Speaker 1: A republic if you can keep it, Benjamin Franklin famously
Speaker 1: said in describing the handiwork of the Constitucial Convention in
Speaker 1: Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven. What's not clear is whether
Speaker 1: Franklin or any of the founders had in mind the
Speaker 1: level of foreign influence and foreign operations currently taking place
Speaker 1: on US oil. Some are recent shocking reports and some
Speaker 1: shocking details from the DOHAC Autar conference this past weekend.
Speaker 1: Shine A spotlights on the extent of foreign operations currently
Speaker 1: happening here in these United States. All that and much
Speaker 1: more Insdae's episode of The Josh Hammershew. Well, we've hit
Speaker 1: this drum beat before, and we're not going to shy
Speaker 1: away from We're going to keep on hammering it. No
Speaker 1: pun intended for the first suple future, at least as
Speaker 1: long as it comes up. Where I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: extent of foreign influence operations that are currently having a ruinous,
Speaker 1: a ruinous effect when it comes to American politics more broadly,
Speaker 1: and above all, when it comes to sowing the seeds
Speaker 1: of discords on the America can write. Now, there's numerous
Speaker 1: data points, and we're going to hit all of them,
Speaker 1: But we will first talk about this bomb show report.
Speaker 1: And yes, I tried to use my verbiage a little
Speaker 1: more carefully. I'm not one of those guys who goes
Speaker 1: on X and does like three siren emojis breaking news.
Speaker 1: You know, Donald Trump took a particularly good poop. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not how we roll here. We say
Speaker 1: we try to save our verbiage for the actual big stuff.
Speaker 1: So when I say bombshell, I actually really mean it
Speaker 1: to bombshell. So this was a really interesting report that
Speaker 1: came out just on Monday from an organization that is
Speaker 1: known in the industry as NCRI. It stands for a
Speaker 1: Network Contagion Research Institute. They are are loosely affiliated with
Speaker 1: Rutgers University in New Jersey, but they are an independent
Speaker 1: research organization. They specialize when it comes to to online
Speaker 1: extremism and social contagion, as the name would imply, and
Speaker 1: trends like that, misinformation, disinformation, a lot of psychology science,
Speaker 1: and information warfare. Fundamentally, what they're getting at here is
Speaker 1: information warfare. They've done any number of amazing sites in
Speaker 1: the past when it comes to various other woke maladies.
Speaker 1: When it comes to DEI when it comes to the
Speaker 1: transgender phenomenon and things like that. So here is the
Speaker 1: report that just came out on Monday from the Network
Speaker 1: Contagion Research Industry, is titled America Last How FWENTS is
Speaker 1: coordinated raids and foreign fake speech networks inflate his influence.
Speaker 1: We're talking here about the extent of Nick Fundas's foreign influence,
Speaker 1: social media boosting operations. All of this has been a
Speaker 1: source of speculation. Let me kind of back up there
Speaker 1: and just say it's been a source of speculation for
Speaker 1: a very, very very long time. There have been any
Speaker 1: number of debates. I've been privy to these debates. I've
Speaker 1: been a participant in these conversation debates. What is the
Speaker 1: extent of which all of the garbage that you're currently
Speaker 1: seeing from from some elements even of the so called right,
Speaker 1: hold aside the left. For the second focus on the right,
Speaker 1: what is the extent of which some of the garbage
Speaker 1: that you're seeing when it comes to the Hitler apologia
Speaker 1: to the Joseph Stalin apologia, when it comes to just
Speaker 1: the the the grotesque racism, misogynism, anti semitism, and ultimately
Speaker 1: culminating in what we have repeatedly described as this sincere
Speaker 1: conscientious information operation, ultimately trying to distance Christians and Jews
Speaker 1: and thereby destroy the modern American rights. So one of
Speaker 1: the questions all along has been how much of this
Speaker 1: actually is organic and how much of it actually is
Speaker 1: coming from foreign sources? No doubt some of it actually
Speaker 1: is organic. Let me let me say that first and foremost.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to just wave my hands here and
Speaker 1: say that all of this is just foreign that. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna make that claim because it's simply not true.
Speaker 1: Some of it definitely is happening at an organic level,
Speaker 1: and that certainly ought to be troubling. For instance, there
Speaker 1: have been some some recent turning point USA events. There
Speaker 1: was at one event that the Vice President Jaduvans Partition
Speaker 1: Paiden at Ole miss in Ox, Mississippi, and you had
Speaker 1: someone who certainly was sounding the talking points of a
Speaker 1: Nick Fuentes or a so called Krouber. So was that
Speaker 1: individual himself influenced by foreigner domestic sources? I don't know,
Speaker 1: But certainly some of this actually is happening on the
Speaker 1: home front. That's a more complicated topic, and we're going
Speaker 1: to hold that aside for present purposes. But for now
Speaker 1: I want to talk a little bit more about this
Speaker 1: NCR study. So there's a lot of numbers potentially to
Speaker 1: break through here. But long story short. The reason that
Speaker 1: the Network Contagion Research Institute again, this independent organization based
Speaker 1: New Jersey studying online trends, information warfare, and misinformation disinformation.
Speaker 1: The way that they are able to actually start to
Speaker 1: get some of this data is because of the recent
Speaker 1: spotlight that Elon Musk correctly and righteously shines talking about
Speaker 1: where the actual accounts on his platform X are basing. So,
Speaker 1: in case y all forgot, this was fairly recently, just
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. Really, when Elon one must develop
Speaker 1: this new tool over at Twitter xor of whatever we're
Speaker 1: calling it. And by the way, as an aside, how
Speaker 1: crazy it is that we still say Twitter also XX
Speaker 1: and it's been like three years since they rebranded. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not quite but almost three years since they rebranded,
Speaker 1: we're still calling it the old name. Probably a good sign. Frankly, Elon,
Speaker 1: you should have kept the old name in the first place.
