(4-21-26) Ep. 192: Ceasefire Doubts, Strategic Wins — White House Backs $3B Rare‑Earth Grab & Much More.

Today's Articles:

(The Hill) - Trump on extended ceasefire with Iran: ‘I don’t want to do that’. (Washington Times) - Trump suggests China got caught by U.S. sending military aid to Iran. (Fortune) - White House–backed USA Rare Earth makes $3 billion acquisition in South America to combat Chinese dominance. (New York Post) - Santa Barbara oil platform barrels ahead with drilling despite legal battle. (The Associated Press) - What to expect in Virginia’s special election on redistricting. (NBC News) - Trump signs order to speed up review of psychedelic drugs for mental health treatment. (The Gateway Pundit) - House Ethics Committee Releases Public List of Investigative Matters Involving Sexual Misconduct by Members of Congress Amid Swalwell Scandal. (Newsweek) - Epstein Files Update: Lawmaker Doubles Down on Pam Bondi Threat.

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:00

Due to the graphic nature of this program, viewer discretion is advised.

SPEAKER_00 0:38

Hello, everyone, it is the Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 episode of The Marco Dere Show. Thank you for tuning in here today's groundbreaking news right here in America and across the board, where the facts are facts and hard truths thrive. Let's begin the best out of radio, informative, uncensored, unapologetic, and ready to go. Folks, so many great topics we'll be delving into today. Lots more domestic issues we'll talk about, but we've got to talk about the issue that takes place, of course, in the Middle East. First, that's obviously a very jarring issue. We've got to talk about it. And what a time to be alive. I just want to say that to you. As of the start of this broadcast, noon Eastern Standard Time, on Tuesday, President Trump has proclaimed that he does not want to extend what I have now termed a ceasefire in name only. Asino. There we go. Isn't that nice? It's almost like casino, but it's asino. He doesn't want a ceasefire anymore with Iran. He's now threatening more strikes. This is the same MO we've seen in the last two weeks. The type of rhetoric that's coming out, which tells me we are preparing for more war. And that, of course, the ceasefire name only was just used to stall, to resupply, rest, get more pieces of the war power machine to the region before this escalates much further. We wanted to be ready for this. We have more ships in the region, we have more missiles, we have more troops, aircraft carriers are now in the region than before the start of this conflict. Never forget a ceasefire is simply just a pause. It is not an end to any fighting. We've seen this time and time again. We have the eight ceasefires that President Trump negotiated, and look at all those conflicts are back up and still intact. Then we look at the Iranian front. They've also restocked their military, their capabilities. They have not agreed to meet an Islamabad. Nor do I believe that they will. Here's why. The last time the Iranians brought a team of 70 officials to negotiate, to explain their positions with hard data, experts looking at the situation. We didn't get anything resolved. And in contrast, the United States sent three officials Vice President Vance, Whitkoff, Kushner, whom the latter two act more in tandem with Israel's interests than, of course, the United States. The Iranians aren't interested in that. They've already talked to these three. What do they get out of this? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. And that's the problem with this situation. It is the same old tactic. The Iranians have had enough of this. They understand, and I believe this myself, that this war will be won, just like the war in Ukraine, will be won on the battlefield, not in a negotiating room. That's my stance on it. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I really don't think so. And we had President Trump this morning. He was on CNBC, and he said the following on clip one. Take a listen.

SPEAKER_02 3:27

If we get close in negotiations right now, but the deadline for the ceasefire is tomorrow, it looks like things are progressing. Will you let it keep going?

SPEAKER_03 3:38

Well, I don't want to do that. We don't have that much time because by the time both parties get there, you know, they just got the okay to go forward, which I knew they were going to do anyway. I don't think they had a choice they have to negotiate. You know, even during the ceasefire, which I think was a good thing because we're totally loaded up. We have so much ammo, we have so much of everything that we've like much much more powerful than it was four or five weeks ago.

SPEAKER_02 4:02

You're saying that you need at least the prospect for a sign deal today and tomorrow, or else you would resume bombing Iran.

SPEAKER_03 4:11

Well, I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with, but uh we're ready to go. I mean, the military is rare and to go. They are absolutely incredible.

SPEAKER_00 4:21

So there you go. It's the same old rhetoric. The side of the hill, he said that what I think is that we're going to end up with a great deal, adding that the United States is in a very strong negotiating position. I think they have no choice. I don't know why he's saying this. What evidence is there that the Iranians are holding no cards? Seems to be we are void of reality, folks. I mean, that's just the truth of the matter. I don't see that we're changing anyone's minds about anything. Obviously, they walked away from the table in Islamabad just over a week ago. They weren't running to make a deal then. So why would they all of a sudden capitulate on everything? It doesn't make any sense to me or anybody listening, I'm sure. Never forget who won this ceasefire. It was the United States, it was not the Iranians. Understand that. You know, I was listening to Ted Cruz on a radio show this morning. Same things that they're proposing now are the same things they were proposing in the last negotiation. Zero percent enrichment, hand over your enriched uranium, no nuclear weapons, open up the Strait of Hormuz. Further demonstrating, of course, that the Iranians are the ones that actually control the Strait of Hormuz, and they're not budging on this. It's the same stance. If it didn't work the Saturday before last, why would it work this time? You know, folks, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And we have gone fully insane and void of reality in this war of choice that we are actively participating in. You now have right-wing influencers now, pundits alike, that are talking about panickants. Have you heard this term panicants?

unknown 6:01

Right?

SPEAKER_00 6:02

If we make an assessment about the war, we're all of a sudden panicants.

unknown 6:05

Right?

