Popular Posts

The president, you heard that magnificent speech he gave today. All that fire, all the ability and passion he brings up. That Save Act is what's going to save the Republican Party, and the Senate better get on the ball, or they'll be the ones who cost us the midterms. I think that's a great point. And Ben, the Pennsylvania audience, the Mack Truck Factory, went wild when the president talked about the Save Act. What is up with the Republicans and the Senate not getting this done? That's absolutely ludicrous. Republicans and the Senate do not want to get rid of the filibuster in order to pass the Save Act. And I think that they're quite honestly being delusional about the fact that as soon as Democrats have control again, they're going to get rid of the filibuster. We know this. Like, we know the way that this is going to play out. In the same way that we know that they're going to try to pack the Supreme Court, in the same way that we know that they're going to try to play the same games that they have been telegraphing for years now that they want to play with our representative democracy. So, look, if you want to try to have representative elections and have an actual voter ID qualification on the national level, look, I want to hold these people's feet to the fire. I disagree with a lot of these centrist Republicans who say, "Oh, no, we wouldn't even get to 50 votes anyway." I don't think that that's actually true. I actually think that if you voted on this, you would hear it in your ear from your constituents to the point where you would be able to actually pass it. Yeah, we're preserving. Look, the president has his opinion, and I think that he's right about this.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-If you're not happy here, then you can leave. As far as I'm concerned, if you hate our country, if you're not happy here, you can leave. And that's what I say all the time. That's what I said in a tweet, which I guess some people think is controversial. A lot of people love it, by the way. A lot of people love it. But if you're not happy in the U. S., if you're complaining all the time, very simply, you can leave. You can leave right now. Come back if you want. Don't come back. It's okay, too. But if you're not happy, you can leave.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

$3 billion gone just to leave California. That is what it cost Phillips 66 to abandon a century-old refinery, dumping more cash into exit fees and toxic cleanup than building anything new. Two days after Governor Newsom signed a sweeping new law, the company chose a staggering loss rather than endure the regulatory grip. Why would a profitable giant take this hit? And what does Newsom refuse to admit? The collapse began with one signature. What happened in those 48 hours changed everything. Spread across 650 acres in the heart of Southern California, the Phillips 66 Los Angeles refinery was more than just an industrial complex. It was the backbone of the region's fuel supply for over a century. The Carson site covered 235 acres, while Wilmington added another 424, and both were linked by a five-mile pipeline that pulsed with gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. At its peak, the facility processed 139,000 barrels per day, accounting for nearly one out of every 12 gallons refined in California. Generations of workers kept the refinery running around the clock. Six hundred employees and 300 contractors maintained the operation, and many spent their entire careers within these gates. Since the early 1920s, the refinery fueled the rise of Los Angeles, powering everything from delivery trucks to the city's endless lines of cars. The site's vast tanks, towers, and pipelines formed a skyline of their own, a constant presence near the port of Los Angeles. This scale and complexity made it one of the most important refineries on the west coast, quietly shaping the daily lives of millions. For decades, the refinery's output fed not just local demand, but also supplied fuel to neighboring states, linking California's economy to the broader southwest. The sheer physical and economic weight of this operation set the stakes for what was lost when Phillips 66 decided to walk away. On October 14, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed ABX21 into law, giving the California Energy Commission sweeping control over refinery operations. The bill required every refinery in the state to maintain a minimum supply of fuel onsite at all times, with the threat of million-dollar penalties for falling short. For Phillips 66, compliance meant building hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new storage tanks and tying up even more capital in inventory, costs that would hit instantly, not over years. Two days later, Phillips 66 released a terse statement. The Los Angeles refinery would close by the end of 2025. The official line blamed market dynamics and long-term uncertainty, but the timing left little doubt about the real trigger. No other state demanded such costly inventory mandates, and no other refinery in Phillips 66's national portfolio faced a bill like the one just signed in Sacramento. The abruptness of the decision caught workers and local officials off guard. Only 48 hours separated Newsom's signature from the closure announcement, a window too narrow for coincidence. A BX21 minimum storage rule was not just another line in a thick rulebook. It was a financial shockwave that made continued operation nearly impossible. The law's text was dry and bureaucratic. But for the people running California's oldest refinery, it landed like a final notice. The aftermath would demand a closer look at the real cost of staying and the math behind $3 billion to escape.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

