Speaker 1: This is the US Report with James Morrow.
Speaker 2: Good evening, and welcome to the program. Here's what's coming
Speaker 2: up tonight. Gavin Newsom's woke wife puts her foot in it,
Speaker 2: but will it derail her husband's presumptive campaign for the presidency.
Speaker 2: Plus why is Milania Trump talking about Jeffrey Epstein all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, It's a mystery. We'll dive into you
Speaker 2: with John Heindracher and who's your daddy? Well, NATO chief
Speaker 2: Mark Rutta has a slightly surprising answer. But first to
Speaker 2: the war in Iran. And I'm here to tell you
Speaker 2: something that I imagine you already suspected to be true,
Speaker 2: namely that just about everything you are hearing about how
Speaker 2: the conflict is going is wrong or at least deeply
Speaker 2: shaded by politics, because you read much of the When
Speaker 2: you read much of the press, you're gonna hear one
Speaker 2: thing over and over again. And it goes sort of
Speaker 2: like this, Trump is a taco war criminal whose mere
Speaker 2: tweets should have him up on trial at Nuremberg. How
Speaker 2: dare he say nasty things about those nice old mullahs
Speaker 2: in Tehran? Yep, that's pretty much what most of the
Speaker 2: media is saying right now. But let's start with the
Speaker 2: whole taco thing. You know, Taco it's an acronym for
Speaker 2: Trump always chickens out. It's a weird meme, a phenomenon
Speaker 2: that still has a lot of currency on the left.
Speaker 2: And we saw it played out in the press when
Speaker 2: Donald Trump threatened in a tweet to basically end Iranian civilization. Now,
Speaker 2: the left read this and they panicked and screamed that
Speaker 2: Trump was guilty of war crimes because he merely threatened
Speaker 2: to take out Iranian infrastructure. Well, if that's war crime,
Speaker 2: I think these guys ought not to look too closely
Speaker 2: at the Allied Air Commands area bombing campaigns in World
Speaker 2: War Two. But that's another story. Then when Donald Trump
Speaker 2: relented and did end to open the floodgates of destruction
Speaker 2: and the Iranians seemed to come to the table to
Speaker 2: talk about a peace deal, well they changed their tune
Speaker 2: and they said, Hi, Karamba, it's taco night. But I
Speaker 2: tell you what, it's all so tiresome because this has
Speaker 2: been going a long time on a long time when
Speaker 2: it comes to Trump that Iran I mean, check out
Speaker 2: this mashup of CNN before last year's strike on Iran's
Speaker 2: nuclear facilities, and then what they said immediately after the strikes,
Speaker 2: and then what they said right before this year's strikes.
Speaker 3: This timeline of Iran being a few weeks away from
Speaker 3: a nuclear bomb is in direct contradiction to CNN's reporting.
Speaker 3: Uran's uranium may still be intact and in Iranian control
Speaker 3: four hundred and a kilograms of it now and not theoretically,
Speaker 3: according to experts, to make nine nuclear weapons. Sources tell
Speaker 3: CNN there is no US intelligence that are on is
Speaker 3: building missiles that could soon hit the United States.
Speaker 2: That's a really big deal. Yes, I know CNN assumes
Speaker 2: that all of its viewers are idiots who have the
Speaker 2: memories of goldfish. But putting those three clips together, you
Speaker 2: can see how their narrative change. They went from there
Speaker 2: is no need from strikes too, Iran is nowhere near
Speaker 2: a nuclear weapon, and then they said, oh wait, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: the strikes have failed. Now they're closer than ever to
Speaker 2: getting nuclear weapons. And then what's that? They said, Trump's
Speaker 2: hitting them again? Why does he need to do that?
Speaker 2: There's no way they're close to a nuclear weapon. Just
Speaker 2: flipping and flopping back and forth, taking the opposite position
Speaker 2: of Trump. Whatever he does, says or promises, you see
Speaker 2: how it works. But there's something worse about all this,
Speaker 2: because at the heart of this messaging is a demoralization
Speaker 2: campaign that is not just about talking down Iran, but
Speaker 2: about talking down America and the West. Well at the
Speaker 2: same time, treating Tehran and their malas and iatolas is
Speaker 2: somehow a bunch of brave heroes of the resistance. Here's
Speaker 2: ms now Stephanie Rule giving a little bizarre taste of this.
Speaker 4: Well, this is a phenomenal point because you could disagree
Speaker 4: with Iran and what their point of view is, but
Speaker 4: it's the fact that they have a deep belief in
Speaker 4: something that's unforbill die for, that they will die for,
Speaker 4: that they'll destroy their country for us.
Speaker 2: Say what you will about the tenets of apocalyptic Shia Islam.
Speaker 2: At least it's an ethos. Of course, all of this
Speaker 2: has real consequences too. And if you think the chattering
Speaker 2: left loves talking down America's chances in Iran, just imagine
Speaker 2: what they think watching all of this in Beijing, where
Speaker 2: Jijinping and his mates must be rejoicing at the thoughts
Speaker 2: that just a few weeks of energy crisis and conflict
Speaker 2: can bring the West's elite to heal. Yes, say whatever
Speaker 2: you like about Trump, the tactical makes mistakes he may
Speaker 2: have made in this fights the wild messaging, the fact
Speaker 2: that he hoped a popular that the hope for popular
Speaker 2: Iranian revolution has not yet occurred. The fact is the
Speaker 2: fact that we can't absorb a few weeks of energy
Speaker 2: shock in service to an effort to bring one of
Speaker 2: the world's most dangerous and carcinogenic regimes to heal. Has
Speaker 2: no chance if China decides to invade Taiwan and dominate
Speaker 2: the Pacific. That is why this whole demoralization campaign is
Speaker 2: so dangerous. It goes well beyond Iran. It goes to
Speaker 2: the future of the US and very much the future
Speaker 2: of Australia. It is part of the broader talking down
Speaker 2: to the West in general by the left, which has
Speaker 2: since at least the nineteen sixties, so for a good
Speaker 2: three or four generations in the educational system now taught
Speaker 2: that the free and liberal world that we enjoy is
Speaker 2: really no better than just the product of patriarch colonialists
Speaker 2: and the slave trade, and which sees the enemies of
Speaker 2: the West as brave, heroic, scrappy resistant fighters. Honestly, but again,
Speaker 2: all of this has consequences, and it creates a feedback loop.
