Speaker 1: Is regime change coming to Latin America? Is Nicholas Maduro
Speaker 1: going to be in power for much longer in Caracas?
Speaker 1: Plus a shockingly good GDP report when it comes to
Speaker 1: the third quarter in the year twenty twenty five. Also
Speaker 1: a mass exodus from the Heritage Foundation, the latest when
Speaker 1: it comes to the Internet sign fighting and all the
Speaker 1: chaos within the conservative movements. And Ben Satz, former Center
Speaker 1: of Nebraska turned president of University of Florida sharing some
Speaker 1: horrific news, but his attitude is an inspiring one. I've
Speaker 1: got details on today's episode of the Josh Hammershaw. So
Speaker 1: for months now, the United States has been upping the ante,
Speaker 1: has impressuring Nicholas Maduro, the successor to Ugo Chavez in
Speaker 1: the failed socialist regime in Venezuela. Perhaps you're familiar with
Speaker 1: the story by now, but in case you are not,
Speaker 1: that essentially goes as follows. For a very long time,
Speaker 1: Venezuela was one of the economic power horses, one of
Speaker 1: the engines they are in South America. They were punching
Speaker 1: way above their weight when it comes to GDP per
Speaker 1: capita and when it comes to basic economic resources, primarily
Speaker 1: because Venezuela, uniquely among the nations of Latin America, is
Speaker 1: blessed when it comes to hydrocarbons. The well known oil
Speaker 1: and gas company Citgo. You probably filled up your car
Speaker 1: at some point over the years at a Sitco station.
Speaker 1: That is a Venezuelan oil company. They are part of OPEK,
Speaker 1: the only country in Latin America that really is a
Speaker 1: major player when it comes to the global qalanities market
Speaker 1: for oil. So for a very long time, Venezuela was
Speaker 1: a powerhouse down there in Latin America. Argentina for a
Speaker 1: while was that way as well, prior to their own
Speaker 1: descent into socialism. We'll see if Javier Malay can salvage
Speaker 1: that country. That perhaps is an analysis and a story
Speaker 1: for another day. But when it comes to Venezuela, fast
Speaker 1: forwarding more or less to the president to the present.
Speaker 1: So Madure has been in power for a while now.
Speaker 1: There was a dispute election in Venezuela about six and
Speaker 1: a half years ago. There was another Trump backed candidate
Speaker 1: who almost gone to power, and there have been all
Speaker 1: sorts of allegations of corruption. But Udera has been in
Speaker 1: powered there for a while now, and the trumpministration perhaps
Speaker 1: unexpectedly on the one hand, but not wholly unspectively on
Speaker 1: the other hand, and all on path that in just
Speaker 1: a second, there has been really pushing quite hard when
Speaker 1: it comes to Maduro in Venezuela. And now I say
Speaker 1: unexpectedly on the one hand, because when you think of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and as foreign policy, you don't necessarily think
Speaker 1: of regime change. You necessarily think of warmongering and swashbuckling
Speaker 1: looking to pick fights. However, if you look carefully at
Speaker 1: the administration's foreign policies oction especially it's out of the
Speaker 1: gates moves. We go all the way back to January
Speaker 1: almost a year ago and now the beginning of administration,
Speaker 1: it actually was in hindsight at least somewhat easy to
Speaker 1: see this escalation campaign against Venezuela coming. And what I
Speaker 1: mean by that is that Marco Rubio's very first trip,
Speaker 1: his very first foreign trip as Secretary of State, was
Speaker 1: actually to Latin America. It was two three different Latin
Speaker 1: American countries, if memory, and he did that to make
Speaker 1: a point. In fact, Maria Anastasia O'Grady, who is the
Speaker 1: Latin Affairs called the Western Hemisphere columnists when at the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal and has been for a very long time.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: She pointed this out in the first week or two
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, again going back almost a year ago,
Speaker 1: because Rubio, this symbolism was not lost on his first venue,
Speaker 1: his first choice of international trip in this hemisphere. And
Speaker 1: this goes back a very long time. As we discussed
Speaker 1: this on the show May Times. The Monroe Doctrine, which
Speaker 1: eponymously goes back to the early nineteenth century President James Monroe,
Speaker 1: which was corroborated by the Roosevelt Corollary, which was a
Speaker 1: similar proclamation issued by Teddy Roosevelt in the first decade
Speaker 1: of nineteen hundreds, and the Monroe Doctor the Trump Corollary,
Speaker 1: which both more or less dand for the same principle,
Speaker 1: is basically says the United States is not going to
Speaker 1: shit back and let foreign powers meddle to mess in
Speaker 1: our own hemisphere. You know, Gosh, Darner, We're gonna care
Speaker 1: about our backyard. We're going to care about our backyard.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna let you which back, and especially in
Speaker 1: the era of Monroe, really meant to the European powers,
Speaker 1: We're not going to let you meddle when it comes
Speaker 1: to our concrete area of interest. This doctrine has actually
Speaker 1: only become more important over the past call it fifteen
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five years, as the global economy has become
Speaker 1: even more interconnected in a post Berlin Wall era, as
Speaker 1: global terrorist networks, narco terrorists, shei hottest networks can now
Speaker 1: continue to sprawl all across the world and exude a
Speaker 1: lot of influence all across the world. Hesvola, for instance,
Speaker 1: the Lebanese militia group backed by the Irani regime. Hesbola
Speaker 1: has long had tremendous influence when it comes to Latin America.