This is something that no generation of American has ever seen, not in 250 years of constitutional history. A group of sitting members of Congress, senators and representatives went on camera and told active duty military personnel and the CIA to ignore orders of the president of the United States. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. What message is that sending to the rest of the world? For the first time in American political history, members of the United States Congress openly encouraged the military to look at the commander in chief and say, no. You can say, and it's reasonable to say, well, this is just advice, right? It's a reminder that you don't follow illegal orders. Sounds reasonable until you look at history because history has a merciless way of identifying patterns long before politicians will admit to them. In the entire American experiment, there are only a handful of moments, anything like this has occurred. And every single one of those was a moment that was a prelude to national fracture. 1860 to 1861, it was the secession winter. Southern leaders encourage officers at the federal level and forts to abandon the union and pledge loyalties to the states. Not normal politics. This was the beginning of the rupture and then came Fort Sumter. 1870, reconstruction. Some states rejected federal authority outright, sheriffs, militias, even sometimes judges refused federal directives, but Congress itself, they never told the army to ignore the president. In Vietnam, members of Congress denounced the war, denounced Nixon, denounced Johnson, but no one ever told active duty troops, disobey the commander in chief. It wasn't done. Because every generation up until this one understood something very basic. You cannot politicize the chain of command without breaking the Republic. And once the military begins to decide on its own, which orders are legitimate, which president they prefer, you no longer have civilian control. You no longer have a Republic. You have factions inside an armed institution. And that is exactly how nations collapse and every single one of those sitting representatives know it. Turkey, Argentina, Spain, Egypt, every single example, the pattern is always the same. Political parties begin encouraging the military to resist the other side and the center completely collapses. And this is the part where you need to hear me clearly. What we saw here this week with this is not the Bubba Effect, where ordinary citizens lose trust in authority or rally behind the local guy. No, no, no. This is something far more seditious and serious. This is the institutional Bubba Effect, where leaders inside the government with their own plan, the political class, begin urging Bubba in the military to take sides in domestic political disputes. That is a very, very bright line. The great unbroken line in American history, unbroken in our history. That line kept us from becoming every other failed Republic. And now these people have stepped over it. Now let me take on Donald Trump. Is this treason? No. Treason has a very narrow definition. Thank God. It requires aiding an enemy of the United States or levying war against the United States. So this is not treason in the strict constitutional sense. But here's the question. Isn't it something just as dangerous? Isn't it an attempt, intentional or not, to plant the idea inside the military that the president's orders are optional? The military does not take sides, period. Even if these lawmakers thought they were just, you know, recommending moral guidance, they were, they believe they were just reminding the troops to refuse illegal orders. That's not your job. That's the job of the generals and the job of Pete Hegseth. They do that in every classroom, every time they're sworn in, they are told those words. That comes from within the ranks, not from political leadership. They told the rest of the world that in the bloodstream of our Republic now is questioning the president. And that is unprecedented. It's historic and impossible to remove because it breaks the guardrails.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I would like to hear what your justification was for supporting the dossier that was known to be false Being used as source material in the second ICA. I don't know who put you up to this. Nobody put me up to this or I'm here on my own. I don't know what role you played or who you are, but there's a bunch of bullsh*t you just passed on. I, absolutely. The emails are clear, sir. Bullsh*t. The emails are clear. Bullsh*t. The emails are clear. The second question. I think we're going to go over here. We are getting reports from Reuters that there were FBI agents who were questioning people at Langley about Brennan's assertions to me in Congress that the CIA had nothing to do with the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Committee assessment. What do you think are the key components of John Brennan's tenure that these agents ought to be looking into? And that would contribute to broader reforms within the CIA? Oh, I think the most important thing is this