SPEAKER_00 6:06

We're the ones who assess, we evaluate the dire situations we're in right now, economically, financially. Talking about the ability to produce food of our own, and the upcoming global famine that will take place if this fertilizer, urea, nitrogen, is no longer on the global market. We talk about our national deficit spending. Did you know, by the way, I'm sure I've said this to you before, we're ready to reach about$2.5 trillion in deficit spending this year alone. So we, we the ones that critically think, of course, you, my wonderful audience that listens, are just panicking for no reason. It's 5D chess. Trump's making a great deal. It's the art of the deal. Well, very soon, ladies and gentlemen, we'll see exactly who is right. Um, but instead of working towards peace during a time of the ceasefire and name only, reaching a deal with the Iranians, which we really could have had, because Trump again said that he agreed with the ten points. He said that he was going to come to the table with them, that they were negotiable, and then of course we rejected it outright, giving them a list of ultimatums. Didn't work. That's why that walked away from the table. Further illustrating that I'm correct on this stance when I say that it is not the Iranians that are desperate to make a deal. It's the United States. Trump has got to find a way out of this, and he simply cannot do that without admitting any fault, which I don't think he wants to do. He wants to proclaim victory. Right? We've stopped them from creating a nuclear weapon. Okay, they were gonna give us that last June. They're not gonna enrich past 3.75%. They were gonna give us that last June. They were gonna allow inspections of American weapons inspectors to go to these facilities, check them out to ensure they're not building a nuclear bomb. They were gonna give us that last June as well. But instead, you let the Israelis come in and bomb, you gave them the green light, starting the 12-day war, and now, of course, we find ourselves in this conflict yet again. We tried to do the same exact thing in negotiations. And by the way, last Saturday we tried to do the exact same thing. Two US destroyers tried to enter the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians caught on to that, and the Iranians told them to turn around, and they did. Now, could that have been a false flag attempt? Could have been certainly could have been. Hey, look at the Iranians, we're in a ceasefire, they're bombing one of our ships. Look at that. Well, there you go. We have got to accept reality. We have to understand the Iranians are winning this conflict. Again, I don't like saying these things to you, but this is the truth of the matter. And I only tell it to you how it is, not what I'd like it to be. I don't want us to even be in this war. But now when you have us attacking Iranian vessels, returning to port, taking the ship, which again is an act of piracy, openly maintaining we will keep a naval blockade in place to block anything leaving an Iranian port. Again, another act of war, along with threatening to bomb Iran into the Stone Ages. And by the way, Iran has now said that they will respond in kind. There will be retaliation, there will be consequences to attacking this ship, taking this ship, because the actions of the United States. And this is the situation we find ourselves in, folks. No end in sight. This war will go on. I've said this to you before. Don't expect it out anytime soon because it's not going to. It just simply isn't going to. Because we have people that are not serious about negotiations. Now, where Trump is getting his information from, I have no idea who is advising President Trump. Again, I see no sign of the real issues being presented to the President right now. And you see this in the rhetoric. You do. Now, another next that's very important that is upcoming, sadly, the Washington Times, says our President Trump on Tuesday strongly hinted that China is now helping Iran in its war with the United States, but downplayed the situation, saying his relationship with President Xi remains on solid footing. Now they're supposed to be meeting in the upcoming month, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. But President Trump said, We caught a ship yesterday, he's referring on Sunday, that had some things on it, which wasn't very nice. A gift from China, perhaps? I don't know. So again, this is an empty cargo ship that was returning. The MV Tuska. We struck the Endro, we disabled the ship, we've taken the ship, we've boarded the ship. But there was nothing on it. It was returning to port. Now, some people are saying, well, they were putting different types of munitions in there that are necessary to build more bombs. Again, folks, I don't think the Iranians are building bombs at this time during the conflict. I just don't believe that. They could be wrong. I don't think so. And I think we would have pictures of this, should this have been true, or something along those lines. We've just gotten, well, there could be stuff on board. So now he mentions that while saying that the US and probably Iran were using the two-week ceasefire to restock depleted supplies of ammunition, of course it was. Of course it was. That's what a ceasefire is. That's why I'm shocked these Iranians even wanted to do this while they're winning this conflict. Why would you want a ceasefire when you're winning? Didn't make any sense to me, but I think they were serious about wanting to bring this to an end, and they thought this was a way to do so. And again, I think we had China being uh the strong footing for the Iranians saying, listen, go be with them, try to get a resolution with this because it's affecting our economy as well. Every time that trade is shut down, if there's a blockade, it'll affect the Chinese economy, and it'll affect their daily means of production for various different things, they need that oil. Now, whether China is secretly supporting Iran, we know that they're giving them at least satellite footage of what's taking place on the war front. Um, this is obviously true, they're a member of BRICS, and I don't think you want to see the Iranians fall if you're China. I really don't see that. They they want to see that stronghold in the region. That's very, very important to the Chinese. So, I don't know if this will affect President Trump's scheduled visit to meet with President Xi in China in early May. Trump was supposed to go in late March, but he proposed uh postponed it because of the Iran War. Well, again, why would he go meet with X during a conflict? Where they're aiding and abetting the Iranians, and of course, we're attacking the Iranians, they're business partners. I again I don't I simply don't see how this is gonna go well, uh, but there it is. We'll see what the negotiations with the Chinese will be as the time comes. But certainly isn't helping our relationship with China right now because we are greatly affecting China. And I think President Trump knows that and understands that. So it's not just Iran that we're going after. We're going after China too. And the Iranians, again, clever to do this, are now charging fees, they're now making sure that vessels that cross the strait are paying in the Chinese yuan, not in the US petrodollar. So