Speaker 1: I digress. So he imfluenced this new feature a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago talking about or showing that an an individual
Speaker 1: account is based in the United States, Canada, UK, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Speaker 1: Who's Beckistan, Japan, India, whatever, And it's because of this
Speaker 1: tool that the NCRI is able to get some of
Speaker 1: this data. So let's actually get into some of the
Speaker 1: data that the good social scientists at NCRI were able
Speaker 1: to look at when it comes to who was actually
Speaker 1: boosting Nick Flentes and just as important, how is he
Speaker 1: being boost relative to similar or larger scale accounts. So
Speaker 1: the data that they poured over shows that Flentes is
Speaker 1: receiving more retweets than Elon Musk, despite Elon Musk being
Speaker 1: literally one hundred times the audience. So in the first
Speaker 1: thirty minutes posting a tweet, Nick Flentes dominates what are
Speaker 1: known as of velocity charts, which are just the sheer
Speaker 1: amount of retweets seemingly done in coorinated fashion. When you
Speaker 1: normalize this for a number of followers, you will see
Speaker 1: that when Does's account is getting dozens of note hundreds
Speaker 1: of times more Twitter velocity, more rapid fire, clearly coronated
Speaker 1: retweets done than accounts that are just drastically drastically larger. Again,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk being just one particularly example, sixty one percent
Speaker 1: of all of when does his retweets in the first
Speaker 1: thirty minutes of him posting something on X come from
Speaker 1: accounts that did this repeatedly across various posts. Ninety two
Speaker 1: percent of the accounts that are actually doing this for
Speaker 1: Nick flent days are actually fully anonymous. Ninety two percent
Speaker 1: are fully nonymous. And if you spend as much time
Speaker 1: in the shall we say, darker places of X as
Speaker 1: I do and have done recently, you will see that
Speaker 1: the these folks all kind of have the same basic look.
Speaker 1: They all have the Pepe the frog. They all have
Speaker 1: the name Gwiper in their name. They have a few
Speaker 1: things there in their in their bio that give it away.
Speaker 1: But there's no photo, there's no location, there's no contact folks.
Speaker 1: A lot of these are bots. A lot of these
Speaker 1: are bots, by the way, instantally a many of funds
Speaker 1: his most viral posts are indeed heavily retweeted by accounts
Speaker 1: that we now see are actually based in specific countries.
Speaker 1: Those countries are primarily, above all, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia,
Speaker 1: and Indonesia. These countries by definition have no link whatsoever
Speaker 1: to the US political conversation. They are simply foreign bot
Speaker 1: forms that are attempting to influence the American rights and
Speaker 1: the American political conversation more generally. Overall, when you look
Speaker 1: at at Nick Funds's tweets over the past year or two,
Speaker 1: you will see that the total number of retweets from
Speaker 1: Western countries more broadly is roughly fifty one percent compared
Speaker 1: to forty nine percent for non Western countries. There's a
Speaker 1: lot more where this came from. There are twenty Funds posts,
Speaker 1: for instance, that were examined by NCRI. Just over sixty
Speaker 1: percent came, as I said, from these same repeated accounts.
Speaker 2: The report says this.
Speaker 1: It says quote there is no organic explanation for this
Speaker 1: pattern none. It is consistent with outsourced engagement infrastructure. These
Speaker 1: geographies subscribe the same low cost amplification clusters and engagement
Speaker 1: farms that foreign actors often use to manufacture virality, distort
Speaker 1: platform metrics, and manipulate recommendation systems. So, taken together, the
Speaker 1: evidence points to a deliberate, foreign influenced campaign relying on
Speaker 1: anonymous and possibly automated accounts to artificially inflate Nick Fundus's reach.
Speaker 1: Gaming the platform's algorithm in a systematic effort to elevate
Speaker 1: his influence far beyond what genuine grassroots supports could would achieve.
Speaker 1: So it's coordinated foreign bot farms from places like India, Pakistan,
Speaker 1: Malaysia and Nigeria above all that are essentially engage in
Speaker 1: coordinated retweeting of this guy into much greater, far greater
Speaker 1: relevance than his organic metrics would otherwise entail or would
Speaker 1: otherwise necessitate. And then you have US based organizations that
Speaker 1: buy the hype, that see these one hundred thousand views
Speaker 1: on a reply and they're like, oh my god, this
Speaker 1: guy's got a huge following. Oh yeah, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and do a New York Times puff beast making out
Speaker 1: Nick flent Is to look like the next James Dean.
Speaker 1: There was that photo of The Times that I think
Speaker 1: was a Michelle Goldberg opinion columnies guy like the James
Speaker 1: Deans slip back hair. Disgusting, disgusting stuff, folks. This is
Speaker 1: all done for a very very simple, insidious reason. This
Speaker 1: is coming from hostile sources, These Pakistani bot farms, the Pakistanis,
Speaker 1: the Nigerian Muslims, have whoever do doing this there they
Speaker 1: do not have the American best interest at heart. They
Speaker 1: do not have maga's best interest at heart. They are
Speaker 1: trying to make the right go crazy, and they're all
Speaker 1: sorts of folks who are obviously falling for it. There
Speaker 1: are all sorts of folks who are mistaking online bot
Speaker 1: farm for an engagement driven activity and then saying, oh
Speaker 1: my god, there's really an organic trend in this country
Speaker 1: towards Nazism or Hitlerism.
Speaker 2: Or this or that.
Speaker 1: Have you ever wondered why, maybe there's a lunaticer too,
Speaker 1: who's in your social life, who you see at church
Speaker 1: or the YMCA or whatever, who maybe listens to Candice
Speaker 1: Ownes whatever. But there's really not as much of that
Speaker 1: as you tend to see from online. Yeah, because actually
Speaker 1: a lot of it really is online until it trickles
Speaker 1: out into the real world. That's the more dangerous part.