Speaker 2: What we are seeing now is what happens when a
Speaker 2: Western world, increasingly shorn of higher purpose, gets into a
Speaker 2: hot war with a regime whose entire legitimacy stems from
Speaker 2: fighting it. You know, there was a book called on
Speaker 2: Strategy by Colonel Harry Summers, and it opened up with
Speaker 2: an exchange between two old officers, one American one Vietnamese,
Speaker 2: reunited in peace after the Vietnam War. In the book,
Speaker 2: he tells the story of these two colonels. One says,
Speaker 2: you know, you never defeated us on the battlefield. That
Speaker 2: was the American colonel, and then he says the North
Speaker 2: Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark for a moment and said
Speaker 2: that may be so, but it is also irrelevant. This
Speaker 2: is the game the Iranians are trying to play. Lose
Speaker 2: the war, survive, and become the new resistance heroes of
Speaker 2: the West. Those that help this agenda aren't anti war
Speaker 2: so much as they are on the other side. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's get straight into the discussion here and bring in
Speaker 2: our first guest writer and researcher at the Hudson Institute,
Speaker 2: Zeneb Ribua Zenev, Welcome back to the program. Thanks so
Speaker 2: much for joining me. Now, a few weeks ago, when
Speaker 2: we last spoke, it looked like the Iranian regime was
Speaker 2: close to collapse, but in the week since it seems
Speaker 2: to have deepened its resolve and despite this very shaky
Speaker 2: ceasefire is internally within Iran, I'm told, selling the message
Speaker 2: that they are resisting, in fact that they have won
Speaker 2: the war and are even back to killing dissidents. What's
Speaker 2: the latest out of Iran and how close to the
Speaker 2: collapse is this regime in your analysis?
Speaker 5: Well, thank you very much for having me. I think
Speaker 5: that you know, there's always some I ERGC doing AI
Speaker 5: memes and videos and lego movies just explain how how
Speaker 5: much of a strong unit they are. But you know,
Speaker 5: don't let that fool you. On the ground, they've been absolutely,
Speaker 5: i think decapidated in terms of their abilities. They do
Speaker 5: not have the similitary abilities that they used to have.
Speaker 5: Their missiles and drone architecture is being tested and it's
Speaker 5: being destroyed. The navy has been destroyed. And here's the
Speaker 5: thing they do have a strategy, and their strategy is
Speaker 5: about having some sort of mosaic architecture. There's something they've
Speaker 5: learned after the fall of Saddam in two thousand and three.
Speaker 5: But it does not mean that they can actually have
Speaker 5: a long term survival ability for the simple reason that
Speaker 5: they're being suffocated, not just on the military side, but
Speaker 5: also on the financial side. Before Operation Epic Theory happened,
Speaker 5: the economy was not doing well, and right now they
Speaker 5: don't have cash to recruit and in fact people do
Speaker 5: not want to join them. They had to make sure
Speaker 5: that children aged twelve twelve years old joined them instead
Speaker 5: of others. So they do have several problems that they're
Speaker 5: not and of course they're denying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, that's real last days of the
Speaker 2: Third Reich stuff, when you're getting twelve year olds involved
Speaker 2: in the fight. But you know, the question then is
Speaker 2: really who is in control in Iran because obviously the
Speaker 2: leadership has been absolutely blown to bits. We've got an
Speaker 2: Eyatola who may not even be conscious. I have heard
Speaker 2: that there could be different factions between the IRGC and
Speaker 2: the political wing. With these peace talks that we're hearing
Speaker 2: about scheduled in Pakistan, who was actually talking for or
Speaker 2: representing Iran? And do they speak for, you know, some
Speaker 2: sort of coherent government. Is there even a coherent government there?
Speaker 5: I would say that there isn't for a very specific
Speaker 5: reason that they violated one of their own successions rules
Speaker 5: by appointing uh Hameni's son instead of appointing a legal
Speaker 5: scholar that has several credentials and so on, so in
Speaker 5: that in that from that point of view, I think
Speaker 5: that they do have a huge governance crisis on who
Speaker 5: is talking well right now, the administration is actually in
Speaker 5: talks precisely and with with the political side of things,
Speaker 5: with the with the Foreign Minister and other political political
Speaker 5: maneuvers and operators the i r GC. However, while they
Speaker 5: are so embedded in the political structure, I do think
Speaker 5: that they're being sidelined in a way that helps the
Speaker 5: political faction rise rise up. And you can see that
Speaker 5: for example within President Peshikyan in the middle of the operation,
Speaker 5: especially on the Iranian side, was saying to the ier GC,
Speaker 5: but also saying in general that we will not hit
Speaker 5: the golf countries. However, ten minutes later, the IERGC started
Speaker 5: hitting Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries. So actually
Speaker 5: they are very fragmented, but there is now I think
Speaker 5: a bigger schism between the political and the military that.
Speaker 2: That excuse them. There, I think is very important and
Speaker 2: people need to understand that there's actually two different kind
Speaker 2: of groups that have always run the country. But I'm
Speaker 2: still very interested in the IRGC because of course the
Speaker 2: second worthy revolutionary you know, that has to do with
Speaker 2: this whole ideology of resistance that Iran has always held to,
Speaker 2: and it ties in with the broader anti American movement.
Speaker 2: You've talked about this in a different way when you've
Speaker 2: talked about the phenomenon of third worldism. Does this explain
Speaker 2: this idea that they've figured out a pose that's you know,
Speaker 2: anti American and resisting that American imperialism as they call it.
Speaker 2: Is that why there's so many people on the left
Speaker 2: and in the West who seem to be supporting Iran.
Speaker 2: I mean, even if they don't say so explicitly, they're
Speaker 2: certainly not hoping America wins and defeats this regime.
