U.S. FEVERISHLY Evacuating Civilians From The Middle East! w/ Daniel Davis
01:02:30 Share

Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage.

Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copperhead is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting radio exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size copperhead hose. Just text WATER to 64000. That's WATER to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W-A-T-E-R to 64000.

By texting 64000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Host. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethost.com slash terms. Come see us on tour in Manchester, Belfast, Dublin, Liverpool, Birmingham and London. Go to JimmyDore.com for a link for tickets. Establishment media sucks. All gas lighting. So good luck. Bullshit we can't afford. Why he's fomenting this? Oh, oh, oh. Watch and see as

Here's the headline from the Associated Press. Breaking the State Department is preparing to order the departure of all non-essential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

due to the potential for regional unrest, two U.S. officials said. And what is that potential regional unrest? Well, there's growing talk of some sort of Israeli or joint U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran. Here's more information.

The Associated Press also reports that the U.S. has authorized the voluntary departure of the dependents of U.S. troops in the Middle East. And this is on top of preparations to evacuate the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Not a good sign. Here's an advisory from the British government. The British government has been made aware of increased tensions within the region, which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners. Okay.

And finally, here is a warning from an Israeli journalist who is close to Benjamin Netanyahu. He says that Netanyahu is very close to attacking Iran. Now, here he is. Israel is much closer to an attack on Iran on a very short time frame. So the Haredim too. So Aryeh Derry, who knows this, should accept this in his decision-making process.

But Israel is close to an attack, the Americans are failing to deliver the goods. The claims that the Iranians are tough travelers and negotiators. They are actually saying that the Americans are not tough travelers and negotiators, what are you actually saying, President Trump? We should also criticize this saga that is failing to bring any results anywhere. And we are constantly being sold some other frameworks. The known time window in Israel is very. Very small for the Iranian issue and I think we are in that same place.

So that's an Israeli journalist who's close to Netanyahu saying that Israel is close to attacking Iran. So what is going on here? Are we on the brink of another conflict, this time an assault by Israel, possibly even the U.S., on Iran? It's hard to fathom, but here we are. That's the scenario we all have to face now. To help us make sense of this, let's bring in a very knowledgeable guest on these matters.

retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. He is a combat veteran, served in Afghanistan, blew the whistle on the U.S. war there and the lies were being told to cover it up. He's now the host of Daniel Davis Deep Dive on YouTube. Daniel, thank you so much for joining us on such short notice in this perilous and this potentially perilous moment for the world. Hey, a pleasure to be here. I'm really grateful to have an opportunity.

So what do you make of what you've heard so far? The U.S. pulling personnel out of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, ordering the removal of dependents of U.S. troops from other regions of the Middle East. Do you see this as a sign that military action is imminent?

It definitely could be. We've certainly seen that before. As I recall from the 2003 Iraq war, when we chose to go fight against Baghdad and all that, I remember that those kinds of things were done in the final preseason.

period of time, some hours, some a couple of days, et cetera. And we've seen that in the past when there's going to be some kinetic activity that all those things you just put up on the screen were indicators that something big was coming because you're not going to want to take that if you're just saying, well, it's getting more complicated. So we're going to take people out because there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of logistics. You're talking about flying people out, emergency shutdowns, et cetera. That's something that you only do when you think that the

probability is pretty high for some kind of kinetic action. And I, I'm just kind of like you, I'm just beside myself. I, I cannot believe that it actually looks like we're going to do something so counterproductive, so potentially destructive to our interest in the Middle East and really in our national security at large, because I,

I'm telling you, if you thought the Iraq war was a mistake in 2003, that is nothing compared to what we could get into here for one of the main reasons, because Iran has the capability to strike back where Saddam Hussein had almost no ability. So let's don't find out. But I really hope that this is just some kind of posturing by President Trump that he wants to put pressure on Iran. I don't think it's going to work anyway. But but.

The last thing, the worst thing he could do was to be either cajoled or convinced to go into a military operation, which can only be bad for America. Well, if you could tell us more about that from a military perspective, I mean, what would be so disastrous about attacking Iran? Because certainly the proponents of it, people inside Washington, the neocons, their allies in Israel, they think it's a really great idea that the U.S. would win pretty easily.

Yeah, yeah. These war lusters always tell that story. They always do tell that story, and they are always wrong. It's worked out that way. And all the times they told us how easy things were going to be or how effective using some military forces is going to be, etc.,

And instead, we have catastrophe and two decades of failure in Afghanistan, whatever it is, 18 and counting in Iraq so far. And that was that's worse in some ways than it was before, certainly in terms of the regional dynamics, because instead of having a bulwark against Iran, nothing you have catastrophe.

common cause between the governments of Iran and Iraq. So well done on that, all the sacrifice we made. But listen, we got to start at the top of this. There is absolutely no legal ground for the president to take on to do this operation. This directly violates the United States Constitution, Article 1 and the 1973 War Powers Act.

Full stop, period. No questions about it, because unless there is existing pre-existing congressional authorization in the form of either a declaration of war or like an AUMF like was used in the Iraq war following 9-11 or that we were attacked by.

by Iran, only those conditions allow the president of the United States to unilaterally just send our troops in to attack another country. And what really is troubling, this is not so much a condemnation of Trump as it is a condemnation of our political system right now that no one's even addressing this. No one's even considered whether he does or doesn't have it. Now then, we have just literally forfeited what was supposed to be a...

check and balances on our government. And now that we have handed over to the chief executive, whether it's Trump or somebody else in the future, the ability to just as a monarch to use the armed forces as he sees fit. And that has really frightening overtones by itself. And if you want, I can get into the military reasons why this is a disastrous, but that's a good place to start.