there's lots of different factions that are happening at once here. It's not just a war. We're talking about a financial war, an economic war, that are all taking place at the exact same time. And by the way, also a position war. Who is going to be the next superpower? Will the United States be that leveraging force? Many people are suggesting it's China that will be the next great force, the next great superpower. Iran will rise up in power as well. Russia will rise up in power as well. And you're seeing again the petrodollar begin to die out, become less desirable. That's the truth of the matter, folks. So unfortunately, that is where we are in history, folks. That's where we are in geopolitics. And, you know, again, we could have good negotiations, we could have serious talks, we could have good diplomacy with these countries. We've issued these tariffs on a lot of these nations, we put sanctions on the Iranians and other countries as well. Let's get back to the basics. Let's get back to free trade. Why not do things like that? And by the way, I'm I'm fine with tariffs so long as they're brought in by Congress, brought in by the legislature, they're reasonable. That's fine. I'm totally fine with that as long as it happens. But you cannot decide one day, you know, it's gonna be a 50% tariff, then it's gonna be 150% tariff, then it's gonna be a 100% tariff, then we're not gonna abuse the tariffs, and the markets are just not responding to this. They don't know what to do. So we've had a you know a rough 15 months of the Trump administration thus far, because we have to get Congress to act here. And we have to understand that there is a global supply chain issues when we do these things with tariffs, and of course, the rising of the cost of all goods that come in from our imports. Anyways, another topic let's discuss today. This one is actually a very good topic. I'm very happy about this topic, too, by the way. And I saw this yesterday, I said this one is great for my audience, this one is where we need to be. You know, I think about the Trump foreign policy, which I'm not a fan of right now. I'm really not. Obviously, I'm a fan of securing our border, making sure we're removing illegal aliens from our country, ensuring that we're not having drugs, ammo, you any anything under the sun pouring across our northern and southern border. I don't want any of that. And Trump has done a very good job of reducing the amount of illegals that come into this country. But here's another thing. When we talk about our domestic issues, Trump usually does a fairly decent job with them. He does. It's a very good job. This is out of fortune. It says here that the White House has now backed the USA rare earth to make a$3 billion acquisition in South American companies to combat the Chinese dominance. Now, this is what I said to you several weeks ago. I said this is where Trump needs to start to work and develop because right now China has taken the lead on this. This is no good. So we have U.S. Rare Earth, this is a company, again backed by the Trump administration. They're both a miner and they're a manufacturer, and they are now expanding into a larger global player through a nearly$3 billion acquisition of the Serra Verde Group. This is a Brazilian-owned group. Um, the rare earths, which they mined, and also a processing plant along with it. So there's now going to be emberger and acquisition. This is very good. This is extremely good. This is a great deal. Now, the deal yesterday made was for more than$2.5 billion in stock and$300 million in cash. And this helps return USA rare earth from an American mining and magnet manufacturing, an upcoming startup, with little revenue to count thus far, into a key rare earth player with even bigger ambitions. What is going on here? You know, I've said I said this to you many times before. We have the ability to extract rare earths here in the United States, but we have no refining. All that refining goes to countries like China, who have over 90% of the market manufacturing these rare earth metals, which are important for, you know, anything with you know your cell phone to automobiles now, to our missiles, of course, which we are firing into Iran right now. All these things are very, very important. So not only is it a you know a military issue too, if China decides to just say, hey, you know, we're not doing this anymore. We've decided we're just not doing it anymore. We're not gonna refine this for you. Good luck on your own. I mean, what are you gonna do then? You're gonna be in a lot of trouble. Now, I've said to you, China's gonna be the one that leads this market. Right now, they are the ones that are leading this market. They refine over 90% of all the rare earths in the world. And I said, Trump has got to get ahead of this. We've got to start doing this here inside the United States. It's not good enough just to mine them and then send them abroad to be refined and then brought back. We've got to control this ourselves. Because if not, then you have China who is, again, holding all the cards. They can decline us. They can say we're not going to be doing this. And that's the way they can really control the United States moving forward. So this is a good position to be in right now. Uh, this is something I think we we should have done long ago. We really should have gone ahead of this, but better late than never, I suppose. But the US government, we're actively building a non-Chinese rare earth supply chain, and I think that is the key player in this. If we can do this inside Brazil, which kind of I'm actually shocked Brazil will allow this, being a BRICS member. But there we go. We're gonna be mining outside of the Asian markets. Again, essential for the EVs, wind turbines, defense systems, aerospace. We need to get a strong footing on this on our own. And we could also be making a lot of money doing that, too, because other countries don't have these same capabilities. They could be sending it to us in Brazil or inside the United States. And this is very important for our national security. By reducing the reliance on China for these critical minerals, we don't want to do that. And I told you before, whoever leads in the manufacturing of this is going to be one of the biggest global players. Trump sees this, he understands this. And it's a very good position to take. So again, I'm very happy about this. I think they should have been done a long time ago. But again, this is very crucial to U.S. our sovereignty and of course our national security as well. So when all the pieces come to, which again, they're all not in the same exact place, we still have uh obviously the U.S. beginning to lead this. Um, but we've we've really got to understand something. We've we've got to make sure we get this refining. There's there's many different parts of this, too, by the way, folks. You know, there's, for example, there's mining, which we do here in the United States. There's on-process sighting that we do, crushing, uh, mixing the rare earth concentrate. All these things we could do here, uh, for example, on the Brazilian site. And then, of course, you have the production of the mixed rare earths, oxides, things like that take place at one site, but we can't all do it in one place. So, what they want to do is do the mining