Speaker 5: Well, supporting Iran makes complete sense if you are anti
Speaker 5: America and you think that America is the evil empire
Speaker 5: and that Israel is this representative in the Middle East,
Speaker 5: which means you actually agree with Iran that America is
Speaker 5: the great Satin in Israel is a little Satin. And
Speaker 5: I think that there's something, you know, you just point
Speaker 5: out about IRGC's ideology. What people do not actually understand
Speaker 5: sometimes is that it's a revolutionary regime and they genuinely
Speaker 5: have an apocalyptic vision of the world. This operation, for example,
Speaker 5: for them, it's already a certain sign of the end
Speaker 5: of the world, you know, which is why, for example,
Speaker 5: when Truck when he said something of the sort, when
Speaker 5: he said something like, you know, we're going to erase
Speaker 5: your civilization, you actually started speaking the language of the IERGC,
Speaker 5: because that's exactly how they think. That's exactly how they
Speaker 5: imagine winning against the United States look like. And that's
Speaker 5: something to take into consideration. They generally think that this
Speaker 5: is the end for them, and you can see that
Speaker 5: when they're talking about Haspola and other proxies in the levant.
Speaker 5: They understand the stakes. They understand that the end of Hespola,
Speaker 5: which is why they've been protective of it for so long,
Speaker 5: means the ends the end of the IERGC, and so
Speaker 5: obviously there is an ideological thing there, But I would
Speaker 5: stress something else. The Arab countries have changed. The region
Speaker 5: wants business, they want investments. They do no longer adhere
Speaker 5: to an ideology that wants death. And that's very actually
Speaker 5: visible in how the UAE and other countries have taken
Speaker 5: a strong stance against the Islamic Republic because one of
Speaker 5: the things that the Islamic Republic wanted was images from
Speaker 5: the Arab world chanting debt to America while the operation
Speaker 5: is ongoing and it didn't happen.
Speaker 2: Isn't this a rebuke then to basically that entire Obama
Speaker 2: era foreign policy, which was such a disaster, which believed that,
Speaker 2: you know, if you did anything against any of these
Speaker 2: sorts of revolutionary Islamic movements that were anti American, you
Speaker 2: would outrage the Arab street as they always called it.
Speaker 2: And we've just shown that this absolutely doesn't exist in
Speaker 2: any sort of sense that they were saying.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's actually I had this exact same conversation with
Speaker 5: a friend of mine who told me, oh, this is
Speaker 5: you know, there's a in a Western world, there's the Arabis,
Speaker 5: And I said, you know which Arabists are we talking about?
Speaker 5: Are we talking about the West or are we talking
Speaker 5: about the Middle East, Because in fact, the Millia East
Speaker 5: is the one that is so close to Iran's aggressions.
Speaker 5: They've seen what it looked like in Syria, the cinema,
Speaker 5: it looked like in Lebanon and in Iraq. These countries
Speaker 5: want to have a state and they've been deprived from
Speaker 5: having one because they want kept promoting the proxies. So yes,
Speaker 5: I think that there is a huge, I think contrast
Speaker 5: here and it's a very dangerous one because it means
Speaker 5: that the Milla East is not only changing, but also
Speaker 5: that the threats are going to come from the West.
Speaker 5: This time it's a revolution state. So we have to
Speaker 5: keep in mind that the ideology can reproduce and fighting
Speaker 5: against it and the battlefield, but also on the information space.
Speaker 5: It's very it's very important.
Speaker 2: So then we're gonna have to leave it there. We
Speaker 2: can chat all night about this, wish we could, but
Speaker 2: maybe we can do that another time. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for your time, as always, thank you very much. Okay, well,
Speaker 2: let's keep the conversation going now with Republican strategist and
Speaker 2: former spokesman for Senator Ted Cruz Ron naring Ron. I
Speaker 2: wanted to keep this going because so much talk about
Speaker 2: the war and all of the other flow on effects
Speaker 2: from it. We know that this conflict has not been
Speaker 2: that enthusiastically supported by some of the United States allies,
Speaker 2: and now we're seeing this flow back with Republicans and
Speaker 2: new polls showing quite a bit of discontent with NATO.
Speaker 2: Is this conflict and the flow on effects from it
Speaker 2: going to have last implications for that North Atlantic Alliance?
Speaker 2: Is the US going to pull out of NATO?
Speaker 6: Well, I don't think the US would pull out of
Speaker 6: NATO because the consequences for the United States would be
Speaker 6: so negative. In terms of the United States derives a
Speaker 6: lot of benefit from its membership and leadership in the
Speaker 6: NATO alliance. For example, when Norway monitors those Russian submarines
Speaker 6: passing through Norwegian territory, they're not doing that to protect Norway.
Speaker 6: They're doing that to protect the rest of the alliance,
Speaker 6: including the United States. NATO has only been actively involved
Speaker 6: in two conflicts since World War Two since it was formed.
Speaker 6: One was in Kosovo and the other was in Afghanistan
Speaker 6: because the United States had been attacked. So I think
Speaker 6: there's some confusion out there about what the role of
Speaker 6: NATO is. It's a defensive alliance aimed at protecting the
Speaker 6: North Atlantic and European region from direct attack, particularly from Russia.
Speaker 2: But ron when we see things such as nations not
Speaker 2: even allowing the United States to overfly their own territory
Speaker 2: to pursue Iran, or to use bases within their territories,
Speaker 2: you know, at least at the start of this conflict,
Speaker 2: that does seem to suggest that there's a conflict maybe
Speaker 2: between what the Europeans think NATO's role is and what
Speaker 2: America thinks of NATO's role.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm not sure that that crosses into what the
Speaker 6: role of NATO is as opposed to what the role
Speaker 6: of being an ally is on an individual bilateral basis.