Speaker 1: They are very cosed with many of the leading human
Speaker 1: trafficking rings and transnational cartels when it comes to drug
Speaker 1: smuggling and things like that. The administration started to look
Speaker 1: into this ended up actually, this is quite a scandal
Speaker 1: that went under the radar. The Obomba Instration ends up
Speaker 1: actually shelving ended up deep sixing their investigation into the
Speaker 1: ties between HESBA and the Mexican narco terrorist groups for
Speaker 1: the simple reason that they didn't want to actually upset
Speaker 1: the apple cart when it came to their sycophantic diplomacy
Speaker 1: with the Iranian regime. So pretty pretty crazy stuff, frankly
Speaker 1: when it comes to that. But again, Maduro is now
Speaker 1: back in the news and trumpstry. The Trump Minstration is
Speaker 1: reasserting this Monroe doctrine here. In fact, they actually are
Speaker 1: now calling it the Trump corollary. There was recently unveiled
Speaker 1: the Trump and National Security Strategy, this formal document that
Speaker 1: the Trump Ministration revealed recently, and they're literally calling it
Speaker 1: actually the Trump corollary, which is obviously a play on
Speaker 1: the Roosevelt corollary from one hundred and twenty years ago.
Speaker 1: More or less so, those campaign has been escalating for
Speaker 1: months and months. One of the key parts of this
Speaker 1: campaign has been a series of narco terrorist strikes when
Speaker 1: it comes to the Pete Hechsath Secretary of War led
Speaker 1: strikes on many of these vessels that are essentially engaged
Speaker 1: in trying to smuggle drugs from Venezuela, worked with the
Speaker 1: cartels gain them to the Caribbean Sea, gets to the
Speaker 1: Gulf Mexican cog entering god forbid, here in Florida where
Speaker 1: I live, or in Texas or one of the other
Speaker 1: when the other ports there along the Gulf of Mexico
Speaker 1: and the Atlantic seaboard. That is the primary stipulated reason
Speaker 1: of the Hegseth led narco terrorist strikes, which we have
Speaker 1: assistently defended here on the Josh Hammer Show as a
Speaker 1: matter of both foreign policy and as legal principle when
Speaker 1: it comes to both statutory and constitutional inherent authority under
Speaker 1: Article to the Constitution to engage in such preemptive, prophylactic,
Speaker 1: targeted precision strikes. Here we defend that time and time again,
Speaker 1: and we will continue.
Speaker 2: To do so.
Speaker 1: Part of the or more recent part, though, building off
Speaker 1: of these narco terrorist strikes, which there have been now
Speaker 1: roughly two dozen more or less of the strikes. Part
Speaker 1: of that is an increasing campaign against Nicholas Maduro himself.
Speaker 1: So President Trump took to truth social over the past
Speaker 1: week or so to announce that there's going to be
Speaker 1: a blockade there on Venezuela. It's not entirely obvious exactly
Speaker 1: what that means in practice, to the best of my
Speaker 1: knowledge of the US Navy does not have the entire
Speaker 1: country cordons off when it comes to the seas, but
Speaker 1: certainly Donald Trump and and the administration are upping the
Speaker 1: pressure tremendously. In fact, Donald Trump actually was just here
Speaker 1: in Palm Beach, Florida. In South Florida yesterday, he was
Speaker 1: flanked at his sides by Pete Heggsauth, the Secretary of War,
Speaker 1: on one side, by Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: on his other side, talking tough with Nicholas Maduro. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, here was Donald Trump speaking yesterday in West
Speaker 1: pomp Beach, Florida.
Speaker 3: Why should Maduro take your threat serious seriously?
Speaker 2: And whatever he wants, what's your end?
Speaker 1: What's your end?
Speaker 2: We could do so as he could do whatever he wants.
Speaker 1: We have a massive armada for him, the biggest we've
Speaker 1: ever had and by far the biggest we've ever had
Speaker 1: in South America.
Speaker 3: He could do whatever he wants.
Speaker 2: Whatever he wants to do, if he wants to do something,
Speaker 2: If he plays tough, it'll be the last time he's
Speaker 2: ever able to play tough.