and the initial processing inside Brazil. And then we have different factories that are starting up here in the United States for the separation, for the refining, for the metal production, the magnet manufacturing. All those things will take place here inside the U.S. So it's gonna be a very interesting process to see how all this ends up working out. Um, we know we have three different states: Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, right now, that will handle each of the different stages of this separation, the refining, the metal alloys, the magnet making chains, all these things right here in the U.S. So we we aren't relying on a global country, a global global power, to do all this for us. Now, I will say one thing that's very important about all this, just to understand this. While this is a very good thing, it's a very positive thing, it's a very lucrative thing to enter into. We have to understand one thing that's very important about all this. When we are doing this with AI, all right, whether it be data centers, whether it be the manufacturing in this, which again is very crucial to have in control, we are going to be starting to use. Lots and lots of water. So wherever we put these sites, they're going to maintain a lot of water. Now, if you put it in a rural area, for example, these manufacturing sites are going to be taking up a lot more of the water reserve. So whatever we do, whatever, wherever we go, I think putting it on a coast would be more beneficial, to be honest with you, because then, of course, you can use things like deselenization, obviously, have a ample amount of water supply from the ocean versus taking it in from the freshwater reserves we have here in the United States, which takes away from many of our farmers in America, which is not a positive thing. We talked about that on yesterday's show. We need to do things that boost up our farmers, not tear them down. So I hope moving forward, again, Trump is putting these in good positions where obviously ports are readily available for when we transport from Brazil to the United States in this joint operation. We can unload, we can obviously have the ample water supply necessary, and of course the amount of electricity necessary to go ahead and produce these. So I'm happy about this. I think this is a step in the right direction, and I think this will help in the long term. I really do believe so, along with that. Now, while we talk about energy in this country, let's not waste any time. I want to move on to this article out of the New York Post that just came out yesterday, talking about a Santa Barbara oil platform with the issues they have with drilling despite a legal battle here. Now, this is again, it's very interesting to me. This is obviously coming out of Southern California. And the California oil output is now climbing. President Trump wants to begin to initiate in this. Now, the company at hand here is called Sable Offshore, which again is battling to keep its pipeline restart alive. This is an offshore drilling corporation. And, you know, the company now has announced that it is accelerating its output across the California sites now as new wells come online on Monday, with a third platform set to begin operations later this year. Now, obviously, we're in a crunch for oil, ladies and gentlemen. We know that we've cut off a fifth of the global oil supply. And President Trump is obviously foreseeing that we need to do something about this. We really need to do something about this. And what better way to do that than offshore drilling? Get that started back up again in certain parts of the country. That way we produce much more oil. Now, here's where the problem begins. This refinery, well, it's yeah, it's a refinery, but it's also a drilling site. The push follows last month's restart of the oil flows through this pipeline system linking to the Santa Inez offshore platforms to the California refineries. We know we've we've closed a lot of California refineries thanks to Gavin Newsom and his cohorts in Sacramento. So, where does the issue lie here? Well, we have a judge, Donna Geck of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, saying last week that a state injunction on the gas giant was still in place, blocking it from restarting and handling the win over to Gavin Newsom. And I said, not so fast, Judge, not so fast. We've got to understand something. There's many things that are very important about all this. And the bottom line is what takes place with state law versus federal law. So the Sable Offshore Corporation is more than three miles offshore from California's coastline. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, it is in federal waters. It's not in California State Waters. From zero to three miles, that would be everything Gavin Newsom can control to his own desire. Fantastic, great. But everything beyond the three miles is federal waters. That's Trump territory. Three miles to 200 miles is obviously federal waters. Therefore, this judge of the Superior Court cannot block the Trump administration unless the federal law is being violated. So let's keep that in perspective here when we talk about this. So this falls under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement. Not any state agency or legislation can stop this from happening as a result of this. California has no permitting authority. They have no state environmental laws like CEQA or the California Clean Coast Act, which ironically, by the way, was the result of an offshore oil spill in Santa Barbara in 1969, signed by then Governor Reagan, none of which can trump the federal government's laws, their lands, or their waters. Can't do it. California has no say the state government has no say in this. So the bottom line is federal law, trumps state law. I think a judge should know this. Unfortunately, she does not. That's a big problem with all this. And of course, this ongoing battle now between California and the federal government. So it looks like it's going to be up and running. Here's what they want to do. Now, despite this ongoing battle, the production is already on the rise. We have 40 wells on a platform called Harmony, and Platform Heritage are now active. They're churning out about 750 barrels of oil per day. Not a lot. Once all 74 wells are operational. The output is expected to average about 700 barrels per day per well, which, again, I'm not great at math, but I think that's about 5,200 barrels of oil per day. If I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong. But this is where we are now. This is where we are. Actually, no, I am wrong, aren't I? It should be. I think it should be more than that. If I'm not mistaken. Let me check really quick, folks. I'm very curious to know about this. Because I'm looking at this and I'm saying, is this gonna be lucrative for us? I'm sorry. It's 52,000. Eh, you know, math isn't my thing. What are you gonna do? Alright, so. Still, that's a good amount of oil, though. It's not anything groundbreaking, but that still is more oil than less oil, which is always more beneficial. So, here we go. It's it's being protested now by these environmentalists now in Santa Barbara. They're not happy about this. They're really not happy about this. Uh, but why would they be unhappy about this?