notion of weaponization. Weaponization is real. Weaponization has been used against many Americans simply because John Brennan or Barack Obama and John Brennan didn't like a person's personal politics. You and I have had this conversation, I think we both agree, that the fact that John Brennan refuses to take responsibility for his actions legally would allow for the basis of a conspiracy charge in that if the conspiracy is ongoing, if the conspiracy to cover up his actions as the Director of Central Intelligence is ongoing, that ought to reset the statute of limitations literally every single day. And so I think that there's a real conspiracy case here. I'm very happy that a grand jury is looking into it in the southern district of Florida. And I hope something positive comes out of it, positive in the respect that the American people can see that it doesn't matter how senior you are in government, it doesn't matter how important you think you are in Washington, you have to face justice just like everybody else does. There was an email that went around from General Clapper, from General Clapper, to yourself and Hayden. I'm sorry, not Hayden. That's right. You're yourself and Comey, etc. That basically said we all got to get on board with this, otherwise it isn't going to work basically. And I think that that email puts everybody in the crosshairs. I would like to hear what your justification was for supporting the dossier that was known to be false, being used as source material in the second ICA. I don't know who put you up to this. Nobody put me up to this or I'm here on my own. I don't know what role you played or who you are. But there's a bunch of bullsh*t you just passed on. Absolutely. The emails are clear, sir. Bullsh*t. The emails are clear. The emails are clear. Next. The second question. Next. I think we're going to go. Next. Next. You can. Next. Next. Look, we can talk about it. Go away. Talk about it in the reception. No, we didn't say that. No, you faxed straight. You said it was likely Russian disinformation. No, we did not. No, you did. No. Read the letter. I'm sorry. Okay. Can I just slide? I know I'm going to get uninvited. Yeah. It'll be after hours. No. No. You're done. Come on. All right. We're going to go over here. Let's go over here for a question. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you very much. Why did you have all these on the 100 right hand side? Why did you say that? Because I can't think. And you misrepresented that. We never said it was disinformation. We said it was Russian influence operations, which is what they do. There's a big difference between influence. No, you don't know that. You don't know. No, we knew. All the hallmarks. All the hallmarks. We didn't say it was Russian disinformation. We said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Knowing full well that the media would then fire hose that around and then change that to basically say, yeah, it's Russian disinformation. And when they did that at any point, did you stand up and say, well, actually I didn't say it was Russian disinformation. I said it was all the hallmarks. Nope. You were quiet. You were complicit in the lie being spread.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

What brings you out here today? Well, I want to support the Americans in their free speech. And where are you from? I'm from the UK. Yes, I'm from Wales. So what are you doing here in Dearborn, Michigan right now? I had a protest about the rise of Islam here inside of Dearborn, Michigan in the United States. Given that I'm from the UK, I've seen the fall of Europe, I've seen the fall of the UK. There's 82 Sharia courts in England and Wales, and I do worry that it is becoming too popular, too fast, and we need to definitely have conversations about it. And why do you think Islam is becoming so popular right now? It's the fastest growing religion in the United States. I would say birth rates. They outbreed us in every aspect. And what do you see in your home country in the United Kingdom and Wales with the rise of Islam? I see white guilt and colonizer guilt. I see people self-censoring and the government not standing up for the people that have been there for generations. How many more years do you give the United States until it's a bigger issue here with Islam and Christians, per se? Three to five years. For me, I saw it when I was 12 or 13, and I left the UK when I was 18 for this exact reason. And how do women feel in Islamic towns such as the one you left, or that was growing to become an Islamic town? I felt extremely unsafe, actually. We had police officers come into our school and say, "This area of Wales is now going to be a no-go zone, so don't go there if you're a female." And I thought, "That's ridiculous. I come from a long line of Celtic people, and we should feel safe walking through our towns and our villages." So do you think eventually women won't feel safe walking through their own towns here in the United States? I already feel unsafe walking through here. I have two bodyguards with me today. Yeah, I don't feel safe here at all.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Additionally, starting February 1st, we're not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens and it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come. So we're not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary cities.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.