Speaker 1: But for now it is imperative. It's important to know
Speaker 1: that much of this is coming from online. Again, not
Speaker 1: all of it, but a d amount of it is
Speaker 1: currently coming from online. Now again, Elon Musk has done
Speaker 1: the world really a huge favor by shining this botolne
Speaker 1: and allowing us to see which accounts are actually based
Speaker 1: the United States, which are foreign there. I can't help
Speaker 1: but openly wonder as to whether or not there is
Speaker 1: an even more clariant way for Elon Musk to go
Speaker 1: about doing this. There is there a way, for instance,
Speaker 1: when you click on someone's bio like right, there may
Speaker 1: one click away from the bio page to show what
Speaker 1: percentage of that account's followers are American or non American?
Speaker 1: What percentage are in this country that country, that country?
Speaker 1: Can we get like a country by country breakdown, mister Musk,
Speaker 1: of a given accounts followers one tweet away, similar to
Speaker 1: how you can now get one click away to actually
Speaker 1: see where the account is based in the first place.
Speaker 1: Something like that I think would be deeply helpful and
Speaker 1: deeply productive, an unambiguous good. It would be beneficial for
Speaker 1: our contemporary American political conversation. This is a very old tactic,
Speaker 1: by the way, a very very very old tactic when
Speaker 1: it comes to hostile foreign governments and foreign influencers who
Speaker 1: try to meddle in American politics and try to rile
Speaker 1: people up, to drive wedges and to ultimately sick certain
Speaker 1: Americans on each other, to make them attack each other,
Speaker 1: to try to make them hate each other. It is
Speaker 1: a very, very very old tactic. These Soviets were infamous
Speaker 1: for this during the nineteen sixties, at the heart of
Speaker 1: the Cold War, at the heights of the Civil Rights era.
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King Junior and all that the Soviets were infamous.
Speaker 1: They're having their useful idiot Communist Party USA stooges in
Speaker 1: the United States to go into, for instance, heavily black
Speaker 1: neighborhoods and to try to prop up radicals like Malcolm
Speaker 1: X and to discredit moderates like Martin Luther King Jr.
Speaker 1: Because they were trying to empower the crazies thereby sowing
Speaker 1: the seeds of discord and trying to make Americans hate
Speaker 1: one another. In that particular contest, they were trying to
Speaker 1: incite racial animus. Now they're currently trying to undermine Mecca,
Speaker 1: trying to undermine the American Right, which is the only
Speaker 1: force for good in American politics, by extension, for America's
Speaker 1: role on the world stage. The're trying to undermine that.
Speaker 1: They're trying to undermine the Jewish Christian Alliance, trying to
Speaker 1: undermine US support for Israel.
Speaker 2: Things like that.
Speaker 1: It's all coming from a dark, nefarious place that is very,
Speaker 1: very very relevant. So I'm just really happy that this,
Speaker 1: that this campaign and this and the support has come
Speaker 1: out from NCRI for what it's worth. Twent as responding
Speaker 1: and saying, oh my god, the NCRI. You know, there's
Speaker 1: like a big there's a George Soros operation. I have
Speaker 1: no idea where he's gaining this from, no idea. I
Speaker 1: don't take a penny from NCRI. I don't work for them.
Speaker 1: I know a couple of people that are involved with
Speaker 1: the organization from AFAR. They are not a Soros organization.
Speaker 1: They've done incredible work on totally unrelated issues in the
Speaker 1: past when it comes to DEI, transgenders and various of
Speaker 1: the wokes up there, they do a lot of good work.
Speaker 1: Go ahead and give them a follow check out the reports,
Speaker 1: because this is really really quite damning stuff. When it
Speaker 1: comes to Flint Days, I guess the natural follow up
Speaker 1: question would be, I would like to see the information
Speaker 1: not just for Nick Flint Days, but for a lot
Speaker 1: of these other toxic influencers on the American Rife Center
Speaker 1: as well. I would love, would absolutely love to see
Speaker 1: a country by country breakdown of Candice Owens's followers. I
Speaker 1: have a sneaky suspicion that she has a massive, massive,
Speaker 1: massive following right now if I had to guess when
Speaker 1: it comes to places like Pakistan. I mean, I could
Speaker 1: be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not, and I
Speaker 1: would love to see that there. So elon Moska, there's
Speaker 1: a way to do that. Let's go ahead and make
Speaker 1: that happen. By the way, around the same time that
Speaker 1: the NCRI was releasing this, so just over this past weekend, actually,
Speaker 1: there was a conference in Doha, Qatar that you might
Speaker 1: have seen. This was the Doha Forum. It is It
Speaker 1: is a major conference every year you get you typically
Speaker 1: get various elites from American industry, from media, from technology,
Speaker 1: from hollywo They all go over to Doha to kiss
Speaker 1: the ring of the Altani family, which is the ruling
Speaker 1: family in Qatar, which is a modern day Islamist slave
Speaker 1: state essentially. And there's been a lot of speculations, speaking
Speaker 1: of speculations, speaking of foreign influence. Has been in a
Speaker 1: lot of speculation as to the extent of Tucker Carlson's
Speaker 1: personal involvement with Katar. Mark Levin has been calling Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson Kat Charlson, Tucker Cartarlson for months and months now
Speaker 1: on his very powerful radio broadcast, Tucker Carlson, we know
Speaker 1: interviewed the Amir of Katar, the premiere Alton. He interviewed
Speaker 1: him earlier this year in twenty and twenty five. And
Speaker 1: we actually also know, as a result of some very
Speaker 1: very innovative investigator reporting from the Washington Examiner and others,
Speaker 1: that there is a very sketchy mom and pop consulting
Speaker 1: firm located in northern Virginia called Lumin eight Advisors, which
Speaker 1: you never heard of. They fired a FARA registration aw
Speaker 1: so thereby registering as a foreign age and on behalf
Speaker 1: of the Embassy of Katar, they were making an obscene
Speaker 1: amount of money. It was like close to two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a month or something like that. And on
Speaker 1: their far registration paperwork Illuminated Advisors. Their one principal source
Speaker 1: of business that they publicly listed in the US government
Speaker 1: registration document, their principal place of business that they listed
Speaker 1: for doing their work on behalf of the Embassy of
Speaker 1: Katar was the Tucker Carlson Show. So the interview that
Speaker 1: Tuck Carlson did, what I'm saying with Al Tani, the
Speaker 1: Amir of Katar earlier this year was a literal boughtom
Speaker 1: paid for interview. How do I know that because the
Speaker 1: illuminated advisors people who arranged the interview, literally wrote it
Speaker 1: on their far Registration Act form. They got paid oodles
Speaker 1: and ools of money to arrange the interview. Tucker, of course,
Speaker 1: has been downplaying the extent of Shria law. He has
Speaker 1: been making light of Shria law, saying, oh my god,
Speaker 1: look at these beautiful cities in the Middle Least. They
Speaker 1: have these beautiful skyline and there's no crime, and there's
Speaker 1: this and that, there's real law. How bad can it be?
