that mean? As we've talked about, what is the substance of the negotiations? It concerns nuclear enrichment. Iran has the ability to enrich uranium, the infrastructure, the technology, the expertise, the. The raw material. And the United States is telling them you have to give it up. And they are telling us they will never give it up. That's really what it is, and that's what it was last year, and that's what it was when Biden tried to negotiate in 2023. And that's what it was in 2020, and that's what it was in 2015 when the J C P O A was agreed upon. That is the impasse. They have. Enrichment they have. We want them to give it up, they refuse. Where does that leave us here today? Well, like I said on telegram and like I've been saying, the United States and Israel perceive Iran is weaker than ever before. And so now we're engaging them in this gunboat diplomacy where we put an armada off their coast, point the guns at them, and say, surrender or else. And like I said, people are calling these negotiations. It isn't what it is. From the perspective of our side, we are in a position either to extract all the concessions we want, or we're gonna do a regime change, or we're gonna bomb them, and. And then whatever is remaining is gonna make a deal. But that is really where we are. All of this is to say we are going to get military action. A deal is not in the cards. Okay? And the reason I'm insistent upon this is because I saw an interview today between Steve Bannon and Kurt Mills. Kurt Mills is at American Conservative, and he's wrong about everything. Uh, I probably agree with him on most things, but he's one of these analysts that's very Israel critical, but also very pro Trump. And he was there last year saying that we're gonna get a deal with Iran. Oh, Israel bombed Iran. Well, we'll never participate. Oh, we participated. Well, at least it only lasted a day. Kurt Mills is back for another round of being wrong about everything. I saw him on Steve Bannon today, and he said, if the United States insists on zero enrichment, then we're not gonna get a deal. But if we concede, then we're gonna get a deal. And I hear this. There's a lot of optimism. There's a lot of talk. There are a lot of headlines. It's bullshit. Don't listen to it. Okay? The headlines say progress has been made in the talks. The talks have been constructive. Both sides say the talks have been good. These are press releases, Press releases from the other side. Actually think about what is at stake here. Actually think about what is said. Think about what the actual actors involved are thinking, and they want. The headlines, of course, are gonna say the talks are good. Of course it's gonna say that. Of course Iran is gonna say they were productive. Read between the lines. The United States is saying there are gaps between our position and theirs. They've got two weeks to meet us where we are. What does that sound like? That's an ultimatum. Now, if the United States is giving Iran an ultimatum, then you have to think about, well, if they're not gonna change their mind, will Iran? And the answer is no. If Iran has come this far, they're not gonna give up enrichment. They've been tricked by the United States. They don't trust the United States. They think the United States and Israel are in cahoots to destroy Iran. So why Would they give up enrichment? At this point, they believe that they're gonna get bombed anyway. So why are they engaging in negotiations? Well, just like the United States, they're not gonna budge on their position. They're engaging in negotiations to buy time. If they can buy another two weeks, that's another 150 ballistic missiles that they can throw at Israel, all at the same time. If they can buy another month, that's 300 missiles. It's another dozen attack helicopters from Russia. It gives them more time to put the leadership underground and protect them from a decapitation strike. So people are saying, in other words, I hope these negotiations work. I hope they're gonna make a deal. I wonder how the talks are going. This. They're not real talks. It's not really happening. So where does that leave us? Well, we're going to war, as a matter of fact. We've been in a war. We are in a war. We have been in a war. What else do you call it? What else do you call it when we are engaging in industrial sabotage in Iran for years, Economic sanctions against Iran for years, secondary sanctions against Iran, against their other trading partners? What do you call it when we're assassinating their leaders, when we're bombing them, when we're bombing their proxies? What do you call that other than a war? We are in a state of war against Iran, and we have been for a long time, and we are going to strike Iran again in this war. The question now is what is that strike going to look like and what is the goal right now? Well, let's talk about what the strike looks like. It's helpful to consider the actual forces that are assembled. So this is from the Wall Street Journal. It talks about the size of the presence that has been assembled that says, quote, the U.S. is sending significant numbers of jet fighters and support aircraft to the Middle east, assembling the greatest amount of air power in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US is ready to take action against Iran. But President Trump hasn't decided whether to order strikes and whether the aim would be to halt Iran's nuclear program, wipe out its missiles, or to topple the regime. So it's two questions. Will he strike and what's his end game? Like we talked about, I think it's a certainty that he will strike. Over the past few days, the