Speaker 1: So this has been the rhetoric of administration for a
Speaker 1: while now. Nicholas Turro, for what it's worth, we played
Speaker 1: a clip on the show maybe a week or two ago,
Speaker 1: is making very light of the situation. He had this
Speaker 1: absurd clip of putting on like a Mexican sombrero looking
Speaker 1: hat and singing in English non Spanish the Bob Marley
Speaker 1: song Don't worry, be happy, I mean talk about not
Speaker 1: taking the threat seriously. You know, maybe he will learn
Speaker 1: learn the difficult lesson of not taking down trum seriously.
Speaker 1: We shall see. Now another element of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: I mentioned that Venezuela has oil connections. Now, the Socials
Speaker 1: regime has typically run the oil wells dry, but they
Speaker 1: are very close to other major petroleum hydrocarbon exporting countries
Speaker 1: such as Iran. Now, Iran is not really a hydrocarbon
Speaker 1: exporting country right now because of the various crippling sanctions
Speaker 1: that have been on the country for a very very
Speaker 1: long time now, but they are still very cozy when
Speaker 1: it comes to Iran. In fact, the second oil tanker
Speaker 1: that was just seized over this past weekend, and there
Speaker 1: are rumors of a possible third oil tanker seizure as
Speaker 1: well that also has has alleged Iranian connections there. So
Speaker 1: Donald Trump getting asked yesterday in West Palm Beach what
Speaker 1: happens again to the oil, A question that he's been
Speaker 1: asked before there. But here's Donald Trump again yesterday in
Speaker 1: West pomp Beach, far speaking of Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Man oil. What are we gonna do with the oil
Speaker 3: that we have?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do with what the oil that has been seized.
Speaker 3: The United States sees one point nine million barrels of
Speaker 3: oil on December tenth.
Speaker 2: We're gonna keep it.
Speaker 1: Where's it?
Speaker 3: Are we gonna sell it and put in the strategic.
Speaker 1: May We'll sell it, will keep it, maybe we'll use
Speaker 1: it in the strategic reserves.
Speaker 3: We're keeping it. We're keeping the ship.
Speaker 1: So look, and that should be the reaction. I mean,
Speaker 1: that should be the stance there if you're going to
Speaker 1: get involved in the game of international seizure of oil
Speaker 1: tankers sanctioned oil tankers. To be clear, and there is
Speaker 1: plenty of legal justification for dealing with the United States
Speaker 1: has done. The DOJ isn't working hard to get those
Speaker 1: those legal memoranda and papers in place, And so far
Speaker 1: I've been pretty persuaded by what I have seen there
Speaker 1: from i legal front there. But when it comes to oil,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, what else are you gonna do.
Speaker 1: Of course you're going to take oyal there. I mean
Speaker 1: that's kndu's Donald Trump both troll and also taking the
Speaker 1: common sense and just utterly logical position. Now the big
Speaker 1: question is where does this go from here? Now? I
Speaker 1: was filling in on radio earlier today for Mark Davis
Speaker 1: on six sixty Am. The Answer the Sale and affiliate
Speaker 1: in Dallas Fort Worth, and I brought on a guest,
Speaker 1: Rich Goldberg, who's a foreign policy specialist, to talk about
Speaker 1: this and other issues. Now. Rich is not particularly persuaded
Speaker 1: that there's going to be massive escalatory action there. He
Speaker 1: does not takes particularly seriously the threats of Shi Jimpang,
Speaker 1: ro Vember, Photon, are various other Maduro Venezuelan allies to
Speaker 1: get involved and to potentially meddle further. I think that's
Speaker 1: probably accurate for the very simple reason that China and
Speaker 1: Russia didn't lift a finger to try to rescue their
Speaker 1: Iranian ally during the Israel Iran War during the Twelve
Speaker 1: Day War back in June. This kind of went under
Speaker 1: the radar a little bit there. But let's not forget
Speaker 1: that Iran's vaunted allies. I mean, if you go back
Speaker 1: to that and the whole argument that this conflict when
Speaker 1: in Gulf America in World War Three, thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of dead US soldier, sailors, marines. That was the whole
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson argument. That argument was predica in the fact
Speaker 1: that China and Russia would get involved. Okay, you can't
Speaker 1: have World War three if it's just Iran. You need
Speaker 1: China and Russia to get involved. There. They didn't. They
Speaker 1: didn't lift a finger. They did absolutely positively nothing. So
Speaker 1: what exactly these argument that they would get involved then
Speaker 1: in venta as well as well. I think that rich
Speaker 1: Goldberg frankly is right. I'm not buying the notion that
Speaker 1: puter hu Jinping would bother to get involved. Putin still
Speaker 1: has his hands more than full when it comes to
Speaker 1: Zelenski and the Ukrainian Theater. He's still sitting down with
Speaker 1: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner when it comes to trying
Speaker 1: to get some sort of deal inked out, ironed out
Speaker 1: when it comes to trying to get off rammed here,
Speaker 1: that he can politically live with, that he will not
Speaker 1: be toppled for when in the Kremlin, that he can
Speaker 1: take back to the Russian people, and that they will
Speaker 1: not basically decapitate him out of frustration at at the results.