unknown 28:31

Right?

SPEAKER_00 28:32

And that's a Democrat part of the state. Okay, I understand Santa Barbara's more liberal now than it was in the past. Okay, fine. But while the protesters are opposed to this, they do have a legitimate concern about this. I'm not siding completely with the environmentalists and the anti-Trump Democrats that are furious about this. But what I will say about this, the current pipeline that they're using is the same pipeline that was broken back in 2015. And, you know, like these ardent environmentalists, I can appreciate this concern, though. We don't want any oil spills. This is not good. We don't want these sorts of things to happen. So I think before they restart this line, all the proper inspections should have been taken place to repair this or to replace a defaulty pipeline. And, you know, prior to using it, should be in sure that it's working properly before they start running this crude oil right through it. The federal offshore safety protocols on any of the offshore platforms regularly use things like blowout uh preventers. Uh, this is kind of like a seal control and kind of a shut-off for the oil well itself, should there be any pressure change shift happening at the same time. So there are all these things that they may do at least. Think of like an emergency break in a car. It kind of puts everything to a stop. So obviously there's a break in the line, everything can shut off, or if there's any pressure issues, it shuts right off. You have automatic shutoff valves, you have real-time pressure monitoring, you have corrosion monitoring, like in this pipeline, which should have taken place back in 2015, which caused the break in the line, which had, I think it was about 120,000 barrels of crude oil, destroying about 150 miles of California coastline, and of course, destroying ecosystems. We don't want that. Now there's two ways to go about this. Number one, obviously you can be concerned about the environment, and rightly so. I don't think we as conservatives want to see things get destroyed. But it's nothing to shut down a project indefinitely because of that. So I think in order to do the right thing, we should make sure everything is set, make sure everything is working before we start running oil right through it, just to ensure that the, again, the people that care about the environment so much. And there's nothing wrong with that, by the way. Oh, but these conservationists, but we need to make sure that everything's working right, make sure there's no breaks in the pipe, make sure the corrosive pipes are taken out and replaced, which could easily be done, and then start using it again. Monitor the situation, keep a close eye on it, just like we do all over the United States. And let's get running. Let's get drill baby drill going again. So take your time, Mr. President, make sure you are doing the right thing. We could obviously appease the other side and of course appease the drilling of oil as well. It doesn't have to be one side versus the other. Make sure what needs to be done to protect the environment, and that should be done. We should be, as good stewards of our country, be doing this. So I hope that is gonna take place. It should take place, and we'll see how that works out, but it seems like it'll be a net benefit for the United States. Let's keep moving. A little bit of time left in the program here. Let's keep going. About halfway through right now. You know, there we gotta talk about this Virginia race, too, right now. This is something that is highly disgraceful of Abigail Spanberger here. This is not the Associated Press. And I ask what to expect in Virginia's special election on redistricting right now. You know, there aren't any candidates on this ballot. This is just simply a Virginia statewide special election that is being held today. There was some early voting that took place as well. But the contest could really decide who was going to become in control of the U.S. House this fall, really depending on what takes place here in Virginia, among other states. Now, the voters in the Commonwealth will now consider on a ballot measure that would amend the Virginia State Constitution to give the Democratic majority, the General Assembly, the temporary ability to have the power to redraw the state's congressional districts. Now, it's one of the latest moves in the redistricting races that we see take place all across the country, both Republican and Democrats alike. And it really got started with the Texas Republican lawmakers redrawing their state congressional maps. Not a shock here. That was at President Trump's own urging. Now, I will say Texas is a little bit of a different situation. When you have, for example, in a short amount of five years, you have this massive influx of people coming into your state, changing up a lot of the demographics and what have you. Things change. So things change from the last census in 2020. Now in 2025, there's a population explosion happening in the state of Texas. And it seemed like them, under their constitution, they were able to do that, but it seemed like a worthwhile thing for them to do. That's where it comes down to. Where it changes, though, you now have Democrats in the state of Virginia, right now currently holding six Democratic seats of the 11 total. But if the plan is passed, the proposal for the Democrats in the state of Virginia, at the behest of Abigail Spanberger, if enacted, the party could gain upwards of 10 congressional districts. So they would end up picking up a net of four new seats. So you see exactly what the purpose of this is. This isn't just kind of drawing things just to be, you know, to get a couple extra seats in a, you know, in your congressional districts. This is just totally taking out a whole swath of the Republican voters in your state. Now, I do want to make a couple things clear. In Virginia, when you register to vote, you don't actually register along party lines, you just simply register to vote. So again, it's a nonpartisan task when you are voting. And you find out who's going to win based on polling and of course and the actual results. This is Governor Glenn Yunkin, who was explaining this on Fox News just the other day. Take a listen to his stance on this. It's the exact right stance when talking about this redistricting.

SPEAKER_01 34:50

Well, let's just start with the truth, which is this started back in 2016 when Eric Holder, right when he got out of the Obama administration, started the Democrat redistricting commission. And then in 2022, and again in 2024, they pressed to pick up seats in New York. But with all that said, it's about Virginia. And Virginia in 2020 held a constitutional referendum, amended our constitution to have nonpartisan, independent redistricting. Two-thirds of Virginians said we want politics out, politicians out. And now we have Abigail Spamberger saying she's gonna ignore the voice of Virginians, override them, and try to adopt the most gerrymandered map in America. Today we have what is what is assessed what is assessed as the fairest map in America. I don't love it. It's six Democrats and five Republicans, but it's fair. And she wants to override it and turn it into the most gerrymandered map in America. It's wrong that Virginians should stand up and vote no tomorrow.