U. S Has continued to move F35 and F22 jet fighters toward the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier loaded with attack and electronic warfare planes is on the Way command and control aircraft are inbound and critical air defenses have been deployed to the region in recent weeks. The firepower will give the US the option of carrying out a sustained weeks long air war against Iran instead of the one and done midnight hammer strike that was carried out last June. Options include a campaign to kill scores of Iranian political and military leaders with the goal of overthrowing the government, as well as an air attack that would be limited to striking targets, including nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. Both would involve a potentially weeks long operation. As formidable as the buildup appears, however, it is just a fraction of the assets that were deployed for the 1991 Gulf War or the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For the former, the US deployed six aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. And for Operation Iraqi Freedom In 2003, the US Air Force positioned 863 aircraft in the Middle East. Desert Storm in 1991 included 1300 aircraft. So the reason that it's important to consider the size and the scope of the force is because it tells you what they're planning. In 1990, when we invaded Iraq, we had 1300 aircraft, six aircraft carriers. In 2003 we had 900 aircraft. And we had a coalition with the United Kingdom and other countries. 200,000 troops invaded Iraq. We don't have anything close to that assembled in the Middle east right now. Two aircraft carriers, squadrons instead of wings. So maybe have a hundred aircraft in total as opposed to a thousand. Two aircraft carriers as opposed to 6,50,000 personnel as opposed to 200,000. What does this tell us? Well, if that's the size of the force, then it's not going to be a ground invasion. And I know that sounds like of course it's not a ground invasion, but you know, you never know. Cuz here's the thing. If you want to topple the Iranian regime, you can't just defeat them with air power. You're gonna need a ground force to go in and actually kill all their soldiers. You're gonna need a lot of soldiers on the ground to go and actually secure the cities and the infrastructure and kill the personnel and gain control over the country. If you don't do that, well, then there's still gonna be a million Iranian armed forces and Revolutionary Guard tomorrow or a week after your air campaign. And there's still gonna be a chain of command. So you actually do need a ground force to have some replacement government to actually have regime change. If that's not in place, then it doesn't look like they're going to Pursue a ground war or a regime change war. So what is this force equipped to do? If it's not gonna be Desert Storm, if it's not gonna be Iraqi Freedom, what is it gonna look like? Well, this looks like the force package that was assembled in April 2024 and July 2024 when the United States was there to simply deter Iran from going all out against Israel. It was a deterrent. It looks like the force package that was assembled last June when we bombed Iran once from the United States. It was missile carriers in the region that launched some Minuteman missiles at Iran's nuclear complex. It was B2 stealth bombers from Missouri which actually flew to Iran and bombed Fordo and Natanz with the bunker buster bombs. It wasn't even anything from Diego Garcia, wasn't anything from the region. So if the force package resembles those instances, then what you have is this probably enough force to carry out an air campaign and enough force to defend US Personnel against a counterattack. It looks like that is the type of force that they have in place now. What kind of air campaign can we expect? Again, that's really the question. Is it going to be an air campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear complex and missiles? Is it to destroy what is left of their nuclear program and to prevent them from making additional missiles and launching missiles at Israel so that the country has a degraded defensive capability? Or is the goal here to kill all of Iran's leaders because that could be the purpose? To go and bomb heavily fortified facilities where Iran's military and civilian leadership are hiding out? In the former scenario, we are making Iran weak and vulnerable potentially for future negotiations. You destroyed their missiles, you destroyed their nuclear program and then you can basically impose regime change on them. And really there's no reason to negotiate with Iran at that point. They got nothing left. It'll take em years to rebuild. In the other scenario, you kill all the leadership so that they are replaced from lower in the chain of command and, and then they negotiate. It's helpful I think, to look at what happened in Venezuela. We put one carrier strike group off the coast of Venezuela. We didn't even really kill that many people. We, we didn't even really do any serious airstrikes. What do we do in Venezuela? We plucked out one guy and then what do we do immediately after we put a carrier off the coast? We bombed some of their fishing boats, we bombed one of their ports, we plucked out their top guy and then what remained was pliable and willing to negotiate. Maduro was succeeded by his vice president and now she is giving an audience to our Secretary of Energy. And you got this, which is so insane to think about. We kidnapped your president, the Vice president succeeds him, and now she is standing on a stage with our energy secretary who is here