Speaker 1: I don't think she Gimping is really going to get
Speaker 1: involved either. H Jinping has plenty of his own problems
Speaker 1: there when it comes to the Indo Pacific. The Chinese economy, incidentally,
Speaker 1: is is really shrugging right now, and the real estate
Speaker 1: market above all. So the notion that China go ahead
Speaker 1: and over extend their influence when it comes to trying
Speaker 1: to bail out what a socialist backwater that's dried out
Speaker 1: the oil wells, I'm not really necessarily buying that either.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: Now, it's also true that the MAGA coalition, Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: supporters did not necessarily vote for a land war. I
Speaker 1: think that's a very common sense thing to say, is
Speaker 1: that very few people who vote over Donald Trump thought
Speaker 1: that they were voting for fresh hostilities and a regime
Speaker 1: change war in Latin America. But the point is this.
Speaker 1: The point is that there are any number of things
Speaker 1: that the United States can do to try to softly
Speaker 1: or more quietly, try to persuade Nicholas Maduro to step down,
Speaker 1: to abdicate his leadership. Look at what happened to Bashar
Speaker 1: al Assade. Now, admittedly that was led by a bunch
Speaker 1: of ragtag Chihatis led by this guy al Shara who's
Speaker 1: still currently in charge of Damascus. But after assad was
Speaker 1: toppled in Damascus just about a year ago. Last December,
Speaker 1: he was on the next plane to Moscow, and you
Speaker 1: haven't heard his name since then. I mean he's essentially living,
Speaker 1: you know, as in the winn Is protection program, basically
Speaker 1: Vladmir Putin in Russia style. That's what Bashar Alosad has
Speaker 1: been doing for the past year now. So I think
Speaker 1: the idea here, if I'm trying to guess what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Pete had Seth and Marco Ruby are thinking,
Speaker 1: is to try to get Nicholas Maduro to take the
Speaker 1: Bashar al Assade offer and then to abscond to China
Speaker 1: or Russia or I mean maybe even Havana, Cuba, if
Speaker 1: you want to get some nice cigars. I'm being tongue
Speaker 1: in cheek. I don't think. I don't know why you
Speaker 1: necessarily choose there. I think the Cuban regime is probably
Speaker 1: on thin ice too, for very similar reasons as Venezuela.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of speculation that it could be two
Speaker 1: for the price of one. If you get Maduro to abdicate,
Speaker 1: maybe the Castro regime in Cuba could be next possible.
Speaker 1: Probably wishful thinking, honestly, I mean, given how long they've
Speaker 1: been in power. But they are very much tied at
Speaker 1: the hip, is the basic argument there. I want you
Speaker 1: to understand this point though. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: folks in the right of center commentarian who have looked
Speaker 1: at the failures of the United States when it comes
Speaker 1: to a Rock and Afghanistan, and let's be very clear,
Speaker 1: they are absolute failures. I have been critical for my
Speaker 1: entire political commentary adult lifetime when it comes to the
Speaker 1: foreign policy failures of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been
Speaker 1: deeply critical of the foreign policy doctrine that America has
Speaker 1: an interest in exporting and promoting democracy, which is the
Speaker 1: Bush two point zero neo conservative creed. That's not my stance.
Speaker 1: My stance is basically the Donald Trump stance, which is
Speaker 1: a conservative nationals realist form of foreign policy. There. But
Speaker 1: a lot of folks who have also been shocked and
Speaker 1: horrified by the Iraq and Afghanistan boondoggles have overlearned the
Speaker 1: relevant lesson when it comes to so called regime change.
Speaker 1: Regime change is not necessarily is not necessarily this horrific word,
Speaker 1: hush hush, You can't say it that. A lot of
Speaker 1: the folks on the hard isolationist Tucker wing of this
Speaker 1: broader conversation want it to be we should be skeptical
Speaker 1: of the United States imposing regime change unless, for instance,
Speaker 1: they've already been grievously wounded. It would be a very
Speaker 1: simple operation, like literally simple, not like quote unquote simple,
Speaker 1: like we saw in Iraq and O three and so forth.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's a very very limited case, limited case for
Speaker 1: a true US imposed military game change there. But consider
Speaker 1: the possibility that many, perhaps most, forms of regime change
Speaker 1: don't have to happen from US military force. A regime
Speaker 1: change taking a phase value, maybe I'm being literalists. Literally
Speaker 1: just means a change in regime, and unless you're a moron,
Speaker 1: you should be able to recognize. Indeed, it ought to
Speaker 1: be axiomatic that there are various regimes around the world
Speaker 1: that the American national interest would be buttressed by, would
Speaker 1: be elevated by if that regime were not in power.
Speaker 1: Is it not obvious that America's interest in the Indo
Speaker 1: Pacific would in theory be better if there were a
Speaker 1: regime change in Beijing, If the Chinese Communist Party were
Speaker 1: to bow out and you get some reasonable actors in
Speaker 1: place there really, of course, the American national interests would
Speaker 1: be enhanced by that form of quote unquote regime change.