Speaker 6: When Gulf Fur I was around for Gulf War one
Speaker 6: and Gulf War two, and what you saw is that
Speaker 6: President Bush forty one and forty three they had to
Speaker 6: bring the rest of the world along before launching kinetic
Speaker 6: military military action. Now, what the President and Israel launch
Speaker 6: took advantage of a particular set of circumstances in Iran,
Speaker 6: but it meant that they didn't have the opportunity to
Speaker 6: bring the rest of the world along on this. I
Speaker 6: completely agree with the administration that our allied countries individually
Speaker 6: should be allowing the US to use our bases there
Speaker 6: to engage in this conflict, particularly in terms of securing
Speaker 6: the Strait of Hormuz, which directly benefits them more than us.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Indeed, hey, let's talk about some of the other
Speaker 2: things happening within the United States too. We are seeing
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of elections, by elections up and down
Speaker 2: the country. Trump endorsed Republican Clay Fuller has won Georgia's
Speaker 2: runoff election to replace former Congressman Marjorie Tayler Green, and
Speaker 2: Trump has also endorsed a former top advisor to UK
Speaker 2: Prime Minister David Cameron for governor of California, a fellow
Speaker 2: named Steve Hilton. What do you make of these two
Speaker 2: events here? And also just this sort of tide of
Speaker 2: how these elections are going that we see by elections
Speaker 2: special elections around the place. Some are falling Republican ways,
Speaker 2: some ways of falling the Democrat ways. Is there anything
Speaker 2: that we can start to discern about the mood of
Speaker 2: the country going into the midterms.
Speaker 6: Well, I think this is going to be a very
Speaker 6: very competitive environment for the midterm elections, given the ongoing
Speaker 6: challenges with respect to inflation, cost of living, and so on.
Speaker 6: And the President's been tackling those problems as aggressively as
Speaker 6: it can, but sometimes these policies take time in order
Speaker 6: to work. In terms of the election in Georgia, the
Speaker 6: by election in Georgia that's a very heavily Republican district,
Speaker 6: it was certainly expected that the Republican would win there,
Speaker 6: so I don't think that tells us anything. Steve Hilton
Speaker 6: here in California certainly has an edge up with the
Speaker 6: President's endorsement quickly going into this week's Republican state convention
Speaker 6: in San Diego. I expect that gives him an edge
Speaker 6: to emerge in the top two in the primary going forward.
Speaker 6: Some of the other by elections that have taken place
Speaker 6: in highly competitive districts show what we all know, which
Speaker 6: is that it's a very competitive environment. One big problem
Speaker 6: for the Democrats, though, is they continue to be culturally
Speaker 6: way out of the mainstream of where most Americans are,
Speaker 6: and that's why they're not doing better than they otherwise could,
Speaker 6: because they've really failed to pivot back to the to
Speaker 6: where most Americans are on a variety of issues, and
Speaker 6: financially they're also in very very bad shape. So those
Speaker 6: two things I think are limiting their ability to take
Speaker 6: advantage of the environment going into the midterms.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, Look, I think we've spoken a lot on
Speaker 2: this program about the problems that Democrats socialist wing taken
Speaker 2: taking over the Democrats. But just to stick with the
Speaker 2: Republicans for a second, before the conflict in Iran started,
Speaker 2: the theory was going everyone saying was going to be
Speaker 2: a very Trump focused campaign for the midterms. He was
Speaker 2: going to be out there. Susie Wills, the chief of staff,
Speaker 2: was saying, this was the direction this was going to go.
Speaker 2: Does the Iran war change the calculus of making this
Speaker 2: a Trump forward for lack of a better term midterms,
Speaker 2: or does it have to then go back to maybe
Speaker 2: being just that Republican brand versus, as you say, that
Speaker 2: very tarnished hard left Democrat brand.
Speaker 6: I don't think that the Republican Party has any choice
Speaker 6: but to have President Trump at the center of the
Speaker 6: midterm election campaign, because he dominates the news in every
Speaker 6: election cycle, and he defines the party more than any
Speaker 6: particular individual. Under more normal circumstances, If the president's popularity
Speaker 6: is ahead of that of the party, you lead with
Speaker 6: the president. If the party's popularity is ahead of the president,
Speaker 6: you lead with the party. But I don't think we're
Speaker 6: in a normal situation, and so I think Donald Trump
Speaker 6: is going to continue to define the Republican Party right
Speaker 6: up until his last day in office.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, I think that's absolutely correct. I don't think there's
Speaker 2: any chance of that shifting. But also just on the
Speaker 2: way that the votes are held in America, one of
Speaker 2: the things that's been very contentious is not only voter
Speaker 2: ID but also mail in voting. Now, Trump has signed
Speaker 2: an executive order to restrict the use of mail in voting,
Speaker 2: which of course played such a huge role in Joe
Speaker 2: Biden's twenty twenty win Democrat run states. I think twenty
Speaker 2: three of them are suing to block the restrictions from
Speaker 2: coming into effect. I keep coming back to this that
Speaker 2: Democrats really love all of these different alternative ways of
Speaker 2: voting because it allows them to kind of have something
Speaker 2: in the back pocket that, through organization whatever, they're very
Speaker 2: good at that what are the chances that this EO
Speaker 2: succeeds in the courts, and that this is taken out
Speaker 2: of the Democrat ledger as something that they can count
Speaker 2: on as a way to organize a whole lot of
Speaker 2: votes long before election day.
Speaker 6: Well, Republicans who Democrats have to organize their campaigns based
Speaker 6: on what the rule of the game is now. President
Speaker 6: Trump is no fan of mail in voting. His Executive
Speaker 6: Voter reflects that. But in America the control over the
Speaker 6: manner of voting is squarely in the hands of the states.
Speaker 6: There is a very very narrow nexus with the federal government,
Speaker 6: and even narrower nexus when it comes to what the
Speaker 6: president can do. The President's executive orders are not edicts.
Speaker 6: They only deal with the implementation of existing federal law,
Speaker 6: which with respect to mail in voting, is very limited
Speaker 6: to begin with. So how much of an impact this
Speaker 6: is going to have, I think it's going to be
Speaker 6: marginal at best. But what I think Republicans certainly have
Speaker 6: to do is wage campaigns that in many states we
Speaker 6: don't have election day anymore. We have a six week
Speaker 6: period during which people are voting, and then up to
Speaker 6: a thirty day period thereafter which where they continue to
Speaker 6: count ballots. In Florida, they'll know the election results the
Speaker 6: day after the election. In California, we don't know till
Speaker 6: thirty days later, and that's given rise to a great
Speaker 6: deal of frustration with the system as it currently is,
Speaker 6: particularly in states like California.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I think that's right. A great point about
Speaker 2: the executive board is Ron. Finally, before I let you go,
Speaker 2: I just want to talk about JD. Vance, who's been
Speaker 2: out in Hungary this week with Prime Minister Victor Orbon
Speaker 2: on the campaign trail. Theres he seeks reelection and apparently
Speaker 2: he's also going to be playing a role in these
Speaker 2: peace talks between Iran and the United States and Pakistan.