Speaker 1: So I think a lot of people started paying attention
Speaker 1: when this past weekend it came out that Tucker actually
Speaker 1: was going to go to Doha for the Doha Forum
Speaker 1: as part of this total boondoggle, this junk kets. Oh wait,
Speaker 1: but it actually wasn't just Tucker Carlson. It was actually
Speaker 1: also his business partner, Neil Patel, his co founder of
Speaker 1: The Daily Caller from way way back in the day,
Speaker 1: and unbelievably, unbelievably over the weekend, it was actually on Sunday,
Speaker 1: Neil Patel tweets out this photo of him and Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson standing next to each other, and they both have
Speaker 1: what looks like a cocktail in their hands, which is
Speaker 1: itself a little odd because last I checked, Tucker Carlston
Speaker 1: had publicly said that he had gone sober after having
Speaker 1: an alcohol problem in past years, So maybe he's back
Speaker 1: on the sauce, which itself would explain some of his
Speaker 1: recent behavior, at least to an extent.
Speaker 2: So I don't know. I'm just asking questions. What do
Speaker 2: I know?
Speaker 1: But anyway, this particular tweet Neil batail the two numbers
Speaker 1: he got there, Tucker is flipping his middle finger of
Speaker 1: the camera, and the caption that Neielbletel tweets is greetings
Speaker 1: from the blood He has a tie with Kevin rypropertly
Speaker 1: greens from the blood thirsty terror supporting slave state of Katar.
Speaker 1: So there's Tucker drinking some fancy cocktail, but don't worry,
Speaker 1: he's totally non alcoholic drinking some fancy cocktail, flipping the camera.
Speaker 1: And then Neille Tell's tweet, so who they're actually flipping
Speaker 1: off is directed at Mark Levin, Ted Cruz and Laura Lumer.
Speaker 1: By the way, in the other photo in this Neebletael tweet,
Speaker 1: it shows Tucker just laughing with Donald Trump Junior in
Speaker 1: Doha at the Doha Forum, which is itself somewhat disturbing,
Speaker 1: to put them mildly. And there are all sorts of
Speaker 1: other questions when it comes to the extent of the
Speaker 1: Witcoff business enterprises, when it comes to the extent of
Speaker 1: the Trump Organization's dealings with Katar. But for present purposes,
Speaker 1: let's just say that the single leading vector, the single
Speaker 1: leading vector when it comes to doing what Fun is
Speaker 1: doing when it comes to trying to sow the seeds
Speaker 1: of discord on the American right and implode MAGA from within.
Speaker 1: The single most important arrow in this quiver of information
Speaker 1: operation arrows is Tucker Carlson, and he is there drinking
Speaker 1: in cocktail, flipping off Americans from Katar after having done
Speaker 1: a bottom paid interview with the premiere. But wait, it
Speaker 1: actually gets worse. It literally gets worse, because Tucker interviewed
Speaker 1: the Amir of Qatar again, the second interview he's done
Speaker 1: now in less than half a year or something like that,
Speaker 1: with the leader of Katar. He did it the Doha Forum,
Speaker 1: and he said this utterly utterly shocking thing. Go ahead
Speaker 1: and watch this.
Speaker 3: I am, however, tomorrow, buying a place in Qatar because
Speaker 3: I am pe Hichech in Doha yah, and I'm doing
Speaker 3: that because I like the city. I think it's beautiful,
Speaker 3: but also to make the statement that I'm an American
Speaker 3: and a free man and I'll be wherever I want
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So he's there in Doha saying that he's going to
Speaker 1: buy a condo, a house, whatever, in Katar, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to say, because he's trying to show that he's a
Speaker 1: free man, that he's an American. Katar is the number
Speaker 1: one financial and ideological sponsor of radical soony Islam the
Speaker 1: rolled over. They have been caught red handed connected to
Speaker 1: every single radical Islamist terrorist group you can possibly name,
Speaker 1: up to and including Al Qaeda and Isis. I mean
Speaker 1: to say nothing of Hamas, which they are the number
Speaker 1: one patrons of. This is a terrorist state, a terrorist
Speaker 1: state involved, as we've discussed in the show, in deep,
Speaker 1: deep rooted sprawling, an intricate duplicity when it comes to
Speaker 1: their hosting of value, date air.
Speaker 2: Based and things like that.
Speaker 1: They're Qatar is an enemy though of the United states,
Speaker 1: they are an enemy. I don't care that even the
Speaker 1: Trumpdministration has now defined them as a as a as
Speaker 1: a NATO Article five worthy an attack on them in
Speaker 1: his attack US style quot ungquale.