Well, I'd love to hear that. I mean, you have the fact, and Iran has been very vocal about this, that if there's an attack on Iran, one of the first targets for Iran would be the U.S. military bases all around the region. Exactly. That is my number one primary concern. There's many, but that's where it starts. And I have been warning for really at least since 2019 that.

And every time I was on television somewhere, I've been saying, get our troops out of Syria because those all they do is serve a strategic vulnerability. They do absolutely nothing for our national security. It doesn't help us in the counterterrorism operation. It's not a just, you know, continuing to destroy ISIS, which we claim all the time. There's no truth to that.

But instead we have the troops all over there. We've already lost three. Last year we had three killed when one of these Iran-backed militias in response to what Israel was doing in Gaza and in Lebanon attacked some of our troops and three of them were killed in a drone strike. But we've got troops all over the area and Iran correctly has said, if you attack us and go to war with us, we're going to hit these places. And I'll just tell you from a military perspective that

The air defense that many of these locations have is tactical air defense, meaning like Katyusha rockets or drones or something small mortars. Maybe it is not for ballistic missiles. And Iran certainly knows which places have ballistic missile defense and which places don't. And, and,

There's nothing that we could do if they come in and attack some of these, especially smaller outposts. And I've been on some of those and I know what it's like out there. You have no protection at all. And we would be at their mercy. And of course, now you're talking also about the shipping. You're talking about Air Force because there's lots of reports that after these reports,

two rounds in 2024 where Iran and Israel went back and forth with American help. We have to point that out with a lot of these drone attacks that last one, Israel went in and took out a lot of air defense. Well, a lot of reports say that Russia has helped them to rebuild that and expand it to S 300 S 400 potentially meaning that Iran,

We could send in heavy bombers like in Deogo Garcia or some of the Israeli Air Force, and they could get shot down. I mean, don't think that Iran is like Iraq or Libya in the past where you can just do whatever you wanted. No one can do anything in response. These guys have some capability, and they could reach out and hurt us directly. And then, of course, you have the issue of the oil infrastructure in the region. I don't even talk about the Strait of Hormuz at the moment. I'm talking about they could attack American ships.

allies in the region said, hey, you're going to be coming after us. Then you're going to have your own oil systems hit here and we're going to go after your friends in the region. You never know what they can do. There's a large range. And I'm not saying all these things would happen. I'm saying all these things are possible. And we just don't know how desperate the Iranians would be if this happens. A lot of these people you mentioned a minute ago, I call them the war lusters.

See, they think that Iran will stay in its package. They think that they'll, they know that they can't respond like that or they would be destroyed. So these, you know, surgical strikes, so-called, they wouldn't respond because, you know, then they would be afraid of more coming. Well,

that's a damn big gamble because if they don't do what you think they're going to do, and if they stand up and say, Hey, we've got China and Russia over our shoulders this time. Uh, and they don't want anything to happen to us for their own reasons. So we're going to get a little bit more plucky in what we're going to do here. That's also possible. All kinds of bad things, Aaron are possible here. Here's some breaking news from the Washington post, uh, which says that the, uh, it says, uh, the U S is on high alert in, uh,

The U.S. is on high alert in anticipation of a potential Israeli strike on Iran, with the State Department authorizing the evacuation of some personnel and military family members across the Middle East. What I don't get, Danny, is, I mean, could Israel strike Iran without U.S. approval, given just how reliant Israel is on U.S. protection and enforcement of its own aggression across the Middle East? So,

I mean, if the U.S. is on high alert, could that suggest that there's been some permission given from Washington to Israel? Or do I have that wrong? Could Israel carry this out

Without the U.S.'s blessing. I suppose they could attempt it, but I can't even imagine that they would because the enablers that we bring, whether that's additional air support or air platforms, the ammunition, air defense capabilities, striking enemy air defense vehicles.

facilities, et cetera. I just don't see how they could do it. And you see, they couldn't do it in 2024. And the two rounds were Israel and Iran went back and forth with drones and missile fire. So I don't think that they could do it alone here. And when you're talking about something like this, this is not just, we're going to launch a few missiles here. You would have to have a sustained campaign. It's going to have to be multiple days. And again,

And we know in the recent days in open source reporting, we've seen that some of these facilities are miles underground or very, very far into the sides of mountains. And even the best bunker busters we have aren't going to knock out everything. Iran knows that we have these. So, of course, they're going to have built these facilities to sustain and to survive against this kind of attack. And if you think that you're going to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon by going after these facilities, the most likely outcome is that you're going to

push them into it. So that may be the biggest consequence of all that all of a sudden, once you start doing this, I would imagine that Iran is probably aware of what's capable. I mean, they certainly have seen enough to understand what we may do, that they would have had these facilities and all this

plutonium that's been pre-processed to 60% already. And they probably have some centrifuges that are very protected that they could ram and spin them up to get it to that 90% pretty short. And then they could probably produce two or three bombs in a short order. And then all of a sudden, one day we look up and I mean, it's like shortly, and there's a big nuclear test that that's been going on. That could be the worst possible outcome, which I've been warning against from the beginning and why we shouldn't attempt this.