to take all their oil. Hi, nice to meet you. You just kidnapped my boss. Uh, now take all of our oil. Let's pose for a photo op. But what, what was the MO there? What was the Trump 2 MO in Venezuela? It was using a limited amount of power, using a limited amount of, you could say smart power, hard power, but employed in a limited and restrained and smart way to decapitate part of the regime. You could call it a partial decapitation. Not even necessarily a regime change. I like the word decapitation because the regime did not actually change at all. Same security apparatus, same political apparatus, it's all the same. We just took out one of the top guys. And then, and this is the most important step, we went to the successor and said, okay, now what do you wanna do? You can come to New York and we can put you in prison too, cuz we own you. We, we can do these things to you, or you can make a deal. And Maduro successor said, okay, I'll make a deal. I'll give you all the oil. Maybe this is what they're going for in Iran and maybe that's why it worked out this way. They did Venezuela first and then they sent the same aircraft carrier from the Caribbean to the Middle East. And they're telling Iran, you're gonna surrender, you're gonna capitulate, you're gonna make a deal. We put this huge presence there, we demonstrated our capabilities in Venezuela, we demonstrated our ability and willingness and resolve to use force. And now we're gonna do something to Iran. What specifically it's gonna be, it's hard to say. Maybe it's both. Maybe we go in and for a week we just rape them. Like we just destroy their missiles, we destroy what's left of their nukes, we, we kill a ton of their leadership. And then whoever gets up in the rubble, whether that's Iranian armed forces, who knows it's some element of the opposition which has been collaborating with the CIA or something. Whoever remains after the week of bombing, we're gonna go to that guy and say, all right, are you ready to negotiate now? And maybe that's the play, maybe that's what it looks like at this point in time. And the reason I say that is because if you don't have a ground force slash, if you don't have popular opposition on the ground which is armed and trained like in Syria and they were Al Qaeda, but whatever. If you don't have some form of a ground force, if you don't have a, an alternative regime to take the place of the existing regime, then then you can't do regime change. You can bomb em to kingdom come, but if you don't have ground forces, if you don't have someone with legitimacy with an organization that's ready to step up, the regime will not change. You're just gonna kick the can down the road until the next time you gotta bomb them after they've rebuilt their defenses. So if they're, if these things are not in place, then that leads me to believe it's not a real regime change. You're not gonna topple the regime with a week of bombing. So what's really the goal here? Well, again, you may not change the regime, but you can kill a lot of people in the regime and you can destroy a lot of their stuff. And after a week of doing that, maybe whoever is left with whatever is left is going to be far more willing to make a deal. Maybe that's the play. And I continue to believe that the administration on some level must recognize that an all out war would be catastrophic. We are in a midterm election year. Do you think the Trump administration believes it is wise to engage Iran in a protracted war like Iraq that is going to go on forever? No, they don't want to be fighting a war in Iran in November. They don't want to be fighting a war in Iran where oil prices get jacked up because the Strait of Hormuz closes, where Americans are getting blown to smithereens and al Dade and elsewhere. They don't want it to go on for a long period of time. They want it to be quick, painless and they want to succeed. And I think that is their thinking. So that would lead me to believe they're going to use their limited amount of force in the region for another smart decapitation strike. And maybe as an alternative, or on top of that, they're going to degrade Iran's defenses. And on the other side of that they're going to have something like what you saw in Venezuela. Maybe it's not even a regime change. Maybe you just get a president who's gonna work with us, maybe you get an Ayatollah, or maybe the Ayatollah is dead after this, but you're gonna get a government that can negotiate with the United States. That will not resist. Now, whether that is successful is an altogether different question. How successful will this operation be? It depends. And will there be a pliable regime or remnant of the regime that is willing to work with the United States? That seems unlikely, but we just don't know. We don't know who's gonna die, who's gonna be killed, who will be remaining, and. And how their psychology will change after seeing what we're capable of. But I think that is going to be the approach, and I think it's gonna happen within a matter of weeks. I don't think that the United States intends to be hanging out there with all of this force in the region indefinitely. I don't think they want to do this later. I think they want to get it done as quickly and as soon as possible for contingency sake and for other reasons. So I think we're going to get within two to four weeks, you're going to get a major air campaign. It's going to target the missiles, it's going to retarget nuclear. And I think it's going to target some element of the regime, probably specifically the Ayatollah, because ultimately he is holding up the deal. The ayatollah is the