Speaker 2: They are not. They are not that they are horrific
Speaker 2: terror supporters.
Speaker 1: So Tucker Carlton trying to do the so called America
Speaker 1: first thing from the number one country that has invested
Speaker 1: in American higher education for the worst, trying to turn
Speaker 1: American higher education into a broader Muslim Brotherhood Islamist theocracy
Speaker 1: Bashim Katar, which along with the Brotherhood, is investing oodles
Speaker 1: and ools money according to a brand report when it
Speaker 1: comes to getting taxpayer money in the European Union as well,
Speaker 1: all for the same goal. Katar's goal is to Islamicize
Speaker 1: the West. Their goal is to spread these seeds of
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the West. Why do you think
Speaker 1: the trumpministration finally signed this water down milk toast Muslim
Speaker 1: Brotherhood baned recently because there are more reports coming out
Speaker 1: about the extent of the Brotherhood's information operations and the
Speaker 1: extent to which they are trying to disseminate their propaganda
Speaker 1: When it comes to American higher education, media boondoggles parties.
Speaker 2: This at there.
Speaker 1: That is why the administration finally acted in someone half
Speaker 1: hour fashion in Middlely. Tucker doesn't care. Tucker doesn't care
Speaker 1: at all. I mean, explains me what the America first
Speaker 1: cases for buying a condo in Dohak, Katar. There's no
Speaker 1: culture in Doha, Qatar.
Speaker 2: It's a slave state.
Speaker 1: The actual Arabs there are like three hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: plus thousand. There's a whole indentured servitude, modern slave class
Speaker 1: of Pakistani's Indians and people from the Nepal and the
Speaker 1: police people who are brought in there to do the
Speaker 1: Arabs bidding.
Speaker 2: There's no culture.
Speaker 4: What is this? Like?
Speaker 2: Literally, what is this?
Speaker 1: It's not just Tucker, by the way, he's by far
Speaker 1: the worst defender, but all these other so called influencers
Speaker 1: who I saw on social media who were on this trip,
Speaker 1: Rob Smith, Rob Smith tweeting out like literally copying, pasting
Speaker 1: in the dumbest, lowest iq fashion imaginable. He was clearly
Speaker 1: given some recommend the talking point about what to say
Speaker 1: about katarre do just copies and paste it all over
Speaker 1: social media feed?
Speaker 2: What are you doing?
Speaker 1: Bro? I mean, I hope that check cleared and that
Speaker 1: there are a lot of zeros that at the end
Speaker 1: of that number, because you've sold your soul, all you
Speaker 1: people there have sold any morsel of integrity that you
Speaker 1: have there. This is the game that Qatar plays. This
Speaker 1: is dangerous, dangerous stuff, folks. Either you understand that Western
Speaker 1: civilization is besieged by various forces, including Islamism, or you don't.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, I said repeatedly, is not playing on team civilization.
Speaker 1: Qatar is the number one vector of foreign influence in
Speaker 1: the United States, whether it's Tucker Carlson, whether it's Nick
Speaker 1: flent As, there is all sorts, all sorts of foreign
Speaker 1: influence happening right now in the United States, many many,
Speaker 1: many other as well. Again, I call on Elon Musk
Speaker 1: to show us a country by country breakdown as to
Speaker 1: where exactly a given users followers are located. That should
Speaker 1: not be that difficult, That should be easy enough to do.
Speaker 1: Make it one click away from your biome and then
Speaker 1: let's see it. Because I don't want to stop a
Speaker 1: front desk, don't stop a candae own's either. I want
Speaker 1: to see where Tucker's followers are. Surely that's not too
Speaker 1: much to ask for. By the way, I was just
Speaker 1: talking about the extent to which the Trump administrations and
Speaker 1: executive order defining certain chapters of the muzzlem Brotherhood was
Speaker 1: watered down. They basically said that they are declaring the
Speaker 1: Muzzle Brotherhood a terrorist organization in the Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.
Speaker 1: I mean, okay, I mean that's fine as far as goes.
Speaker 1: They're already declared a terrorist organization there. For what it's worth,
Speaker 1: the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the US House has
Speaker 1: already passed out a bill. It's pending in this House
Speaker 1: for action. Per Mike Johnson passed it bill to recommend
Speaker 1: to designate the entire Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, something
Speaker 1: that clearly should happen. Most recently, a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: it was Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, who did that.
Speaker 1: In the Lone Star State, declared that the Muslim Brotherhood
Speaker 1: and CARE the accounts American Islamic Relations, which was founded
Speaker 1: as a Hamas Muslin Brotherhood front group in the United States.
Speaker 1: It was Greg Abbot who went ahead and declared that
Speaker 1: the Brotherhood and CARE were terrorist organizations. Were purposes of
Speaker 1: Texas law and therefore there will be no bank loans
Speaker 1: prosecutions as as appropriate things like that. So finally, finally, yesterday,
Speaker 1: on Monday December eighth, Ron DeSantis here in the state
Speaker 1: of Florida doing the exact same thing.
Speaker 2: The time that this was actually really funny.
Speaker 1: I got drinks with a friend's Sunday night and we
Speaker 1: were literally talking about this. We literally said, why is
Speaker 1: the Santis not matched Abbot on this? And then sure enough,
Speaker 1: literally the next day, on Monday December eighth, Ron de
Speaker 1: Santis signing this executive order saying Florida is designating the
Speaker 1: Musslim Brotherhood and the Council of Americans Lack Relations aka
Speaker 1: CARE as foreign terrorist organizations. Florida agencies are hereby directed
Speaker 1: to undertake all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities by
Speaker 1: these organizations, including denying privileges or resources to anyone providing
Speaker 1: material support. CARE for what it's worth, was previously designated
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization by the notably Arab United Arab Emirates.