Here's what Iran has said. And again, this is a very fluid story. So we're responding to developments in real time as they happen. But this is what Iran recently said. Speaking to Al Mayadeen, this is what an Iranian source said. Washington's goal is to pressure Iran to make concessions to

in the nuclear talks and accept the American proposal. There is no real indicator of the region heading toward military escalation between Iran and the U.S. Israel seeks to drag the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran, but this is unlikely at the current stage.

Any Israeli military step against Iranian nuclear facilities will be met with an unprecedented response from Tehran. So what do you make of this? One source in Iran claiming that this is just basically fear-mongering, threat-mongering to try to get Iran to stand down in its stances and the ongoing talks between Iran

the U.S. and Iran on a new nuclear deal. There are supposed to be more talks this weekend as part of that process, but now, according to many people knowledgeable, that those talks are unlikely to go ahead. Yeah, I saw that they were postponed. I mean, it's possible that what they're describing is the case, but that would be a whale of a lot of effort with, I don't know what they think they're going to accomplish with that. I mean, there's already, the threat is on the table. I mean, you go back to May,

March 7th, when Trump from the Oval Office said, hey, we're in the final stage, folks. We're getting ready to do something here, and we're about out of time. You're going to see something happen soon in all this. And he said, if Iran doesn't do what I say, there will be bombing and stuff. So they've already had really the maximum diplomatic pressure you can get with signs and all this kind of thing. So I don't see what would be gained from that because Iran is already saying, look,

we're willing to negotiate with you. We'll negotiate on a lot of stuff, but if you're going to ask us to give everything, especially with missiles, long range missiles, and with no reprocessing, you're going to have to have a pretty big, uh, give in return, but they say, but that's one thing. You,

Trump said his red line, I think through Witkoff a couple of days ago, red line, zero reprocessing. Can't have any outcome that doesn't include that. Iran has said that's our red line, that you can't say we can't have any reprocessing. We're not going to do that. So you have two immovable objects. And so what's going to happen here? And I just think that Iran is not going to give in on that one because that would almost be,

Man, I think that they would have real problems at home, even within the IRGC, if the leadership basically surrendered without having a shot fired. I just don't think that they would do that. So I don't see what this would benefit, you know, basically big time saber rattling. So I hope it is, though, because that's a whole lot better than actually getting ready for military action. But I'm skeptical, I'll say.

Danny Davis, you are a combat veteran. You were vindicated in your warnings about

the progress of the Afghanistan war and the lies the public was being told about it. And you were recently considered for a very senior position in the US government to be a deputy to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who currently is under fire from critics because she's warning about the dangers of nuclear war because of the proxy war in Ukraine. Now, you were up for this position, but there was a heavy backlash from warmongering forces.

Do you think that it was your stance on Iran, including your opposition to military strikes, that helped sink your potential candidacy for this job? Without question, that was a big part of it. Probably a bigger part was that I said numerous times on my own show and on Fox News and every other place I went on that the policies of the secular government in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was sending Israel down a path

using military power to achieve a political outcome, peace and security for Israel that will fail. It cannot succeed. It will harm the Israeli people. It won't bring them peace. It will bring more chaos and sow seeds of future disorder and violence in the region. And obviously it'll do terrible things to the Palestinian people. And,

They don't want to hear that. So they went against me. And I mean, it was in print all over the place. Mark Levin was certainly against me. Laura Loomer, a bunch of others. I regret that just because it's it's sad that people who advocate for another power have basically veto power over who gets into the highest levels of the U.S. government.

And believe me, the last thing we need right now is to have a cabinet that's only surrounded by people that will say, yes, let's do whatever Benjamin Netanyahu wants or any other country for that matter. I am absolutely America first and looking out for the interest of our country. And I regret that that happened, but I wasn't in the least surprised about it. I was actually surprised that he got my candidacy got as far as it did.

All right, Danny Davis, I know your time is tight. I'm so grateful to you for joining, especially on such short notice. Any final comments for us as we all now grapple with the potential of military action against Iran? Yeah, the bottom line is that there does not need to be any word. There is absolutely nothing, and this cannot be more strongly stated, there is nothing at stake whatsoever.

for American national security interests that would necessitate even the contemplation of using a lethal military power against Iran. Absolutely nothing. Everything is negative if we go down that path. And I wait for the death of the balance of power between our branches of government and the lack of respect for the Constitution anymore, because I think that's a dark road for us to go down.

Daniel Davis, combat veteran, host of Daniel Davis Deep Dive on YouTube. Thank you so much for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member. We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show. You can do it by going to JimmyDoreComedy.com, clicking on Join Premium.

It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards. Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member, and if you haven't, you're missing out. We give you lots of bonus content. Thanks for your support. So, everybody, welcome to the Jimmy Dore Show. Keaton Weiss and Russell Dabular here in for Jimmy while he is in.

Europe, uh, Theo Vaughn hosted winner of the post pubescent Charlie Brown lookalike contest, JD Vance for a conversation, a wide ranging conversation. And, uh, they got to talking about Gaza because, uh, Theo Vaughn, uh, just about a couple of weeks back, uh, obviously, uh, went viral for a pretty impassioned monologue about how he came to the realization that, uh,

Israel's campaign in Gaza does, in fact, constitute a genocide. Now, he does not have the legal definition handy, but he was able to instinctively find the truth, which is plainly obvious, but not so much to J.D. Vance. So let's take a look at this exchange. Good dude. You should have him.