Speaker 2: I see that he's suddenly getting a bit more attention
Speaker 2: after all of this focus that's been on Rubio in
Speaker 2: recent weeks. Do you make anything of Vance taking this
Speaker 2: center stage, high profile role again after a lot of
Speaker 2: people were saying, gee, look at that Mark Rubio.
Speaker 6: Well, Marca Rubio has certainly been very, very impressive in
Speaker 6: dealing with friend and foe alike in his term as
Speaker 6: Secretary of State. Really brilliant choice by President Trump to
Speaker 6: name him. And certainly there's a great deal of speculation
Speaker 6: that Marco Rubio may leave the administration to the midterm
Speaker 6: election and may run for president himself.
Speaker 1: JD.
Speaker 6: Vance has the struggle of being the number two to
Speaker 6: a president who clearly dominates every election cycle. And so
Speaker 6: I think after the midterm elections, when we move into
Speaker 6: the twenty twenty eight cycle, you'll see an increasing effort
Speaker 6: on the part of Vice President Vance to define himself
Speaker 6: in his own way as he prepares to run for president.
Speaker 6: But I don't think that he is going to be
Speaker 6: the only Republican who runs for president. I think there
Speaker 6: will be a field of multiple candidates, which may or
Speaker 6: may not include Marco Rubio. But the first step in
Speaker 6: the Vance effort is going to be to build his
Speaker 6: own network across the country, not just rely on the
Speaker 6: network of someone else that in that case President Trump,
Speaker 6: and he has to go out and define himself in
Speaker 6: terms of who he is, not just the number two man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Ron, I think the Republicans have a pretty
Speaker 2: deep bench actually heading into twenty twenty eight. We're going
Speaker 2: to have to leave it there, though. We'll talk about
Speaker 2: that next time. Run Daring, thanks so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Now stick around because in a few minutes I'm going
Speaker 2: to be joined by the great John Heindraker, who's got
Speaker 2: a few things to say about those calls to remove
Speaker 2: Trump from office. But first, it's a big weekend coming up,
Speaker 2: and maybe you're going to do a bit of yard work,
Speaker 2: you know, get the lawn looking ship shape, that sort
Speaker 2: of thing. And if you're going to do that, well,
Speaker 2: I hate to tell you this, but that just might
Speaker 2: make you racist.
Speaker 6: I can't stop thinking about how grass lawns are racist
Speaker 6: and like based in white supremacy. If that doesn't make sense,
Speaker 6: that's okay, I guess it seems really obvious to me.
Speaker 7: It's really upsetting.
Speaker 3: Bring back weeds, bring back clover yards.
Speaker 2: Yeah, somehow I didn't think she had any problem with weed,
Speaker 2: I mean weeds. Sorry, anyway, don't go anywhere. John Heinrager
Speaker 2: is up next. Welcome back to the program. Well let's
Speaker 2: get right into it now and bring in the president
Speaker 2: of the Center for the American Experiment, John Heinderecher. John,
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the program. Gonna have a chat here,
Speaker 2: first of all about a really interesting and surprising statement
Speaker 2: today made by First Lady Milania Trump demanding that Congress
Speaker 2: allows survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's horrific crimes
Speaker 2: to publicly testify about what happened to them. She also
Speaker 2: said Epstein did not act alone. Have a look.
Speaker 8: I call on Congress to provide the women who have
Speaker 8: been victimized by Epstein with the public hearing specifically centered
Speaker 8: around the survivors. Give the victims their opportunity to testify
Speaker 8: under oath in front of Congress with the power of
Speaker 8: sworn testimony.
Speaker 2: John, quite a powerful statement. But I did not have
Speaker 2: this on my BINGO card when I woke up this morning.
Speaker 2: What do you think is a motivation for this? I
Speaker 2: know it's all speculation at this point. Is she trying
Speaker 2: to get out in front of a story? What is
Speaker 2: going on here? What's your read on this?
Speaker 9: Well, James, it was news to me. But apparently liberals
Speaker 9: have been circulating false rumors about Milania Trump having some
Speaker 9: kind of relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They're saying Epstein introduced
Speaker 9: her to Donald Trump, you know whatever, and also they
Speaker 9: are creating AI generated images purporting to show Mulania Trump
Speaker 9: with Jeffrey Epstein. And I think basically what happened here
Speaker 9: is that she was fed up with the lies being
Speaker 9: perpetrated about her on social media, and so she went
Speaker 9: on video here in the White House and gave that statement,
Speaker 9: and most of the statement was devoted to attacking the
Speaker 9: people who've been lying about her with respect to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 9: And then she had this comment about the victims of
Speaker 9: Jeffrey Epstein testifying publicly in front of Congress or whatever,
Speaker 9: and you know whatever, I mean, if there are, if
Speaker 9: there are victims who want to do that, I'm fine
Speaker 9: with it. And so if there are a few, you know,
Speaker 9: actual teenage victims of Epstein who who wanted to come
Speaker 9: and testify publicly, you know, great.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, no. I just thought it was a very
Speaker 2: very odd way to start the day. But meanwhile, I
Speaker 2: also want to talk about some of these other bizarre
Speaker 2: calls from somebody else, Nancy Pelosi, remember her, among other
Speaker 2: prominent Democrats who are now calling for President Trump to
Speaker 2: be removed from office over his handling of Iran and
Speaker 2: saying they need to invoke the constitutional amendment that says
Speaker 2: he's unfit for office. I have to ask John, you know,
Speaker 2: they're saying he's unfit, he's mentally unstable. Where were they
Speaker 2: when Joe Biden was embarrassing himself publicly speaking gibberish in
Speaker 2: front of world leaders and falling up the stairs.
Speaker 9: James, this is complete mad There have been calls from
Speaker 9: the Democrats for a military coup, calls for leaders of
Speaker 9: other countries to intervene and remove Trump from office, and
Speaker 9: as you said, demands that the twenty fifth Amendment be
Speaker 9: invoked on the ground that Trump is disabled. This is
Speaker 9: complete madness. Obviously none of that is going to happen.