Speaker 1: How about soft regime change in Russia if we got
Speaker 1: a leader in the Kremlin who would just make total
Speaker 1: peace with NATO. I mean, and this is kind of
Speaker 1: like fairy land, you know, like the land of you know,
Speaker 1: of unicorn farts and rainbows. Maybe it's kind of a
Speaker 1: good dream. But I'm just making a theoretical intellectual point,
Speaker 1: which is that, of course there are situations where there
Speaker 1: could be a change in regime that were down to
Speaker 1: the American national interest. And the very simple point is
Speaker 1: that a change of the social regime in Venezuela is
Speaker 1: one such case. Is that what's gonna happen here? Is
Speaker 1: that how it's going to play out? Are we going
Speaker 1: to get Nichols m Duro taking the bashar al asade options,
Speaker 1: looking all this pressure around him, looking at Trump with
Speaker 1: a tough talk, looking at the naval blockade, Trump talking
Speaker 1: about this armada when it comes to the shifts again,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking it's a literal three and sixty degree blockade.
Speaker 1: But there are there's a lot of US military equipment
Speaker 1: and vessels there now in US Southern Commands led by
Speaker 1: the USS Gerald Ford Striker Group. Is Maduro going to
Speaker 1: get the message? Is he banking on a bailout from
Speaker 1: Putin or a huge imping that's not going to come.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Your mileage may vary there. But what
Speaker 1: I do know is that when it comes to the
Speaker 1: notion of regime change, I would caution you against over learning,
Speaker 1: against over learning the lessons of a rock in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: There are some regimes that really ought to go. There
Speaker 1: are some regimes that, in theory them going would enhance
Speaker 1: the American national interest. That is not to say that
Speaker 1: is not to say that the US itself has a
Speaker 1: moral obligation to impose it the same way that that
Speaker 1: the United States can, and in the past sometimes has
Speaker 1: provided forms of morals clandestine material and supports to Iranian protesters.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama famously said that not doing so in two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine during the Green Revolution Iran. Obama famous
Speaker 1: has said that was one of his foremost failures of
Speaker 1: foreign policy, and he had a lot to choose from
Speaker 1: when it comes to foreign policy failures. That's the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that the United States definitely can do in
Speaker 1: a situation like this in Venezuela. There so the notion
Speaker 1: of regime changing, it is not this term to be
Speaker 1: feared again. I think it is problematic when the US
Speaker 1: does it of its own accord, unless various factors ultimately
Speaker 1: do come up. The Peddragon Cycle Rise of the Merlin
Speaker 1: is the newest original series from the Daily Wire, an
Speaker 1: epic seven part adaptation of Stephen R. Lawheads acclaimed novels.
Speaker 1: I've watched the trailers and they are truly breathtaking. This
Speaker 1: isn't just another fantasy show. It's a sweeping story of belief,
Speaker 1: redemption and the origins of Western civilization, told through a
Speaker 1: bold retelling of the Arthurian legend. The Pentrogon Cycle Rise
Speaker 1: to the Merlin premieres January twenty second, exclusively on Daily
Speaker 1: Wire Plus. Watch the new trailer now at Pentragon Series
Speaker 1: dot Com in other news taking it back to the
Speaker 1: home front, because Venezuela is not the only thing going on.
Speaker 1: I was doing live radio this morning when the latest
Speaker 1: economic report came out, as have we now actually have
Speaker 1: official government data on the Q three, that is Q
Speaker 1: three twenty twenty five, most recent quarter. The ends when
Speaker 1: it comes to the GDP gross domestic product growth. Those
Speaker 1: numbers coming in courtesy of the US Commerce Department four
Speaker 1: point three percent. The inflation just number is coming in
Speaker 1: at four point three percent annualized growth for July through
Speaker 1: September twenty twenty five. That is a lot higher. That
Speaker 1: is a lot higher than what the eCOM is polled predicted.
Speaker 1: The consensus that I saw was roughly a full point
Speaker 1: lower than that three point two percent forecast was among
Speaker 1: the cocomas polled by the Wall Street Journals a one
Speaker 1: point one percent ahead of that. That's even an increase
Speaker 1: when the previous quarter three point eight percent. So look,
Speaker 1: whatever you might think about truck tariffs, and I think
Speaker 1: reasonable minds can vary when it comes to trade in general.