- I think- - He's talking about Steve Whitcough. - Mr. Whitcough, but I never met him. - Good dude. You should have him. He'd be awesome. - I think the tough thing just as a regular person, right? It's like, we're seeing all these videos of people like picking up pieces of their children and like, it's the sickest thing I think it's ever been televised basically. If you consider watching something on your phone being televised. - It's very sad, man. - It feels like a massacre and it feels like, you know, I've called it a genocide. Other people have different thoughts about it and that's fine, right? And I don't need anybody to share the same thoughts or you two.

But I think where it gets scary is that we give, you know, we're complicit in it because we help fund like military stuff, you know? And that's where it's like a regular guy. You're like, well, I'm paying these taxes and they're going towards this. Like, but you can't do anything, you know? Like you can, you can talk, you know? But it's like, you can't, I don't understand how it becomes like tough for people. Like sometimes it feels like we look out for the interests of,

Israel before we look out for the interests of America? Interesting. Wow. Good question. Good question. Just an ordinary guy. He's not he's not an anti-Semite. He's just an ordinary guy thinking that. And it's gotten to the point where, yeah, ordinary people are thinking, hey, wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Why is it that so many in our government see more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States? And not just the Jewish ones, not just the Jewish ones, but quite a few of them, quite a few of them. Let's hear J.D. Vance's answer. So let me say a couple of things. So number one.

like i think you're a great dude so we'd almost have to agree on everything do i think it's totally do i think it's a genocide no and here's here's the reason why i don't think it's a genocide because i don't think that the israelis are purposely trying to go in and murder every palestinian i don't think that's what they're doing oh really they got hit hard and i think they're they're they're trying to like you know sort of destroy this terrorist organization and war is hell okay let's stop right there let's just uh play that back for just a second

and here's here's the reason why i don't think it's a genocide because i don't think that the israelis are purposely trying to go in and murder every palestinian i don't think that's what they're doing i think they got hit hard and i think they're they're they're trying to like you know sort of destroy this terrorist organization okay so um and war is hell of course so it's not a genocide because they're not going in there trying to murder every palestinian uh

and they got hit hard. Well, first of all, I think you could make a good argument that they are doing their very best to kill as many Palestinians as is necessary to drive out the remaining survivors. So whether you want to technically call that a war of extermination or not, in effect, it certainly is. But that notwithstanding, we'll refer to a little thing called international law, which I know this is kind of nerdy and dweeby. No one in our

elected office seems to give a damn about international law. They all wipe their ass with international law or in J.D. Vance's case, he sticks this between two couch cushions. But we can cite it.

We can cite it because this is what you actually cite when it comes to determining whether or not the crime of genocide has taken place. So the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide enacted shortly after the Second World War in response to, ironically and oddly enough, a genocide attack.

of the Jews, which by the way, notice they did do a genocide against the Jews and yet they didn't kill all of us. Russ and I are still here. So that means you don't have to kill every single member of a group for it to constitute a genocide. In fact, genocide is defined very specifically. So article one, this is important.

The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law, which they undertake to prevent and to punish. So J.D. Vance saying they got hit hard and war is hell, that's neither here nor there. Genocide applies whether you are in a time of peace or at a time of war. In other words, you cannot commit a genocide and say, well,

It's a war and war is hell. No, you are not allowed to commit genocide in times of peace or in times of war. So the fact that you got hit hard and war is hell, those are not excuses according to international law. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, Article 2 gets a bit more specific. So in the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in parts genocide.

In part, i.e., you don't have to kill everyone, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. So there are five different criteria here. Killing members of the group. Well, check. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Check again. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Check. Obviously. D, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, i.e. bombing all of the hospitals and blockading aid, which means no food gets in. Check. Five, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. That is the only measure.

piece of criteria that has not been fully satisfied yet, but they are working on it because if you notice, they're trying to get other countries to take children in. Right. So they have already met four conditions of genocide.

They are working on the fifth, which means you could really say they're guilty of all five because the fifth one, the only reason that hasn't happened yet is because they haven't found countries that are willing to take them in because other countries don't want to be complicit in the aforementioned genocide. OK, so according to the letter of the law, they have fully satisfied four and a half, if we want to be generous, conditions that contradict

that constitute genocide it's important to be armed with this information because you hear that defense quite a bit not just from jd vance but from pundits well if they want why are there so many of them right why are there so many must be bad at genocide right exactly exactly that is uh neither here nor there so that is nonsense so let's go back to jd vance

and war is hell, and that is true. I also think it's true, man. I mean, I've seen people on my side of the political aisle. I'm a Republican. You know that, but your audience may not.

who like will see these videos of these innocent Palestinian kids and say, oh, well, they had it coming to them. No, no, no, no, no. Like if you have a soul, your heart should break when you see a little kid. Yeah. And the business, which is why we have the policy. Yeah, right. They're very convenient in my line of work. Straw men. Yes. You see this person who's so much worse even than the argument I'm making.

Don't I look good by comparison to this imaginary person I'm pointing out? Yes. Aren't I just a picture of ethics and empathy compared to this person? I'm not like the person who says children deserve to be blown apart. I'm not that guy. Right. And those guys really need to knock it off. Yeah. We're trying to...

Stop, eliminate the conflict, eliminate the source of the conflict so that we can actually bring some peace and some humanitarian assistance into people. Well, it's interesting because in the next segment we're going to do, there was this boat that was on its way to Gaza to bring some humanitarian assistance and they were apprehended and they're now being...

detained out of contact with the rest of the world. If you were so determined to get that humanitarian assistance in, you may have told Israel, hey, you know what? Let them through. Let them drop some food off on the beach and be on their way. But you didn't do that. No. Instead, you contracted out the humanitarian aid mission, quote unquote, to your mercenary friends who now shoot Palestinians a couple dozen at a time when they come to get the aid.