SPEAKER_00 35:51

You know, he's absolutely right about this. First of all, they just did this, they just voted on this in 2020. Obviously, when in favor of what Glenn Younc is saying right now, they have a special committee, they have a special group that are, you know, supposed to be nonpartisan, they write out the maps to make it as equal as possible. And that's the way that a lot of states operate. Even California used to do this. Until, of course, just earlier uh last year, they decided to go ahead and change this all of a sudden. You know, they decided they didn't want a nonpartisan organization, this commission board to rewrite the maps. They wanted the state legislature and the Democrats who are in control to do this. And this is exactly what Abigail Spanberger is. I just told you, she's just like Gavin Newsom. And by the way, she ran against doing this. That's the part that's ironic about all this. She ran on not doing this. Everything she ran on, she is doing the exact opposite right now. Yep. That's how it works. That's how it works. Both her and Obama are among the high-profile Democrats now that have endorsed this referendum. They're saying that is a necessary response to the Republican-initiated mid-decade redistricting in other states. But groups opposed to this measure have also prominently featured in two other campaign materials alongside their past quotes, critical of this gerrymandering. This is exactly true. They have been opposed to this in the past. Well, but now it's to their benefit. And like I just told you, Abigail Spanberger ran against this. She says she's not going to do this. Now she gets in office, and all of a sudden, this is happening. And let me just be very clear, folks. When you are registriging, I think your map should reflect your given population. Forty-six percent of Virginians voted for Donald Trump in 2024. That's almost half the state. Right now, the the seats as they fall right now are six to five. That seems about appropriate, don't you think so? I think so too. But the idea now that you're going to just simply take away that ability of the voters by simply redrawing these maps is really just disenfranchise. This is gerrymandering to wit T. You are purposely doing this to gain more seats. Now, again, I understand that in the past, especially, by the way, gerrymandering's going back to the early 1800s. You have to understand something. Yes, there are people when they redraw the maps all throughout the history, Republicans when they're charged in it, Democrats when they're in charge in it, but this is just blatant. This is blatant gerrymandering. This isn't, okay, I'm gonna give myself a little extra district here. This is purposely drawing into uh, you know, the these weird map lines to give yourself a stronghold in your state politics. This is what it comes down to. And I think Abigail Spanberger has bitten off a little bit more than she can chew. I don't know that the people in Virginia are gonna go for this. I really don't know if that's gonna happen here. I have to tell you, despite obviously her being victorious last year with the entirety of the government shutdown, I think, which was very beneficial to help push her across, uh I don't think that the average Virginian is gonna go for this now. Because they will be on the path to looking like California. And we all know how California looks right now. Just go take a look at it. Um, but this is something that is is very crucial, especially to the midterms. Uh, what could really happen in the midterms? And like Gavin Newsom, who just stole five Republican seats, in a state that's almost at least 40% Republican, at least I have to say. And we know that things could be very questionable in a lot of these races. Same thing in Virginia. But we have to understand what's going on here. You have states that have 40, 45% Republican, they have zero congressional seats. How does that make any sense when you have almost half your state is Republican? You see it in New Mexico, you see it in states like uh Connecticut, Massachusetts, no Republican representation in these states. And that should be very troublesome. Look at Illinois, same thing. Almost 45%, I think, voted for President Trump. It was 44%, 45%. They have three congressional seats of 17. You try to make sense of that. This is blatant. And when it's this blatant, it's not like you're giving yourself a little bit of an edge. Uh, you know, you are purposely trying to disenfranchise your voters in these states. So again, I say to you, when you vote, you are voting to put people in power. Yes, of course. Uh, but this really determines the future of your state, and of course, it could affect your the way you vote in your federal elections as well. So we'll see how the people of Virginia vote this evening. Polls close at 7 p.m. So if you're in Virginia, folks, get in line. Vote against this, please. This is no good. We don't want this in your state at all. And I don't think you do too. All right, let's slide over to another interesting topic today, stirring things up. This is out of the NBC News. This is interesting, too. President Trump on Saturday directed his administration to speed up reviews of certain psychedelic drugs. I saw this, I said, what is going on here? What is the purpose of the why are we doing this? But once I read the article, it made a little bit more sense to me. So he talks about this drug called ibogaine, a getting a psychedelic drug, which recently has been embraced by combat veterans and conservative lawmakers despite having serious safety effects. So this ibogaine is one of the types of psychedelics that remains banned under the federal government's most restrictive category for illegal and, of course, the high-risk drugs. But the administration is taking steps now to ease restrictions and spur research on the drugs for medical purposes, including conditions like severe depression. Now, one of the main advocates for this was Joe Rogan. He was in the White House speaking about this. And I guess Rogan had texted him. Trump said, okay, let's do this. Let's try to get this FDA approved for certain use. Now, I will say this to you. Um, it's not just going to allow the drug to be on the market. It's not going to legalize the drug. Let's just make that very, very clear here. That's not what is taking place here. What this executive order then is being pushed to again allow these psychedelics to be used for medical purposes is getting the federal agencies to speed up specific and regulatory reviews, uh, things like again the eyebogene for medical use. So they're trying to push the FDA, HHS, to prioritize clinical trials for conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, severe depression, opioid dependence, especially in veterans. So I think this will hone in onto helping our veterans out. And they also want to create a new fast-tracking mechanism at the FDA. So what do they would include national priority vouchers, uh, things of that nature? So this isn't just a, you know, uh, what do I want to say? This isn't just legalizing the drug. Okay? That's not what's taking place here. What they want to do is they want to hold clinical trials first. They want to see how successful this drug is, or drugs, I should say, see how they're used, and then see if they can implement it in a safe way to help people. Now, I will say this to you. I have my questions and concerns about all this because I question everything I put into my body, but there are serious safety concerns, especially with ibogaine. It is a cardiotoxin. That means it could really damage the heart rhythm. There's disturbances in that pattern, which obviously could be linked to sudden death, sudden death, excuse me. Um these are problems. These are big problems. So It really has to be administered, I think, in a very close capacity with expert physicians that know how to implement these drugs into the human body that