Speaker 1: The UAE it declared CARE a terrorist organization back in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, over a decade ago. The Brotherhood itself has
Speaker 1: been declared a terrorist organization by any number of Arab countries.
Speaker 1: I just named three, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, how about Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: how about the UAE itself there it's basically katar in Turkey. Okay,
Speaker 1: the two leading sponsors of radical Sunni Islamism. Those are
Speaker 1: two countries that are that are currently playing footsie, playing
Speaker 1: super nice with the Brotherhood. But the santist doesn't really
Speaker 1: care for him that He is not saying that CARE
Speaker 1: and the Brotherhood are terrorist orgizations and will be treated
Speaker 1: as such here in the state of Florida. Just a
Speaker 1: little brief history for you about CARE in case you
Speaker 1: don't really know the full history here. So CARE was
Speaker 1: initially incorporated in the US in nine ninety four by
Speaker 1: Omar achenlet Rafik Javert and Nihad Awad. Awad is still
Speaker 1: intimately involved with CARE. He infamously after October seventh praised
Speaker 1: the Hamas assault.
Speaker 2: This this is what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: We're talking abou a literal Jihat sympathizers, pro terrorist, pro
Speaker 1: jihad Muslim Brotherhood radicals. So this all happened in ninety
Speaker 1: four to become his founding director. Nihadawad, the guy who
Speaker 1: was praising October seven, twenty twenty three, Nihada Wad becomes
Speaker 1: founding director. Left his position as the public relations director
Speaker 1: for the Islamic Association for Palestine, which has been described
Speaker 1: by the FBI's counter Terrorism chief as a quote front
Speaker 1: organization for HAMAS that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.
Speaker 1: The US government itself has described its organization related to
Speaker 1: CARE called the Islamic Association of Palestine. The government itself
Speaker 1: had described them as a founding mender a founding member
Speaker 1: of the Muslim Brotherhood's so called Palestine Committee, which is
Speaker 1: a Brotherhood offshoot here in the United States. Within a
Speaker 1: month after its formation, CARE received a five thousand dollars check,
Speaker 1: followed just weeks later by another five thousand dollars wire
Speaker 1: transfer from a group called the Holy Land Foundation. The
Speaker 1: Holy Land Foundation was convicted into the in North Texas
Speaker 1: in the Dallas for Worth area, providing over twelve million
Speaker 1: dollars to Hamas. Okay this is This ends up becoming
Speaker 1: the largest terror financi prosecution in the entire history of
Speaker 1: the DOJ. It shut down the Holy Land Foundation in
Speaker 1: North Texas. During the last year or two of the Bushministration,
Speaker 1: CARE What'sworth was named an unindicted co conspirator in that
Speaker 1: particular case. So why is every Red state not doing this?
Speaker 1: Why is every Red state not listing the Brotherhood not
Speaker 1: listing care as terrorist oranizations. There is no conceivable reason
Speaker 1: not to do this when we're talking here about the
Speaker 1: main themistate show, which is foreign influence in the United States,
Speaker 1: foreign influence on the American right, foreign influence trying to
Speaker 1: sow the seeds of discord and try to rile us up.
Speaker 1: In general, there just anti American bull crap. There is
Speaker 1: no more important starting place than Katar and their Islamus
Speaker 1: lackeys in the muz Brotherhood. That is ground zero unless
Speaker 1: you're willing to get your hands dirty and to crack
Speaker 1: down the brothod. Unless you want to give your hands
Speaker 1: dirty and to shine a spotlighte if you on Musk
Speaker 1: on the extent to which these are Brotherhood afiliated accounts
Speaker 1: boosting Funtees and Tucker and all this stuff, unless you're
Speaker 1: willing to get your hands dirty and to call out
Speaker 1: frauds like Rob Smith for copying and pasting Katari supplied
Speaker 1: pr press releases for your all expenses and probably a
Speaker 1: nice check as well, boondoggle Doha. Unless you want to
Speaker 1: get your hands a ready there, this problem will continue.
Speaker 1: You have to understand when your civilization is to know
Speaker 1: you're up against. If you understand properly that Western civilization
Speaker 1: is the biblical inheritance of the two biblical religions Christianitian Judaism,
Speaker 1: then you understand that Islam is incompatible and that radical Islam,
Speaker 1: the types of the types of the like switch which
Speaker 1: are peddled and propagated by Katar and the Muslim brotherhood Lackeys,
Speaker 1: that is definitely incompatible, period, full stop, end of story.
Speaker 1: So don't be afraid to call out the frauds, and
Speaker 1: don't be afraid to shine a spotlight on the influence
Speaker 1: operations on the frauds.
Speaker 2: All of it.
Speaker 1: It's disgusting, honestly, it's genuinely disgusting. And unless and until
Speaker 1: we finally have that conversation about the extent to which
Speaker 1: these info ops are corrupting and debasing are conversation or politics,
Speaker 1: this is gonna fester and fester and fester and fester.
Speaker 2: Awful stuff. Speaking of total frauds.
Speaker 1: By the way, Jasmin Crockett has decided that she is
Speaker 1: running for US Senate in Texas.
Speaker 2: She's not gonna win. This is Texas, after all.
Speaker 1: Some people say if Ken Paxton the current very controversial
Speaker 1: to a trained general. Some folks say that if he
Speaker 1: defeats John Cornyn in the primary, which I hope that
Speaker 1: he does. Some folks say that Texas might turn blue
Speaker 1: because Paxon is so unpopular.
Speaker 2: I don't buy this.
Speaker 1: I don't think you should buy this either there, especially
Speaker 1: if that nominee is Jasmine Crockett, who is making a
Speaker 1: really strong play to try to oust Iana Presley a
Speaker 1: mess Jesas, to try to become the ringo star of
Speaker 1: the squad. You know you've got Ellen O mar You've
Speaker 1: got Phia Tulay, You've got aoc. I mean, you know
Speaker 1: they're a Paul McCartney, the John Lennon and George Harrison.