This is something most people don't know, Theo. The size of the strap-on that Miriam chooses to use on us is directly proportionate to how much aid we give to Israel and how much they abet the genocide. Now, I don't know if you've ever seen a 12-incher or one of those, but I promise you, you would send that military aid if you did.

And that's my basic view. And the president's interesting. He's a pro-Israel guy. And he also recognizes that to bring any conflict to a close, you've got to talk to everybody. And so, I mean, we've been attacked. I've been attacked. The president's been attacked for being too interested in diplomacy. And you ask, like, what can I do? Again, by who?

Goodbye, who? This is a version of a straw man, right? Putting out the most extreme version of a just genocidal maniac that you can and saying, hey, we look good by comparison. But now he tries to pivot. And boy, does he pick a bad topic to pivot to given the events of these past couple of days.

I think that what people should demand is that if our tax dollars are going to something, we should be actively trying to fix it. Okay. That's kind of the way that I think about it. And what happened with the Biden administration, man, it's crazy. They were spending so much money all over the world. They weren't engaged in diplomacy at all. So they'd sent, I mean, we sent $300 billion to Ukraine, for example, and you never had the president of the United States actually trying to force a diplomatic settlement.

when you talk about bodies all over the ground dude the russia ukraine thing is the most vicious we see satellite images we see classified images man it is vicious and again it's i i i will i will hear people who will say well you know you know they're again mostly on our side will say all these you know the russians got killed that's a good thing look i'm not defending

the invasion. I'm not defending starting a war, but when human beings are getting blown to bits, your heart should feel sad about that and you should try to do something to fix it. Yeah, you should. Just like Donald Trump promised to have it fixed in 24 hours. And that's really interesting that you would bring up the Russia-Ukraine war on a week like this when now peace looks more out of reach than it ever has in the past three years. We are actually in far worse shape. We're going to do a segment on that later

this evening uh but russia just sent record-breaking blows and strikes into ukraine uh putting the peace process further away than i think it's ever been since the start of this conflict so what what your boss there jd was able to do was able to do what he does best which is browbeat

you know, uh, one of his adversaries on camera, he brought Zelensky into the oval office and he gave him a dressing down and we all enjoyed that. It was a cathartic thing to watch. Uh, but peace is actually further off in Ukraine than it was when he got in, I would say. And so, uh, you picked a hell of a thing to pivot to, uh, given the events of this week. I know this was recorded a few days ago, but wow, that aged like milk, uh, as does just about everything he says there. Uh,

from the just completely ignorant and ahistorical definition of genocide to his deflection to Ukraine. Not a good week for peace and diplomacy, that's for sure. Yeah, that was just, it was really a clinic in political bullshit speak for anybody who wants to get into that line of work. It was really a master class in straw manning

And then deflecting. Just straw mans to the person who has an impossibly insane view that he's not like. And then he pivots to Ukraine. Well, hey, let's talk about Ukraine because that's where we see the satellite images. It's also interesting if you look at the kind of language he uses, if you look at the way he's talking to Theo Vaughn, you cannot overstate Ukraine.

how much this has to do with why Donald Trump is the president and why the Democrats, in spite of the deep unpopularity of everything they're doing with most of the voting public, have still not gained any traction. Because even though, yes, he's lying, he's deflecting, he's obfuscating,

He's a very smart, well-educated guy, unlike some of the people, including Donald Trump, who are very ignorant on these subjects. You can be fairly assured J.D. Vance knows exactly what a load of horseshit he's peddling here is. He comes off like a dude, bro.

And the Democrats come off like sexless androids who want to tell you how to raise your kids. It's their whole vibe. Their whole vibe is so uncomfortable with regular people. They're so removed from regular people. They're so uncomfortable in their own skin in these kinds of settings. I can't even think of a Democrat who could handle that interview that way. He comes off as very relatable.

As he is doing the job of deflecting attention from genocide and really doing a kind of dude bro version of the old Israeli go to. It's complicated.

Yeah, well, you notice Cash Patel went on Rogan this week. You got J.D. Vance going on Theo Vaughn. It's almost like the podcast circuit is like their version of the old Fox News primetime circuit. Hey, you can always go on O'Reilly and talk to the base. Well, it's like that here. That's exactly what it is. And it's well-timed in that sense because, obviously, this was a tumultuous week in MAGA World given the epic breakup.

which threatened to fracture the coalition. So, yeah, no, they do have this sort of podcast network that they can go to in a pinch and sort of have a direct line of communication to the base, which is much more intimate than like going on the O'Reilly factor for eight minutes, you know, surrounded by a commercial on both ends. Like Cash Patel was on Rogan for two hours.

You know, and so these long term, these long form formats give them a sort of line of communication to the base that the Democrats don't have. I mean, the Democrats are talking about we need a Joe Rogan for the left. So they're still looking for their person. So they don't have it. Which makes them more reliant on legacy media, which makes them even more detached from the ordinary person as legacy media becomes more and more irrelevant.

Well, and their idea of a Joe Rogan of their own would be someone who would fit their cringe standards and thereby never be able to function in that way. And as many have pointed out, including Bill Maher in one of, I think, his better monologues last week, they had a Joe Rogan of their own. His name was Joe Rogan. Right, exactly. He was one of them.