Speaker 9: The talk has deranged, James, but there is a reason
Speaker 9: for it. The Democrats are laying the groundwork for an
Speaker 9: impeachment proceeding. If the Democrats take control of the House
Speaker 9: of Representatives in the midterm election, which they probably will,
Speaker 9: they absolutely will impeach Donald Trump. And I think that's
Speaker 9: why they are now going through all these absurd claims
Speaker 9: about booting them out of office one way or another.
Speaker 2: Well, are we talking? I know that impeachment is obviously
Speaker 2: the thing that they dream of, And as I've said
Speaker 2: before on this program, I think we're going to get
Speaker 2: to the point in America where impeachment proceedings almost run
Speaker 2: parallel to presidencies because they becomes so overused. But do
Speaker 2: we know what sort of shape that might take, because
Speaker 2: you know, the twenty fifth Amendment is about mental incapacity
Speaker 2: or physical incapacity. But wouldn't there be some particular, I
Speaker 2: don't know, scandal that they will be trying to latch
Speaker 2: on to. Where do we not know yet?
Speaker 9: Well, James, I don't think they need a scandal. They've
Speaker 9: already impeached Trump twice, but both times not absurd grounds.
Speaker 9: You know, they'll type up a document that says something.
Speaker 9: I'm sure the fact that he talked about obliterating Iranian
Speaker 9: culture or whatever that phrase was, I'm sure that'll feature prominently.
Speaker 9: Is that grounds for impeachment? Of course not. But it's
Speaker 9: a political process. It's a political remedy, and if they
Speaker 9: have a one vote margin in the House of Representatives,
Speaker 9: they will impeach President Trump.
Speaker 2: Oh boy, isn't that just gonna be a lot of fun? John, Hey,
Speaker 2: I want to talk about a more serious story, a
Speaker 2: little less fun here. But we all remember that shocking
Speaker 2: story about the day aged homeless man to Carlos Brown,
Speaker 2: who was accused of allegedly savagely killing a twenty three
Speaker 2: year old Ukrainian refugee, Arena Zaruska on a Charlotte light
Speaker 2: rail trade. Well, he's been now found to be incapable
Speaker 2: to proceed on state murder charges because apparently he's not
Speaker 2: mentally competent. They've asked to delay his competency hearing, and
Speaker 2: people are asking the question, what is going on here,
Speaker 2: because at the same time, this guy had been convicted
Speaker 2: of a whole bunch of other crimes in the past,
Speaker 2: stood trial for a whole bunch of crimes in the past,
Speaker 2: and he never was found incompetent. So what has changed here.
Speaker 9: Well, as you know, James, this was a finding from
Speaker 9: a psychiatrist, a psychiatric evaluation. Sometime down the road, I
Speaker 9: guess there'll be a hearing in the state court. Meanwhile,
Speaker 9: this guy is in custody, not in state court, but
Speaker 9: in federal court, and there are federal court claims against him,
Speaker 9: prosecution of him that is going to go forward. So
Speaker 9: I don't think this is going to have a lot
Speaker 9: of impact in the law and run. But James, what
Speaker 9: this really illustrates is the dysfunction of the criminal justice
Speaker 9: system in many large cities. And as you said, this
Speaker 9: is a guy who has been arrested in charged something
Speaker 9: like fourteen times, and they keep letting him back out
Speaker 9: on the street, and somebody says, oh my gosh, this
Speaker 9: guy is so far gone. He isn't even competent enough
Speaker 9: to stand trial.
Speaker 2: It's just a horrific, horrific story. But John, before I'll
Speaker 2: let you go, there's another story that I've found fascinating.
Speaker 2: This hasn't gotten very much attention, but apparently we've seen
Speaker 2: a growing number of blue states, Democrat run states proposing
Speaker 2: so called exit taxes for high net worth people in
Speaker 2: states like California and New York and Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: And Michigan who are looking to move to other more
Speaker 2: business friendly, lower tax jurisdictions. Of this seems like, I mean,
Speaker 2: I know the left, you know, it's like the Berlin
Speaker 2: Wall all over again. Within the United States. They're proposing
Speaker 2: here punishing people for trying to leave because of their
Speaker 2: own lousy state tax systems and management.
Speaker 9: James, that's exactly right. This is the East German approach.
Speaker 9: Don't make your state a desirable place to live, make
Speaker 9: it illegal to leave your state, or at least expensive
Speaker 9: to leave. And of course, the states that are proposing
Speaker 9: these exit taxes are all blue states. The red states
Speaker 9: don't have to worry about keeping their residents. They have
Speaker 9: to worry about what to do with the millions of
Speaker 9: people who are trying to move in because they're fleeing
Speaker 9: Blue states. It's kind of a crazy situation. But building
Speaker 9: walls to prevent people from leaving didn't work for East
Speaker 9: Germany and it isn't going to work for California and
Speaker 9: New York either.
Speaker 2: John. It's just shocking. But I'm gonna have to leave
Speaker 2: with the thank yous and what for your time? As
Speaker 2: always great to chat. Now, stick around because we're gonna
Speaker 2: take a quick break and when we come back, Mri
Speaker 2: DeAngelis will tell us more about the race communism taking
Speaker 2: hold in New York City. Is this a sneak preview
Speaker 2: of what the left has planned for the rest of
Speaker 2: the country. But before we go, check this out ms
Speaker 2: NOW host Lawrence O'Donnell. He's a very serious man, and
Speaker 2: you can tell by the way he speaks with a serious,
Speaker 2: clenched jaw. Well, he's mad. He's mad at Secretary of
Speaker 2: War Pete Hagsith. He's offended, and he's not gonna take
Speaker 2: it anymore. You'll never guess why.
Speaker 10: That brilliant rescue was described by the Secretary of Defense
Speaker 10: as a longstanding American military rule of never leaving anyone behind.
Speaker 2: We leave no man behind.
Speaker 10: That is, of course, the old school version of the idea,
Speaker 10: back when only men flew American military plans. General Dan Caine.
Speaker 7: Put it this way, we leave no one behind.
Speaker 10: The general knows, unlike Pete hegsaf that that could have
Speaker 10: been a woman they were trying to rescue.