Speaker 1: When it comes to this trade off between lower prices
Speaker 1: and domestic production, these are these These are these are
Speaker 1: value judgments. These are value judgments upon which are reasonable
Speaker 1: people who hold reasonable differing values can indeed disagree. But
Speaker 1: whatever there is to say about that, the economy is reving, Okay,
Speaker 1: the economy is clearly revving. And this is going to
Speaker 1: be just further wined at Donald Trump's sales from his
Speaker 1: speech at the White House last Wednesday evening, six days
Speaker 1: ago where he gave this speech touting the economy and
Speaker 1: saying that it's doing really well. And now there is
Speaker 1: further evidence, I would say to tremendously really underscore the
Speaker 1: exact point that that he is making. Again, the terriffs,
Speaker 1: whatever I think of them, are clearly not having an
Speaker 1: effect at all at all. For that matter, when it
Speaker 1: comes to the gross domestic product, the terriffs went in place,
Speaker 1: at least the first slew of them went to place
Speaker 1: in early April. That was Donald Trump's so called Liberation
Speaker 1: Day speech at the Rose Garden of the White House there.
Speaker 1: And now we've had a quarter and a half, we've
Speaker 1: had basically two quarters, close to two full quarters when
Speaker 1: it comes to GDP data, and guess what, the ECAMI
Speaker 1: is still just reving along just fine. Let's got now
Speaker 1: in watch Mark Tepper of Strategic Wealth Partners at the CEO.
Speaker 1: He was on Fox Business talking about this new GDP report.
Speaker 1: We are looking right now at the GDP number at
Speaker 1: four point three percent is the actual number versus an
Speaker 1: estra of three point three percent?
Speaker 2: Mark Tepper?
Speaker 3: Your reaction, So last week we talked about inflation coming
Speaker 3: in lower than expected. Now economic growth is one full
Speaker 3: percentage point faster than expected. It was supposed to come
Speaker 3: in at three point three, came in at four point three.
Speaker 3: This is a direct result of everything President Trump has
Speaker 3: put in place. Net exports are on the rise because
Speaker 3: of Trump's tariff policy, which is leveling the trade playing field.
Speaker 3: AI's increasing productivity, businesses are investing in spending, and the
Speaker 3: consumer remains strong. And just think next I think, well,
Speaker 3: next quarter they'll end up getting an extra one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty billion dollars in refund checks that they can
Speaker 3: then deploy and spend as well. So great number.
Speaker 1: Now, the key thing on the economy is this, Whatever
Speaker 1: the data may say, as we was playing time and
Speaker 1: time again, perception is politics in general, but especially when
Speaker 1: it comes to the economy. So at the same time
Speaker 1: that this excellent Q three GDP number is coming out,
Speaker 1: I mean, four point three percent growth is really quite good.
Speaker 1: Is already speaking, what you really seek to achieve in
Speaker 1: a first world developed a community like the US is
Speaker 1: over three percent growth, four or five or five plus
Speaker 1: percent growth. That's that's really desirable, really desirable there. So
Speaker 1: this is this is number of the Donald Trump should
Speaker 1: be proud of. At the same time. At the same time,
Speaker 1: there was a poll that I saw from over the weekend,
Speaker 1: a poll that was that was conducted by the American
Speaker 1: Research Group that I saw trending on social media that said,
Speaker 1: is your household financial situation better or worse off than
Speaker 1: it was a year ago? And unfortunately for the President,
Speaker 1: this poll showed sixty five percent American and say that
Speaker 1: their household finanal situation is actually worse off compared to
Speaker 1: last year, compared to seven percent that say it is
Speaker 1: better off. The rest say that there's been no real change.
Speaker 1: That's a problem. Now, making that connection between actual raising,
Speaker 1: elevating GDP, actual macroeconomic data more generally that is trending
Speaker 1: in a sound direction when it comes to inflation, when
Speaker 1: it comes to GDP, when it comes to all the
Speaker 1: various metrics there. Making that connection between that, and then
Speaker 1: making the median American person actually feel that that is
Speaker 1: easier said than done. That is the role for statesmen,
Speaker 1: That is the role for first class politicians there. But
Speaker 1: at least when it comes to the messaging, what we've
Speaker 1: encouraged the President and his team to do on this
Speaker 1: show is to try to show as much empathy as possible.
Speaker 1: Don't be raped the American people. Don't say the ecmmyne
Speaker 1: is great, you should be grateful for it. That is
Speaker 1: the mistake that Joe Biden made. That's a mistake that Kareem,
Speaker 1: Jean Pierre and the other idiots of the Biden regime
Speaker 1: did over and over and over again. They epically botched
Speaker 1: the commune. That's how we got to nine point one
Speaker 1: er scent inflation three and a half years ago. In
Speaker 1: the summer twenty twenty two, they epically boss you, and
Speaker 1: then they say, basically, shut up and be grateful for it.
Speaker 1: That's not a winning message. That is not a winning message, guys.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that Trump's doing that, by the way,
Speaker 1: but I did hear at least some shades of that.
Speaker 1: During his talk at the White House last week. He also, correctly,
Speaker 1: into his great credit emphasized this is very much a
Speaker 1: work in progress as well, so good, so continue to
Speaker 1: emphasize that it's a work in progress. I understand that
Speaker 1: some of you are not necessarily feeling what the economy
Speaker 1: and the economists tell me is happening with the data there.