And Bernie, under pressure from AOC, decided not to embrace his endorsement. So at that point, you're Joe Rogan. Okay, so the establishment goons, the Nancy Pelosi's are going to hate you. But the progressive left is going to be down with you, right? And then you see not even that. Even they're going to vilify you and rule you out of bounds. You know, of course, you're going to wind up going to

The other mafia family, you know, we, we've talked about this. I think when you get to a certain level, um, they're not going to let you exist without picking a team. You got to pick a team. You got to be on somebody's side in this war of the oligarchs. Um, otherwise they'll crush you, man. You want protection when the libs are coming and trying to get Spotify to pull you off the air.

You got to bend the knee to the trumpets. You got to bend the knee to Mark Andreessen, Humpty Dumpty, and, you know, the rest of the Silicon Valley goons, or they'll leave you out to hang. And eventually the libs will probably get their way and destroy your career. This week, tragedy struck.

Simone Biles and Riley Gaines got into a big back and forth. Now you want to talk about psyops. I've been on this story for years. And at this point, I've come to the conclusion, the whole transgender debate is a psyop intended to keep people distracted. If you remember, nobody was talking about this. And then all of a sudden, Caitlyn Jenner is on every magazine cover. And all of a sudden it's the most pressing issue in the nation.

Now, this just erupted this week between the two of them, and it went in some really weird directions. Olympic gymnastics champion Simone Biles is going head-to-head with one of the most vocal opponents of transgender girls and women competing in female sports, former college swimmer Riley Gaines.

Biles, the most decorated Olympic gymnast in history, called the former college athlete sick and a sore loser in a post on X Friday night. As a college swimmer, Gaines tied for fifth place in a competition with then University of Pennsylvania swimmer Leah Thomas, who is transgender in 2022.

Since then, Gaines has largely built a career as a pundit in conservative media advocating against trans women competing in female sports, arguing that it is unfair to include them in competition and their inclusion is at times unsafe for other competitors.

Gaines, 25, has also built an enormous following on social media with over 1.5 million followers on X, where she regularly lambasts and mocks transgender athletes. Remember, this is an NBC News article. In February, President Donald Trump

signed an executive order aiming to prohibit transgender women and girls from competing in female sports. Before that, at least 27 states already had laws, regulations, or policies banning transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identities, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. All right, so before we go on,

I might just say a few words about Riley Gaines and the career path she's taken or been driven to, because I've seen a lot of this. You've seen this with Chloe Cole as well. I think it's very typical with people who have been victimized by this movement.

to wind up going and becoming kind of hard right ideologues because those are the only people who come to protect them and help them when this mob comes for them. Riley Gaines was gonna be a dentist. Can she be a dentist now? The liberal class completely drove her out of society. And now, I mean, honestly, her site, I think she's out over her skis.

Outside of her lane, she's been advocating for keeping transgender women out of women's sports, a position I wholly support. She starts getting into weighing in on the L.A. riots and weighing in on immigration. You know, stay in your lane, Riley. But I think she's kind of been driven into a position where.

It's hard to imagine how she's just going to go make a living now that she's made herself such a target. So she commented on this article.

high school baseball team. Comment on LOL. This was like the October 7th of the women's sports world when they won this game. To be expected when your star player is a boy. They would have us believe that males have no advantage, but I'm sure looking at this picture, you can figure out simply from the height which one of them is the boy without me telling you. So

So yeah, men and women are different. Who knew? Uh, so Simone Biles for some reason, and we'll talk about this. I don't know why she decided to weigh in on this. Um, Riley gains, you're truly sick.

All of this campaigning because you lost a race, straight up sore loser. You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive or creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sports.

Maybe a transgender category in all sports, but instead you bully them. One thing's for sure is no one in sports is safe with you around. Now that that's the least crazy thing she said in this exchange. It gets really insane.

So Riley Gaines responds, this is actually so disappointing. It's not my job or the job of any woman to figure out how to include men in our spaces. You can uplift men stealing championships in women's sports with your platform. Men don't belong in women's sports. And I say that with my full chest. And somebody, somebody responded,

A trans category in swimming was created. None of the men claiming to be women entered it. And you can see here, swimming World Cup category for transgender athletes canceled after no entries received. So if it's about just wanting to participate...

Then why would you not go participate? Because this is what a lot of people trying to find a middle ground say, hey, we'll create a trans category. Well, when they try to do that, they don't want to compete in the trans category. For some reason, they want to compete in the category where they seem to have a physical advantage. Now, this is where this is really crazy.

In October 2017, Simone Biles tweeted this out. Ah, good thing guys don't compete against girls or he'd take all the gold medals. She tweeted this out. Not only that, she did a video demonstrating the truth of this. Now, I think the music is copyrighted, so we're going to use one of the generic non-copyrighted things. That's the man, obviously. That's the man.

So why on earth would you, would you?

tweet out that you think that men should be in women's sports when you literally did a funny video demonstrating how the male champion was able to do things that you physically couldn't do and then tweet it out. Well, good thing we don't have to compete with men. Now we talked a lot in the previous segment about previous segments today about people more in the conservative ecosystem getting paid for their opinions. Maybe it's that. Yeah.

You know, maybe she got paid. You know, she left her team because she was having a mental health crisis. Maybe it's that. Maybe it's some of both. But it gets worse, believe it or not. Bully someone your own size, which would ironically be a male. Holy self-owned Batman.

loving that by trying to insult Riley, Simone reinforces that men and women are so distinct that they should be different categories. I thought you're saying there's no difference. So why is our body mannish if men should be competing against women?