supreme leader. The Revolutionary Guard answers to him, and the Revolutionary Guard built the proxy network. He will not allow Pizz to negotiate much of the time. He is the sovereign of the country. It is an Islamic republic under the control of jurists led by the top cleric, the supreme Leader. He's the symbol of the regime, and he's the head of state. He's the sovereign. So I think that. That. That is roughly what it's going to look like. That's my. That's my guess right now. If I were to forecast it, and this stuff is never precise, but if I were to forecast it, that is my best guess based on what we have in the region. Of course, anything can happen. But given the two positions, what's being said by the White House, what's being said by Iran, what's what, either side is willing to accept the amount of force there, that's not too big, but it's not small either. Midterm election, the timeline, political constraints, I think you take all that information together, and that's about as good of a picture as you're going to get about what this is going to be. And here's the thing. Ultimately, you know, there is going to be a confrontation because Israel wants it. And that's really all you need to know. You might think it's political suicide for Trump to go to war in Iran. You might think it's geopolitical suicide to pursue regime change in Iran. You may think this is totally insane and a terrible idea. And I agree with you as to whether it is likely. Think about what is more likely. Think about how far Israel has come here. They have defeated Hamas, they have defeated Hezbollah, they have defeated Bashar al Assad, they have removed the Revolutionary Guard from Syria. They've gotten the United States to bomb Iran's nuclear program. Iran has used a lot of its ballistic missiles. There was a popular uprising a month ago. Their economy's never been weaker. Secondary sanctions are in effect. They've got a favorable president in the White House, They've got a favorable party in the Congress. In a word, Israel has come all this way in the past two years. So much fighting, so many bombs. They've expended so much political capital. They've lost the affection and the support of the world and everyone hates them. And their ultimate goal is regime change in Iran. That's what all of this has been for. Rolling back the proxy network, systematically destroying Iran's strategic weapons, its missiles and nukes and then cutting off the head of the snake. And once you have a favorable regime in Iran, Israel has hegemony over the Middle east cuz they're the only nuclear power. They have a qualitative military edge guaranteed by the United States. And all the countries there will be under the suzerainty of the United States. Think of it. Turkey is a NATO country in Egypt has a treaty with the United States. So does Jordan. Lebanon is under the thumb of the United States. Syria is working with the United States. Iraq is a puppet of the United States. Saudi Arabia dependent on us. The Emirates ally of Israel, Qatar dependent on us. Increasingly, you get rid of Iran, that's it. Pakistan is a US Ally, you get rid of Iran and Israel has their run of the Middle East. We won't have hegemony there. They will. That's the grand prize. That's what they're playing for. And so is it more crazy that the U. S will go to war with Iran for regime change, or is it more crazy that Israel gives up short of their grand prize? They've come all this way. Iran is weaker than ever. The window is wide open. But closing the favorable governance in the United States, all the sacrifices they made, are they gonna stop short of toppling the regime? And think of if they stop short and Iran somehow makes a deal, well what happens then? They get integrated investment pours in their economy comes back, the people aren't angry anymore. They rebuild their missiles, then they're good, then they're never going anywhere. So Israel is either going to totally lose or totally win. And they always get what they want. So I think odds are it's regime change guaranteed. Only way that's going to happen is with the United States is going to intervene in some form. Now the question is just how that's going to happen. Are they going to just cut the head off with the Ayatollah? Are they gonna have to topple the regime forcefully? It all depends on how this plays out militarily. And that is where we are. It's a. It is a war, it is a military confrontation. And we are serving Israel's aims here. And it doesn't look like there's any way out of it. So that is where we are with Iran. But like I said, we're gonna be watching it very closely into tomorrow, Friday, next week looks like the weekend is gonna be the earliest. Rubio is preparing to visit Israel at the end of the month. Iran was given two weeks yesterday. So the window looks like Saturday to a week from this coming Tuesday. That is going to be the window maybe when a strike will occur, although of course it could be after that as well. But that's where we are. So we'll keep an eye on it. But that's all I have for you tonight. We're going to move on. We're going to take a look at our super chats. We'll see what you guys have to say. This, this has been a long show. I'm getting a little bit exhausted here. It's been like a hour and 40 minute monologue. Can you believe 100 minute monologue? It's a little nutty. All right, okay, let's take a look at our super chats. We'll see what you guys have to say about all this. I think that's the best analysis you're going to get. At this point in time. But as always, you know, we gotta wait and see. Okay, let's take a look. Let's see what we got here.