Speaker 2: Oh man, sorry, I mean, oh person. The US pulls
Speaker 2: off an amazing historic rescue. And this is what the
Speaker 2: left is angry about. There's just no pleasing some people.
Speaker 2: But stick around because Corea Dangelis is around. After the break,
Speaker 2: welcome back to the program. Now we have to have
Speaker 2: a little chat here tonight about California governor and Democratic
Speaker 2: presidential hopeful Gavin Newsom's wife, because the California governor, as
Speaker 2: I say, has aspirations of becoming president someday, possibly in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight, which would make his wife the first lady.
Speaker 2: And while he's trying to portray himself as this very
Speaker 2: moderate candidate, we've also been allowed a sneak peek into
Speaker 2: conversations around the Newsome family dinner table. Here's a clip
Speaker 2: that's been doing the rounds on social media this week,
Speaker 2: Jennifer Seaville Newsome claiming that we have to use government
Speaker 2: powers to guess what stop boys from becoming right wing boys.
Speaker 11: To spend time online? Are moving a little bit are
Speaker 11: I'm trying not to be political here, but are moving
Speaker 11: to the right and being sort of influenced by the
Speaker 11: Andrew Tates and some of that sort of alt right
Speaker 11: socialization online that we know is very, very dangerous. We're
Speaker 11: working on legislation to hold tech companies accountable and help
Speaker 11: them be a force for good in our kids and families' lives.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and this, by the way, isn't the only
Speaker 2: time she's said something a little bit out there. She's
Speaker 2: also suggested that prisoners in San Quentin were probably there
Speaker 2: because of an accident no different to the one she
Speaker 2: was involved in when she killed her sister with a
Speaker 2: golf cart when they were kids.
Speaker 12: I think it shocked them that this you know, blonde
Speaker 12: lady who was you know the interviewing them, had a
Speaker 12: similar story. It was perhaps in the wrong place at
Speaker 12: the wrong time, and but wasn't punished the way they
Speaker 12: were because clearly it was an accident. But their's was
Speaker 12: probably an accident too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, whoopsie. And of course she also said that there
Speaker 2: would be less racism and bigotry in tech companies if
Speaker 2: women were in charge.
Speaker 11: Look at tech at Silicon Valley. Had more women been
Speaker 11: early on in those companies or at the tables of
Speaker 11: power making decisions, I don't think we would have so
Speaker 11: much or have allowed for so much sort of bigotry, racism,
Speaker 11: misogyny and hate online.
Speaker 2: Well, talking about this and a whole lot more, let's
Speaker 2: bring in research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Corey DeAngelis.
Speaker 2: Corey Gavin Newsom's wife. She is the gift that keeps
Speaker 2: on giving. What seriously, this is the potential first lady
Speaker 2: we're looking at. How big a problem is this for
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom? Is he tries to portray himself as this
Speaker 2: sort of you know, nice guy moderate who goes on
Speaker 2: sent to right podcasts.
Speaker 7: Yes, this is a huge problem for Gavin Newsom. And
Speaker 7: I bet you he's hoping that those interviews weren't made public.
Speaker 7: She's really you know, you almost got to feel bad
Speaker 7: for the guy because she's kind of bought into the
Speaker 7: far left gender ideology of just hating men and going
Speaker 7: going off the deep end with this radical feminism. So
Speaker 7: you know what really gets me though, is how you know,
Speaker 7: she said that she would she would have her boys
Speaker 7: play with dolls and that, and that you know that
Speaker 7: you had to use the heavy hand of government to
Speaker 7: make sure that they don't act like their actual boy
Speaker 7: and they're not far right. It's just so crazy that
Speaker 7: that you have this.
Speaker 2: Oh then the.
Speaker 7: Other thing is that you called her first lady a
Speaker 7: couple of times. She probably take issue with that. There
Speaker 7: was another clip that surfaced where she said, no, you
Speaker 7: have to call me the first partner, not the first lany.
Speaker 7: So it's just it's just she's gone off the deep
Speaker 7: end with the with the insanity from from the left
Speaker 7: on gender ideology.
Speaker 2: Yes, sorry, first partner, potential first partner. But you know,
Speaker 2: let me let me just explore this with you, because
Speaker 2: you spend a lot of time in the education sphere, Corey,
Speaker 2: And one of the things that struck me there also
Speaker 2: was this whole idea that the boys are going off,
Speaker 2: you know, to these right wing kind of podcasts and
Speaker 2: stuff like that. But why don't people like her ever
Speaker 2: wonder what boys are being told about themselves in schools,
Speaker 2: the public schools particularly, you know, that they're all potential
Speaker 2: rapists and violent criminals, and you know, all of this
Speaker 2: sort of thing when they wonder why boys say, you
Speaker 2: know what, there's something wrong here, I'm gonna go look
Speaker 2: for some other sort of validation to my identity.
Speaker 7: That's exactly right. You have the school system that's built
Speaker 7: for trying to feminize society. Basically, they tell young boys
Speaker 7: that they have to sit in their seat and if
Speaker 7: they don't, they're going to medicate them because they have
Speaker 7: ADHD or some other disorder. And you know, for boys
Speaker 7: to hear that they're you know, just have toxic masculinity
Speaker 7: through the school system, of course, they're going to seek
Speaker 7: out alternatives like podcasts. So I think, yeah, another way
Speaker 7: to fix this is to fix the government school system
Speaker 7: and to stop telling boys that they can't be boys.
Speaker 7: And the thing is the Newsom's opposed school choice for
Speaker 7: other families. They send their own kids to private school
Speaker 7: and they had those opportunities, but they pull up the
Speaker 7: ladder from behind themselves and try to lock other people's
Speaker 7: kids in the failing government school system.
Speaker 2: Corey, I cannot believe that you're suggesting that democrats and
Speaker 2: people on the left are hypocrites when it comes to
Speaker 2: this sort of thing, honestly, But let's go to the
Speaker 2: other side of the country where New York City, they're Democrats,
Speaker 2: socialist mayors around mom Donnie is trying to push a
Speaker 2: whole new program of what I think can only be
Speaker 2: called race communism after he discovered that white families were
Speaker 2: wealthier on average and black families and it was up
Speaker 2: to him to do something about it. How a look
Speaker 2: at this.