they can monitor to make sure that you are safe. I just don't know about this. I I really don't. I mean, it sounds good on the abstracts. It sounds like, hey, this is a good breakthrough, right? We can help people out, we can ease addiction, they can obviously have the effect to help with withdraw withdrawals and whatnot and get people clean. Okay, that sounds great. But when you're talking about a drug as serious as uh the Schedule One drugs, this is very problematic. Because, I mean, what are you gonna go start taking these drugs and then go home? Now, I understand the libertarian point of view. Well, make it legal, let people use drugs as they see fit. I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think the government should be approving people just to obviously take these these drugs home and you know use them as they will. I I don't believe in that. But it's not gonna be the insanity like we see in places like California, San Francisco, Los Angeles, if you will, where they give you needles and you know they give you the paraphernalia and tell you to go home and have fun. That's not what's taking place. Everything is gonna be in a controlled setting, a clinical setting, where the drugs are administered to you and you are monitored. That's at least what I'm getting from this article right now. So, no, they're not trying to deschedule the ibogain or the other psychedelic drugs, but again, I I have to I have to act with caution here. Isn't it very good to take a psychedelic drug? We know that people respond differently to these drugs. Uh, you know, some people have uh good reactions, some people have very bad reactions. We've heard of people just frying their brains on this stuff. And by the way, LSD is one of the drugs that they're looking into. They're looking at MDMA, they're looking at uh a couple other drugs too. I I I I don't know. I I I question a lot of these things that are also damaging to the body as well. That we say, oh, well, it's good for medical purposes. Well, okay, but there's also some side effects to it. What are the long-term risks if you're continuing to use this over a long period of time? And how long are these safety testings going to be for this to make sure that it's okay for people to come in and start using it? Uh what will the process look like? Will a doctor have to refer them to be using this? Will it work like that, or will anybody that wants to come in and use it can come in and say, well, you know, I'm really depressed, I really would like to use this. Let me see, let me give it a shot. And then they're using these these very hard illicit drugs. So I think there has to be a lot of safety testing. I think we have to figure out ways in which this can be utilized to combat a lot of these things. Uh but there should be the science and the data to prove that this is more beneficial and it outweighs the cons, which can be very devastating, uh, than obviously uh if we just allow this to happen and fast track it. I don't like when things are just fast-tracked to a certain extent. I really don't. Anything we are putting in our bodies that are passed by the FDA should have a long-term clinical study. I don't think it should just be, hey, I heard this article, and uh, you know, the article's great. It says, hey, look, it can combat depression, hey, it can combat opioid dependence. Let's help these people out. Not gonna be great if it was completely healthy for you, but we know there are lots of side effects to these as well. So I always say, whenever you're putting something in your body, make sure, especially if it's a medicine or a vaccine or anything like that, you gotta look at the long-term clinical safety testing. What happens 10 years from now? What happens five years from now? This is not just something you just put in your body right away and use it. We saw this happen with COVID, right? They did two months of the clinical testing for the COVID vaccine, and look at the plethora of illnesses that have erupted from taking this. No good. So keep that in mind when we're we're talking about these breakthroughs in health. Again, I think anytime you're putting something in your body, any controlled substance, uh obviously this is very serious. Uh, so we we have to know exactly what's going on. So, no, this is not just you know uh descheduling or legalizing these drugs. It's it's very, very serious uh that these they have these random controlled trials first, and they have the safety testing to back up what they're doing, and they're in a controlled environment to monitor the patient's health. And if they can do that, okay, fine. That they want to do that, but again, I don't think it just should be uh, you know, somebody comes in and gets a drug and then leaves with it. I think that would be ridiculous if they were to do that. But that doesn't seem like what's happening, so I think that's at least could be something that's beneficial for the future. Only time will tell what the science tells us. All right, let's move on. Let's move on, folks. About 12 minutes left in the broadcast. Let's pivot to something else that deserves much attention coming out of the beltway. This out of the gateway punn says that the House Ethics Committee on Monday confirmed that it has reviewed 20 matters involving allegations of sexual misconduct by a member of Congress over the last decade. Look at this. Look at this. This is just something that continues on and on and on. The committee has adopted a more aggressive and robust approach to the allegations of sexual misconduct. Since 2017, the committee has initiated investigations in matters involving 20 different allegations of sexual misconduct by a single member. Now, this committee has also investigated several members for their handling of allegations of sexual misconduct by their senior staff. I mean, this is, I guess this is rot runs deep, folks. This is not just something that is a happenstance. This is something that is very much well known. And why people aren't held accountable for this, I'm sure I don't know. Why they continue to protect one another. The Health Ethics Committee said that it has released its findings after a member of Congress engaged in sexual misconduct. Now, whenever the committee found a member that has engaged or has fostered an environment where sexual misconduct took place, the committee released its findings. Now, here's what the committee has found. The sexual misconduct of a staffer. Obviously, we know that he resigned. We have Tony Gonzalez, we know that he just previously resigned as well, sexual relationship with a staffer. Corey Mills, who is on this list as well, sexual misconduct andor dating violence, uh, the outcome is still ongoing. So all these things with all these different people, uh, very much recently. But why are these people not, again, approached right away? Why are these things not figured out and why are they not coming to light? This is very troublesome. Well, these things go back all the way to the 1970s, and looking at this long list, uh, but this seems to be, obviously, we know Swalwell, uh the latest of all this, was someone that had years and years of this and nothing was done about it, though. Now you've got five women coming forward alleging that they were sexually assaulted by Swalwell. Some are accusing him of rape. But why does nothing happen to any of these people? Why why is this going on? Why is this continuing to happen? These are very serious allegations, and again, we we've heard these things about previously Joe Biden, for example. These are very serious allegations, and nothing seems to ever get done when they are even brought up to very, very prominent people. You look at things, for example, uh, Eric Swalwell's latest bit here. Look at this. It says here, last week, Lana Drews recounted how Eric Swalwell drugged and raped her back in 2018 and choked her to the point of unconsciousness at a West Hollywood