Speaker 1: Who's the ringo star? At first it was Alona Presley,
Speaker 1: she kind of fizzled out. Jasmine Crockett thinking a very
Speaker 1: strong play to be the backbencher of the idiot caucus
Speaker 1: there in the far left of the House Democratic Caucus.
Speaker 1: And this is her latest bits. Go ahead and check
Speaker 1: out this dooozy.
Speaker 4: Just this past week, I saw I don't remember which celebrity,
Speaker 4: but it was actually a celebrity, and I was like,
Speaker 4: I don't know that that's not necessarily a bad idea,
Speaker 4: but I'd have to think through it a lot. One
Speaker 4: of the things that they proposed is black folk not
Speaker 4: have to pay taxes for a certain amount of time,
Speaker 4: because then again, that puts money back in your pocket.
Speaker 2: But at the same.
Speaker 4: Time, it may not be as objectionable to some people
Speaker 4: about actually giving out dollars, but obviously then you start
Speaker 4: dealing with the different tax brackets and things like that,
Speaker 4: and that's one of the reasons that, you know, we
Speaker 4: argue that reparations makes sense because so many black folk,
Speaker 4: not only do you owe for the labor that was
Speaker 4: stolen and killed in all the other things, right, but
Speaker 4: the fact is, like we end up being so far behind.
Speaker 1: Okay, where to begin? I'm somewhat all strike to where
Speaker 1: do you even begin here? First of all, how stupid
Speaker 1: is this woman? I mean, I hate to just like mock,
Speaker 1: but sometimes you just have to mock, you know. Mockery
Speaker 1: is actually very important and it's very powerful if done correctly.
Speaker 1: There some of the rights political opponents, some of these
Speaker 1: lefting people are just so contemptibly low iq dim with
Speaker 1: stupid as you kind of quest yourself as like whether
Speaker 1: you should even seriously engage these arguments. You know, some
Speaker 1: of these folks in the left have a modicum of
Speaker 1: intellectual seriousness. I mean, I don't think Bill and Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton are dumb people. I don't think Rokahanna is a
Speaker 1: dumb person. I don't even think Gavin Newsom is probably
Speaker 1: a particularly dumb person. But that Jasmine Crockett, I mean,
Speaker 1: she probably got one too many swirly back in elementary school.
Speaker 1: Her brain food is getting flushed down the toilets on that.
Speaker 1: I I mean, how dumb can you be? First of all,
Speaker 1: the case against reparations. I can't believe we even having
Speaker 1: this discussion still. You know, years after Black Lives Matter
Speaker 1: was ousted as a horrifically grifting Marxist subjugationist organization.
Speaker 2: And yes, they were grifting.
Speaker 1: They were grifting the heck out of their oblivious idiot donors.
Speaker 1: This was a Black Lives Matter plank of their platform
Speaker 1: with the reparation stuff. How in the world are we
Speaker 1: even still having this conversation right now?
Speaker 2: Folks.
Speaker 1: It's true that there is a notion in the Bible,
Speaker 1: in the Book of Deuteronomy, perhaps above all about holding
Speaker 1: the sins of the father responsible and then carrying that
Speaker 1: down through some generations. But even in the Bible it
Speaker 1: says that past a few generations, you will not hold
Speaker 1: anyone responsible for their grandfather's since So, even taking that
Speaker 1: at face value, we are now one hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: years since General Lee's surrender to General Grant and Atmas
Speaker 1: Courthouse in Virginia and warrinked about reparations.
Speaker 2: Now, how are you going to do that?
Speaker 1: By the way, I mean, is a black person who's
Speaker 1: an actual descendant slaves? Is he going to be as
Speaker 1: entitled reparations as just as much as the black guy
Speaker 1: who came as an immigrant from Nigeria like a year ago.
Speaker 1: Does a new Nigerian immigrant, What about the Christian fleeing
Speaker 1: Bocoharam Islamist genocide in Nigeria? If he got a green
Speaker 1: card or a citizenship here recently, does he get reparations?
Speaker 1: His failing wasn't here. His failing was not here back
Speaker 1: during the Civil War or the slavery period that preceded it.
Speaker 1: So there's no practical way to do this. It's also
Speaker 1: morally egregious. It is morally egregious to try to racially
Speaker 1: divide in this horrific fashion. In the year twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: America did pay its debt in the form of eradicating slavery.
Speaker 1: That debt took the form of the United States Civil War.
Speaker 1: It took the form of a conflict that was baked
Speaker 1: in from the start. It was bound to happen. The
Speaker 1: framers probably frankly knew this was bound to happen, if
Speaker 1: you ask all of them with some truth serum. The
Speaker 1: conflict happened a few generations after the founding generation, and
Speaker 1: it was ugly, It was brutal, it was terrible, Well
Speaker 1: over six hundred thousand slain brother fighting against brother, horrific,
Speaker 1: awful stuff. That is the reparation, That is the toll
Speaker 1: that was paid to eradicate the horrific moral evil of
Speaker 1: chattel slavery in this country. To start divving up by
Speaker 1: race now in the year twenty five, to start trying
Speaker 1: to tax certain people according to a certain way based
Speaker 1: on your skin color, is egregious. It's morally offensive. And
Speaker 1: again it is a talking point of hacks and morons,
Speaker 1: which frankly is what Jasmine Crockett is, you know, on
Speaker 1: a recent epsiode of the show, we're talking a little
Speaker 1: bit about how there are some green shoots, some early
Speaker 1: signs that the left might be sobering a little bit
Speaker 1: when it comes to the climate change catastrophism conversation. Well,
Speaker 1: if this is any indication, I mean Krockett trying to
Speaker 1: run for state with office in a red state and
Speaker 1: she's doubling down on the race obsession. If this is
Speaker 1: any indication, then they are going the wrong wrong way
Speaker 1: really really quickly. Yet again when it comes to race.