Speaker 13: Our commitment now is to act upon these findings, to
Speaker 13: do so in concert with New Yorker's comments, as we've
Speaker 13: now opened a public comment period for the next thirty days,
Speaker 13: to ensure that we have a city where we are
Speaker 13: reckoning with the long history of racism here and starting
Speaker 13: to act upon a framework that puts equity right at
Speaker 13: the center of it.
Speaker 2: He had equity there. That's always a key word when
Speaker 2: you hear that. Grab your wallet of what is your
Speaker 2: reaction to this.
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's not talking about equality of opportunities, talking about
Speaker 7: using the force of government to redistribute wealth on the
Speaker 7: basis of race, which seems to me to be unconstitutional.
Speaker 7: I'd be a violation of the Civil Rights Act, and
Speaker 7: it's raised so many red flags here in America that
Speaker 7: the Department of Justice has actually weighed in Harmik Dillon
Speaker 7: on X responded saying, this this smells fishy. We're looking
Speaker 7: into it, so we'll see if this holds up in court.
Speaker 7: I don't believe it would, but you know, he ran
Speaker 7: as a democrat socialists, and so you know, when they
Speaker 7: tell you who they really are, you should believe them
Speaker 7: and not put them into office. The thing is, the
Speaker 7: teachers Union backed Zooram Mumdani after he went to a
Speaker 7: private school himself. He went to a selective Magnet school
Speaker 7: of sorts in New York City as well, and now
Speaker 7: he wants to get rid of gifted and talented because
Speaker 7: I think it's because there's too many white kids gifted
Speaker 7: and talented, according to Zorrah on Mumdani. But he was
Speaker 7: able to have that opportunity. Why try to close that
Speaker 7: door for other families.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, that's right, that's right. Hey. Finally, just
Speaker 2: speaking of hypocrisy, I just wanted to throw this one
Speaker 2: at you here from Illinois. Now the Obama Presidential Center,
Speaker 2: This ugly brutalist iy sore that looks more like a
Speaker 2: secret police headquarters in a presidential library. It's basic a
Speaker 2: wave of backlash head of opening because get this. Now,
Speaker 2: you know how the Democrats are like, oh, you shouldn't
Speaker 2: have to show ID to vote. Well, apparently you're gonna
Speaker 2: have show ID to receive free admission on certain days.
Speaker 2: This is just lefty hypocrisy at its finest, isn't it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and they won't vote for the Save America Act.
Speaker 7: It require ID to vote, which should be the most
Speaker 7: basic thing to require ID for. So, according to Democrat logic, this,
Speaker 7: you know, Obama Library or monument in Illinois, they're gonna
Speaker 7: bar black Americans from being able to access it because,
Speaker 7: according to Democrats, they're not able to figure out how
Speaker 7: to get a ninety ID to vote, So they're not
Speaker 7: gonna be able to go to the Obama Center commemorating
Speaker 7: the first black president.
Speaker 5: In the United States.
Speaker 7: That's that's the peak hypocrisy if I've ever seen it.
Speaker 2: Absolutely right, Corey, thanks so much for your time. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna have to leave it there, speak to you soon now.
Speaker 2: Stick around because Only in America is coming up next
Speaker 2: and there's gonna be a little NATO theme there. But
Speaker 2: before we hit the brake, one of the things that
Speaker 2: drives me nuts is the way everyone is acting, like
Speaker 2: the whole issue of European powers not doing enough for
Speaker 2: their own defense and frighting off the fight. Writing off
Speaker 2: the eggs is a new thing. It's not true. Check
Speaker 2: out this clip I dug out and here's a blast
Speaker 2: of the past. It's of Joe Biden back in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty eight, back when you had all his marbles. And
Speaker 2: tell me listening to this, if he doesn't sound almost
Speaker 2: a little bit trumpy.
Speaker 14: Germany, if you're unwilling to reflate your market and take
Speaker 14: on your responsibility and the rest of the world as
Speaker 14: a world leader, why are we the only ones that
Speaker 14: have that responsibility? Why are we the only economic game?
Speaker 14: And we are clearly the biggest. We can say that
Speaker 14: to the Germans and our friends in Europe. We're all
Speaker 14: in this. NATO's important. We stick with NATO. But I'm
Speaker 14: not sure we need two hundred and eighty nine thousand
Speaker 14: American troops at a cost of total cost of one
Speaker 14: hundred and two billion dollars. If you had everything on it,
Speaker 14: maybe you should do more.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Funny, I don't remember anybody losing their
Speaker 2: mind about that. At the time. But that was then,
Speaker 2: and this is now. Don't go away. Only in America's
Speaker 2: coming at you after the break. Welcome back to the program.
Speaker 2: And now it's time for a little segment we like
Speaker 2: to call only in America. Well, you know the phrase,
Speaker 2: who's your daddy? It's a question really as old as
Speaker 2: time if you think about it, but it's taken on
Speaker 2: a whole new meeting after NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta
Speaker 2: referred to Donald Trump as daddy at a meeting last year.
Speaker 2: Now the press, naturally has been curious about this, and
Speaker 2: well today he finally put the issue to bed.
Speaker 1: We had a sort of pre summit meeting the President
Speaker 1: and I in June in the Hague, and he had
Speaker 1: been very angry that day with Iran and is Israel. This
Speaker 1: was in June last year, and I and in that
Speaker 1: she would say, hey, the translation of your father is daddy.
Speaker 1: And I would say, I said, hey, yeah, sometimes daddy
Speaker 1: has to be angry. So I was not calling in
Speaker 1: my daddy but saying, but of course daddy has has
Speaker 1: also a special quotation. And I now have to live
Speaker 1: as this to guess of my life, and I own it,
Speaker 1: and President owns it because he brought out T shirts,
Speaker 1: he made a movie Daddy's Home, and he returned to
Speaker 1: the United States. Are so funny and this is why
Speaker 1: I like him so much. But hey, yeah, you make mistakes.
Speaker 2: Gee I knew Trump had kids all over the place,
Speaker 2: but this is ridiculous. Anyway, that's all the time we
Speaker 2: have this week. Enjoy the weekend, and I'll see a Sunday,
Speaker 2: not a bright and early for outsiders. Bye bye, MHM.