Speaker 1: We are working every day to make sure that you
Speaker 1: can fill up your truck at the pump and not
Speaker 1: have to worry about breaking the bank count. I want
Speaker 1: to make sure that you can go to the grocery
Speaker 1: store and make sure that you're not making any trade
Speaker 1: offs when it comes to what to feed your family
Speaker 1: over the weekend. You know, basic things like that. Just
Speaker 1: show a little more empathy, frankly, and I think that
Speaker 1: would actually go a very long way. But for now,
Speaker 1: the economic data looking really, really, really good when it
Speaker 1: comes to the Trump administration, and that is a tremendous
Speaker 1: credit fring. That is to the great credits of Kevin
Speaker 1: assets to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and really just all
Speaker 1: the folks general there, Scot p Assent of the Treasury Secretary,
Speaker 1: all the folks on the economic team, they deserve a
Speaker 1: lot of a credit.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I mentioned at the outset, and this is all staying
Speaker 1: in Washington, DC. This exodus of talent from the Heritage
Speaker 1: Foundation is starting to make some ways so to recavocate
Speaker 1: you even follow this story and we'll cut up the
Speaker 1: chase quickly here because this happened a while ago at
Speaker 1: this point there in late October, shortly after Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: hosted the Neo Nazi Nick Funtiss on a show for
Speaker 1: a puffball interview. Shortly after that, Kevin Roberts, the president
Speaker 1: of the Herridge Foundation, released a pretty horrific video. And
Speaker 1: I don't like christ and Kevin because I've had very
Speaker 1: cordial relations with Kevin for many years. I think he's
Speaker 1: a decent human being. But he made an egregious error
Speaker 1: here in this video. And he basically defended the video
Speaker 1: and staid there's essentially nothing Tucker could do that would
Speaker 1: make him persona non grata when it comes to a
Speaker 1: relationship with him at the Heritage Foundation. And the repercussions
Speaker 1: have been nothing less than astonishing. This entire anti Semitism
Speaker 1: task force that they had set up a Heritage left.
Speaker 1: They lost various members of the board's trustees, a handful
Speaker 1: of them actually by now, they lost some of their
Speaker 1: most iconic senior fellows at the organization, people like Chris Dumouth,
Speaker 1: people like Stephen Moore, And now just over the past
Speaker 1: few days, somewhere between a dozen and a half and
Speaker 1: two dozen employees, including the vast bulk of the economic
Speaker 1: team and the legal team, have picked up and left
Speaker 1: from the Herriage Foundation. They've either been fired or they've resigned,
Speaker 1: including people who've been affiliate with Heritage for a very
Speaker 1: long time. I mean to name just one name, Hans
Speaker 1: von Spakowski, who is a specialist when it comes to
Speaker 1: election law, when it comes to voter fraud, when it
Speaker 1: comes to election integrity, illegal immigration. Hans is a first
Speaker 1: rate scholar. He's been a Heritage for a very long time,
Speaker 1: one of the national experts in his particular field. He resigned.
Speaker 1: He resigned just yesterday, literally hours actually after he was
Speaker 1: made the inter head or interim co head of the
Speaker 1: Mease Legal Center, because the rest of the Legal Center
Speaker 1: was either fired or resigned. By the way, the MEAs
Speaker 1: of the Edwin Meaes Legal Center is a former Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan Attorney General, Edwin Mests, who's long and doubted that position.
Speaker 1: He actually went ahead himself and took his namesake. He
Speaker 1: took the me Center. That is literally Ronald Reagan Attorney General,
Speaker 1: took the me Center out of Heritage and moved it
Speaker 1: with most of the rest of the staff to AAF
Speaker 1: Americans Advancing Freedom, which is the organization affiliated with Mike Pence.
Speaker 1: Now we're not huge Mike Penn's fans necessarily here on
Speaker 1: the show, and we can quit bal as to whether
Speaker 1: or not that organization is going to save the day
Speaker 1: when it comes to the American rights. I think probably not.
Speaker 1: And I would have liked to have seen some of
Speaker 1: these folks who were either shown the door or resign
Speaker 1: Heritage end up at some other organization that didn't have
Speaker 1: the taint of Mike Pence. But this is just a massive, massive,
Speaker 1: five alarm fire at this point for the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 1: And it's very difficult, frankly for me to see how
Speaker 1: they can how they can restore their credibility. I mean,
Speaker 1: what exactly can you do at this point? You've lost
Speaker 1: god knows how much money when it comes to donations,
Speaker 1: You've lost god knows how much influence when it comes
Speaker 1: to various members of the board who resigns, when it
Speaker 1: comes to senior fellows of some of your most iconic people.
Speaker 1: There what exactly is left of the Heritage Foundation team?