Virgil, this tweet is hilarious. One, body shames a fellow female athlete. Two, implicitly acknowledges that men and women are different with males generally being bigger than females. Disregards the fact that Riley is going after men and women's sports. Gold medal in asinine tweeting. Now this is where it's even crazier. Simone Biles, because she is so muscular,

has been body shamed as having a masculine body so much so she did a whole campaign about body shaming. Simone Biles was bullied about her muscles to the point that she had to do a body positivity ad campaign. Then she has the nerve to say Riley Gaines looks like a man. Like the whole, the whole thing is just insane. Um,

Stephen Miller, not that Stephen Miller. This is the size of the male she was forced to compete against. I believe Leah Thomas is 6'2". Riley Gaines, and the subtle hint at body shaming, I'm 5'5". She's 5'5". Here it takes a dark turn, but again, this whole story is very bizarre. The more you get into it, the more it's just very difficult to ascertain our motives for tweeting these things.

She was one of the victims of Larry Nassar. All the horrific sexual abuse Simone Biles witnessed and spoke out against caused by one man, yet believes women should be forced to strip naked in front of men to validate the man's feelings. You know how many gold medals you'd have if your inclusive dream came true? Zero. Which...

She knows she put out a whole video and tweet saying that. And this, this is an element that the people who advocate for this never want to get into. Do women not have a right to their own spaces? Like really literal forget the fairness issue aside. Yeah.

Why do women not have that right? And did you really think you could call people who demand that right bigots without it causing enormous backlash? Now, again, I think it's a psyop. I think the intention was to cause the backlash in order to completely discredit the left. And I must say, it's disappointing to me how many people...

who even have a class in economics analysis have been drawn into this bullshit. It's very hard to find people who have really resisted getting drawn into this on what I would consider the wrong side of it. Taylor Silverman, if Larry Nassar came out as trans, would you want him moved to a women's prison?

Riley Gaines quote tweeted it. This is an excellent question for Simone Biles. Yes, it is. So this is a little bit of what Riley herself said about it in a video. It's like...

relatively muscular right being an athlete I would imagine Simone would understand that but I weigh like 135 pounds five foot five of pretty much pure muscle and again if anyone would understand that you would think it's Simone Biles a woman who has historically been scrutinized for having a very muscular masculine looking body she was scrutinized to the point she did this whole body to

positivity campaign, then she has the nerve to say that I look like a man. And not to mention, this is a woman who has been incredibly brave in calling out and witnessing the horrific sexual abuse that she and hundreds of other female gymnasts faced at the hands of one sexual predator, that predator being Larry Nassar. In the same breath, believing that vulnerable women should be forced to strip down naked in front of men in locker rooms so long as it makes the man feel happy.

To be very, very clear, I could care less what Simone Biles says about me. I'm a very secure person. I know I'm on the right side of history. I'm married, so if she wants to say I look like a man, I literally could care less. The most heartbreaking part about this for me

is the platform that she has and the amount of young girls who look up to her. That she just in a blink of an eye sold out to appear to be virtuous. What we saw from Simone is the definition of pulling up the ladder behind you. Something people like Megan Rapinoe have also done. I have a feeling that if Simone's inclusive dream came true, she would have zero Olympic medals and no one would even know who she is. So if she wants to advocate for men and women's sports,

By all means, it's America. You get to do that. I get to call you stupid for it, but you get to do that.

maybe in the 28 Olympics she can compete and palm a horse and the rings but I am going to keep standing up for women and girls which is just about the least controversial take on the entire planet if you can remove yourself from the opinions of the elite of mainstream media of Hollywood of any elected representation the position that I have taken is the same position that about 90% of

of Americans have taken, which is that men should not be in women's sports. Simone Biles having internalized misogyny and being a male apologist was certainly not on my 2025 bingo card.

Well said. And to her point, this is what USA Today put out about this. Simone Biles shows her greatness again in standing up for transgender communities. Oh, my God. And this is why people don't trust the media and see it as made up of out-of-touch elites. Riley Gaines quotes,

Quote tweeted this, she hardly stood up for the trans community, but instead just personally attacked someone who stands up for women and girls. Prepare for an astronomically embarrassing ratio, which indeed the ratio was pretty large, 12,000 comments to 6.7 thousand likes, so about two to one. But okay, so she was off by 10%, but she's almost nailed it. New York Times poll, not Fox News.

New York Times poll, liberal New York Times, finds almost 80% of Americans oppose men and women's sports. This is not, you know, Scott Jennings talked about this, that Trump won by taking the 80 side on 80-20 issues. And that's why I say this is a psyop. That's the purpose of this.

of these issues. This is why they push these issues front and center in order to make what

passes for a left look just completely ridiculous, disgusting, deranged, and out of touch to most people. So that even if they really don't like the economic policies of the Republicans, all right, well, they're not going to make their daughter who likes to play with dump trucks start calling themselves Steve. Okay. It's something, it's something. Um,

And to that point, Senate Democrats, this is in a country, 80% of people do not agree with men and women's sports.

Senate Democrats block GOP-led bill to ban transgender athletes from women's sports. Senate Democrats voted unanimously, unanimously to block a Republican-led bill. This was March 3rd. Republican-led bill Monday evening that would prohibit federally funded schools from allowing transgender athletes from participating in women's sports. And a party line vote of 51-45,

Democrats filibustered the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act introduced by Senator Tommy Tuberville. It fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance as Democrats dismissed it as a distraction and a cynical political move. Well, you know the best way to neutralize it as a distraction? Pass it!