hotel room. She said that he raped me and he choked me. And while he was choking me, I lost consciousness. I thought I died. I did not consent to any sexual activity. Now, the Justice Department is still investigating Eric Swowell as he resigned in disgrace. We saw Republican Tony Gonzalez also resigned last week after the staffer that he had an extramarital affair with took her own life. Now, lots of things happening on the beltway. Uh obviously, these are stains on our elected representatives, but listen, if people are going to come forward and they're going to share this information and admit that things have been happening to them, then why? Why would something not be done right then and there to that member of Congress? Why would then they not be investigated right then and there to either have a suspension and what they're doing? I mean, this is taking place in 2018 with Eric Swalwell. Now, whether the allegations were brought up at the time, nobody knows. Um, but it seems like this is a common pattern, and it wasn't just something that nobody knew about. Obviously, that he was doing this to several women. Uh, obviously that's why it's very important that we we understand what's going on, for example. And if people are coming forward, we need to actually look into these leaders very, very closely because oftentimes they think they can get away with anything. Look at Swalwell. Look at Swallwell, going back almost 10 years. I mean, this is the seriousness of the situation, and nothing's being done about it. Nothing is being done about it. And again, they're they tend to be protected, they didn't run for office, they get re-elected. This has got to stop. And the House Ethics Committee needs to make sure that when they get these findings of a member of Congress, especially engaged in sexual misconduct or assault, that this is something that is brought to the attention very, very seriously for investigation right away. That's all I gotta say on that, folks. Uh, again, it's it makes me sick knowing that these things were happening and these people still continue to get elected to office. Well, the way we stop this, of course, is to investigate right away. Suspensions, if there's credible evidence to prove this. Uh, but it seems like there were lots of things that Swobell did. Obviously, he was on video record of doing these things. Uh, these are not things that should be of members of Congress, folks. We should be electing decent and good people to represent us inside Congress. That's all I gotta say on that. And finally, folks, one more article I want to talk about today. Let's close up the show with this one. Again, kind of reiterating what I was just talking about. It's not a Newsweek, it says that the lawmakers are now doubling down on the Pam Bondi threat. What is going on with good old Pam Bondi? Well, Bondi was scheduled to testify before the committee on April 14th over her handling of the Epstein files, which again she broke the law on, following a bipartisan vote to call her to Capitol Hill. Now, of course, she has since been fired from her position. And in addition to the Democrats, several Republican committee members supported this measure, including Representatives Lauren Boebert, Tim Merchant, uh Michael Cloud, Nancy Mace, and Scott Perry. President Donald Trump fired Bonnie, though, in early April, temporarily handing her role to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. And by the way, we still have three million pages of the Epstein files that are still not in circulation yet. Why is that? Everything was supposed to be released late in 2025, in December of 2025. Now, Trump, obviously firing her, doesn't absolve her from this wrongdoing, though. She could still be called to be questioned. And prior to her terminate termination, uh, some Democrats have been pushing for impeachment against Bondi. I think that's probably why Trump got her out of there in the first place, over the department's rolling out of the related records of Epstein and the way she handled this. Coming out first saying that she had the client list, then she didn't have the client list, uh, then they were gonna release all the files, they were gonna be transparent about it, then she just doesn't do anything. She sends out all these redacted files. And now they're saying they have three million pages of files, but they're not gonna release them. Well, folks, that violates the law. That was signed into law by President Trump and, of course, by Congress. So now the Department of Justice remains committed to working and cooperating with obviously the committee and its subpoena to former A.G. Pambandi and her official capacity as Attorney General. Now, she needs to come out and explain why she isn't following the law. Again, because of this leadership transition at the time of the department, uh, they're saying that this subpoena no longer applies. I don't agree with that at all. I think she should appear for whatever deposition it is to explain to us, which she was supposed to do on January the 3rd, why all the files had not been released to the public, which we were supposed to have. Now Bonnie's removal as Attorney General doesn't erase her obligation to testify and does not end congressional oversight, is what Nancy Mace has said. By the way, she was one of the ones who it who saw a lot of these documents and sat through a lot of these hearings, and she has said that the American people deserve to know whether Congress was misled and whether information about Jeffrey Epstein and his associates is being withheld. I agree with her 100%. Pam Bonnie has the answers. Let's get to it. This is very important. So we need to get through this, we need to figure out what's going on here. And I have a question for the Department of Justice. Why has nobody been arrested with this? Now, the DOJ could release millions of pages. We know this, but look at how much has been redacted of the Epstein-related records. Look how this handling has been done. We have people committing violent acts, talking about rape of children, human sacrifice. All these are very, very important. Why has nobody been arrested? Not one person has been arrested yet from the Epstein files. Anyone could look at this and see these things, and we could obviously understand that something evil is happening here. Now the DOJ is not interested in that at all. Talking about murder, talking about rape, talking about trafficking, talking about human sacrifice, prostitution, soliciting minors? No one's been arrested, just Jeffrey Epstein. That's what they want you to believe. Okay, fine. Then unredact everything. Let us see who's talking about these things. Let's see where the chips falls they may. Because we know there's still about 200 survivors that are still alive today. So why is nothing being done about this? What will be done about this? And will you hold Pam Bondi in contempt of courts? Something tells me that's probably just not gonna happen. That's just my take on it. I could be wrong, but we need to have answers to this. And we're not getting any of these answers, and of course, we get more obfuscation as time goes on. Oh, we're gonna get Pam Bondi to court. Well, you saw what happened when Bill and Hillary Clinton testified. What took place there? Absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, folks. Folks, that's all the time we have for you today. Hope you enjoyed the show. Thank you for being here as always. Make sure you're staying prepped with food, water, medicine, ammo, anything you need to be self-sufficient right now. Remember, get stored up, get stocked up right now while you can, because again, we have no idea what's going to take place in the upcoming months as this war continues to go on. Let's pray for peace in the Middle East, folks. Let's play for peace all over the world. Have a great rest of your day. I'll see you back here tomorrow for more broadbreaking news.