Speaker 1: So even even Republicans lose a politically beneficial winning issue
Speaker 1: on the climate change stuff, they're still going to be
Speaker 1: able to have the correct position on race. And the
Speaker 1: correct position on race just means that you actually believe
Speaker 1: that all men are created equal, that you actually believe
Speaker 1: in equal protection, that you actually believe, as Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King Junior famously said, that you judge all of us
Speaker 1: not by the color of our skin, but by the
Speaker 1: content of our character. It's not radical claims. They are
Speaker 1: the basic moral intuitions that can be formed about our
Speaker 1: fellow humanity, rooted in the biblical truth of Genesis, Chapter one,
Speaker 1: verse twenty seven, that we are all made in the
Speaker 1: divine image of God. But for now, Desmon Crockett is
Speaker 1: just a total Looney Tunes nutbag. She is not going
Speaker 1: to win. Stay wet, Austin, Texas. I can pretty much
Speaker 1: guarantee you that. So we had this orgament yesterday at
Speaker 1: the Uspreme Court as well. Final note for today's show.
Speaker 1: This argument that we talked about a great length on
Speaker 1: yesterday's show, Trump versus Slaughter, pertains to whether or not
Speaker 1: the president has the ability to fire for cause or
Speaker 1: not for a cause commissioners of what are known as
Speaker 1: so called independent agencies. This case pertains to the FTC
Speaker 1: the Federal Trade Commission. There have been similar legalist peach
Speaker 1: thus far in the first year of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: when it comes to the National Labor Relations Board and
Speaker 1: various other agencies as well. On yesterday's show, I argued
Speaker 1: that this is going to be a pretty straightforward victory
Speaker 1: for the Trump administration when it comes to the bread
Speaker 1: and butter assertion that the executive power of Article two
Speaker 1: of the Constitution clearly vests the ability to make all
Speaker 1: personal decisions, all hiring and firing decisions within the executive branch,
Speaker 1: and the corollary the similar claim to that is that
Speaker 1: when it comes to so called independent agencies, that that
Speaker 1: is an oxymoron. There's actually no such thing. You're either
Speaker 1: in Article one the Congress. You're either in Article two
Speaker 1: the Executive Branch. You're either in Article three the Digital Branch,
Speaker 1: or you're not anywhere.
Speaker 2: You're out.
Speaker 1: Pick a door, any door one, two, three, there's no door. Four,
Speaker 1: there's no deep state door. There are three doors. So
Speaker 1: what that means here is that if daltre one wants
Speaker 1: to fire a commissioner on the FDC, wants to fire
Speaker 1: someone on the NLRB, or any of these other concocted
Speaker 1: New Deal era FDR era agencies where Congress constructs them
Speaker 1: to have a certain partisan breakdown, and you can only
Speaker 1: fire the commissioner for cause and not for cause. There
Speaker 1: what that means is that it's all garbage. It's all
Speaker 1: totally unconstitutional. You can't do it enough. Looking at the
Speaker 1: tea leaves of yesterday's orl or arguments, it does seem
Speaker 1: to me that this is going to end up being
Speaker 1: a resounding victory for the trominstration. You had all the
Speaker 1: usual suspects you had Katanji Brown, Jackson, Sonya semyor the
Speaker 1: usual liberal ladies who are questioning about whether or not
Speaker 1: we're going to junk this nine year old president known
Speaker 1: as Humphrey Executor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we are.
Speaker 1: We're going to junk because Humphrey's Executor, which legitimize this
Speaker 1: unconstitutional structure. We're going to junk that president because that
Speaker 1: case was wrong the day it was decided and is
Speaker 1: still wrong today. The practical ramvocations, if Humphrey's Executor is
Speaker 1: actually overturned, are going to be massive. Trump will be
Speaker 1: able to fire effectively whoever he wants to fire, period,
Speaker 1: full stop, end of story. There are the civil service
Speaker 1: statues from the late nineteenth century that's a little more complicated,
Speaker 1: but at least when it comes to the top ranking
Speaker 1: commissioner administrative brass, there will be no for cause removals
Speaker 1: that are constitutionally permissible. It is the president's call. Some
Speaker 1: folks say that you're in power, worrying the president. It's
Speaker 1: a tyranny.
Speaker 2: No, it's not.
Speaker 1: The actual tyranny here is empowering the unelected deep state.
Speaker 1: All the justices are set to do in Trump versus Slaughter.
Speaker 1: All they're set to do is to empower the actual
Speaker 1: elected person, the president of the president United States, to
Speaker 1: try to empower someone who is himself accountable to we
Speaker 1: the people, because we the people are sovereign in this country,
Speaker 1: not the deep state, not these radical woke left revolutionaries
Speaker 1: within the administry of state. They're not the sovereigns we are,
Speaker 1: and we elect the presidents, not them. Again, the good
Speaker 1: news is that the justices seem to very much agree
Speaker 1: with my legal analysis, which you would have heard essay
Speaker 1: on Josh amershow, and that's also a failiar mind to
Speaker 1: folks to make sure to like and subscribe to our
Speaker 1: show if you have not already done so, We appreciate
Speaker 1: that five so review, drop a comment, let us know
Speaker 1: how we're doing. Make sure to watch the show on
Speaker 1: YouTube if you're not already doing so, over on Newsweek's
Speaker 1: YouTube channel. We are available as well over at the
Speaker 1: Salem News Channel. But for now, I'm Josh Hammer. I
Speaker 1: hope you enjoyed today's episode of The Josh Hammer Show.
Speaker 2: The Josh Hammer Show is a member of the Trust
Speaker 2: Project