Pass it, take the issue off the table by voting for it. It is really amazing because just on the science, on the facts, it's so clearly an insane position. And to get a uniformity among Democrat politicians on this, that the only other issue they are this uniform about is arming Israel.

It's amazing. It's amazing because they can't be getting the kind of money to say this that they get to spout their nonsense about Israel.

That one, I don't really understand it, honestly, as far as the Democrat politicians. It's obviously such a suicidal position. With Simone Biles, look, man, you're talking about somebody who dropped from her Olympic team on a mental health crisis. Maybe this is a reflection of whatever is going on with her mentally that drove her to do that. Or maybe she's getting paid.

Maybe she is getting paid. We say that about a lot of people in the space. We know it happens. It would be very naive just because it was the conservatives who got exposed with the sugar in the soda thing to think that doesn't happen on all sides. So maybe she gets a check to say these things. Maybe it's just virtue signaling.

I think this kind of thing, ultimately, whatever the specifics of this are, it is the end product. Michael Parenti talked about this. It is the end product of a decades-long effort to neuter the left and completely channel it into culture war issues that are deeply divisive, unpopular, that would

neuter them, disempower them and keep society distracted while the people who actually benefit from this system essentially have a free hand while everybody fights about absurdities like this. Boys? Well, so if she's being... Why are you calling him boy?

If she's being paid, Russell, do you think she's being paid by some deep state operative or a Larry Fink type organization to discredit the left? Or do you think that there's some trans organization that's paying her? Or does it matter?

it's probably palantir probably all goes back to palantir probably all roads lead to palantir alex carp's going to be competing against her in the next olympics um i don't know because i don't even know if it's that like at this point i do believe

that the deep state is behind this entire conversation. I really believe they plant the, the cultural provocations. They plant the, they persuade friendly media to write articles like this. At the very least, I believe that's how it started. Um, I don't think this is a real movement because it just doesn't make any sense. Um,

With everything that's happening in society, does this look organic to you? Really? America en masse woke up one day and decided, yeah, our infrastructure is falling down. Bridges are collapsing. People are living in poverty. They're working three jobs. You know what? I'm really worked up about trans people and their right to be in women's sports.

It doesn't make any sense. It's a sigh out. There was a video that I played on the show before, and I'm sure you've seen it, of Serena Williams being asked by David Letterman if she could compete against a man. And she just flat out says, no, never.

She says that, I'm paraphrasing, but she says, I think she said men and women's tennis are two totally different sports. Right. And that she could never compete against a man. And so that should have ended any of this discussion. Why hasn't that ended this discussion? Which is what I don't get. And someone even brought that up.

at a congressional hearing saying, well, I think Serena Williams could compete with her. And of course, she even herself. So I just don't get that this seems so batshit and so ridiculous that the fact that 20% of the people in the country still think that men should be in women's or biological men. I just hate that we have to use that term. You know,

Like there's other kinds of men. But it's – how did that – Like Ricky Gervais said, I'm talking about the old-fashioned kind, the one with the womb. Yeah.

I mean, here we have Serena Williams who should have ended the discussion. And here we have Simone Biles making this case after she does a video about how women and men can't compete again. So it just it's the most it does exactly what Michael Parente said and exactly what you said. It completely discredits the left. This is a big help.

This is a big help to the Black Rocks. This is a big help to the Palantir. This is a big help to anybody who wants to make sure workers don't get any power and unions get some. I mean, hey, this is how you discredit them. This is how you make people who joined with Christian Smalls on Staten Island to start the first Amazon union to never, ever want to be associated with people on the left. That's what this accomplishes. That doesn't accomplish anything else.

I think a lot of it is where the money comes from overall. You know, I've been looking a lot at obviously the arts community coming from it. I've written a lot about this. I've talked a lot about it. You know, they just had the Tonys, which I didn't even know they were having the Tonys this weekend. That's how much nobody's paying attention to it. And, you know, of course, the real photos that came out of it, the real stand they took was

was a guy in a dress with his, with a decolletage with the hairy chest going up on stage. And somebody gave a speech about how we're not going back to the gender binary. Listen, listen, motherfuckers. All right, man, cut, come at coming out of the arts. I will give a certain amount of leeway to Bohemia and kind of testing the boundaries. If you talk about Palestine, uh,

if you talk about poverty, if you talk about labor, if you talk about unions, you know what? I'll put that stuff in the category of experimental wackiness, okay? But you don't talk about any of that. But part of it

is where the money comes from. Where do the grants come from? Where does the financing come from? Who are the foundations? Very often, they are literally the same exact people who fund the Democrats. They're the same exact corporations that fund political campaigns.

If you start speaking out about an issue, forget about like Palestine, you know how many Zionists are Broadway theater producers. They're not going to say shit about that. That I think is a big part of it. I think there are certain people who by temperament, by personality, they want to be progressive.

And if you're at a certain level of society, of wealth, of power, of status, you know these people can really fuck you. You got a lot to lose if you speak out on things that actually matter. So if you're of that kind of temperament where you want to show you're progressive, but you're not allowed to talk about anything real, I think it's easy to channel you into empty virtue signaling about these kinds of absurdities. I think the signaling is the point.

Hey, become a premium member. Go to JimmyDoreComedy.com. Sign up. It's the most affordable premium program in the business. All the voices performed today are by the one and only, the inimitable Mike McRae. He can be found at MikeMcRae.com. That's it for this week. You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me. I'm not free. I'm not free. I'm not free. I'm not free.

Do not freak out.