Speaker 1: And I won't reveal sources, but I'm still friendly or
Speaker 1: friends with plenty of people inside the building and the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation headquarters. And what I am told what I
Speaker 1: am told is that if bad people are hired to
Speaker 1: replace the folks who left. So if they want to
Speaker 1: double down on this Tucker friendly direction, they want to
Speaker 1: hire a bunch of groper economists, for instance, whatever the
Speaker 1: heck that even means, then I think there are going
Speaker 1: to be other divisions, other teams of scholars at Heritage
Speaker 1: who will exit stage left asap. So this is nothing
Speaker 1: less than a catastrophic self inflicted wound. And if it's
Speaker 1: self inflicted wounds that came from the place of doctor
Speaker 1: Robert speaking of a half Heritage, that they are no
Speaker 1: longer actually valuating principles and convictions and policies and subjective ideas.
Speaker 1: What it means to be conservative? What is conservatism? What
Speaker 1: is the American rights? Why does this matter?
Speaker 2: There?
Speaker 1: Rather announced Kevin Roberts in this now infamous video. He
Speaker 1: announced that they are going to prioritize, among other things,
Speaker 1: their relationship with Tucker Carlson. And this has been just
Speaker 1: part of this now two month long saga. It's a
Speaker 1: story that's not dying. I mean, I mean, it's kind
Speaker 1: of crazy. Here, We're almost two months after this and
Speaker 1: you're still having this mass excess of people from Heritage.
Speaker 1: Where does it end? I have no idea, And frankly,
Speaker 1: for the folks who are currently on the board at Heritage.
Speaker 1: How are you guys letting this happen exactly? I mean,
Speaker 1: how are you letting this much damage, this much carnage
Speaker 1: happened to the institution. You know, that's frankly another question
Speaker 1: that also be asked here as well. But this is this,
Speaker 1: of course, happening in the broader context of the turning
Speaker 1: Point USA and FEST conference that we spoke about a
Speaker 1: great length on yesterday's show. This ongoing debate as to
Speaker 1: what the right stand for, what are the parameters, what
Speaker 1: who is part of the rights, who is not part
Speaker 1: of the rights. Should we listen to certain crank conspiracy
Speaker 1: podcasters or should we not? Interesting clip that I came
Speaker 1: across from Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, currently the
Speaker 1: US Ambassador to Israel, all rounds, good men, good American.
Speaker 2: But where does that come from? You know, there's a
Speaker 2: difference between dom and ignorant. Dumb is that a person
Speaker 2: cannot process information. They just don't have the capacity. They
Speaker 2: don't have an operating system, if I put it, than
Speaker 2: computer language. Ignorance is that the data isn't there. What
Speaker 2: we're dealing with is not an operating system problem. It's
Speaker 2: a data problem. We have not downloaded the proper data,
Speaker 2: the correct, the true data, into the minds of younger people,
Speaker 2: and we've assumed that they're going to grow up intellectually
Speaker 2: curious and intellectually honest, and that they will look for themselves.
Speaker 2: But they're not. That's the problem. They're not looking. They're
Speaker 2: taking it face value, what some podcaster says, and the
Speaker 2: result is absolutely dangerous.
Speaker 1: It's well said, it's well said. Look, our responsibility as
Speaker 1: folks in the information business, as we discussed on yesterday's show,
Speaker 1: is to elevate you. It is not to deflate you.
Speaker 1: We are here to inform you, to give you informed, reasonable,
Speaker 1: hopefully at least a semi sophisticated commentary on the day's events,
Speaker 1: on the affairs of the day, of the week, the month,
Speaker 1: and so forth. There those who are involved in something
Speaker 1: quite different than that, who are involved in what I
Speaker 1: like to refer to as a brain rot op, in
Speaker 1: a sprawling brain rot operation, they do not deserve your respect.
Speaker 1: They don't deserve your time, your clicks, your download, or
Speaker 1: your concern. And at a certain point, if these folks
Speaker 1: who think of themselves as being part of the coalition
Speaker 1: are doing so much incredible damage to undermine that coalition's
Speaker 1: very vitality, that coalitions very chances of success when it
Speaker 1: comes to the ballot box, when it comes of defeating
Speaker 1: our actual threats, which is the left something that I
Speaker 1: couldn't agree more on than at some point those folks
Speaker 1: perhaps not actually in the coalition. At the end of day,
Speaker 1: if you were undermining your own purported cause, consider the
Speaker 1: possibility that you were actually not part of that cause.
Speaker 1: If you are consistently shooting yourself in the foot at best,
Speaker 1: or trying to sabotage things at worse, then consider the
Speaker 1: possibility that you're out. There's no need to just continually welcome, welcome, Welcome,
Speaker 1: into the tent there. So again, I think that there
Speaker 1: was part of this is a noble backlash against the
Speaker 1: cancel culture wars for a long time, and I was
Speaker 1: very passionate about this. I've dedicated a lot of time
Speaker 1: speaking and writing and talking legal theory when it comes
Speaker 1: to Section two thirty in anti trust and common carriation.
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of time unpacking America is big
Speaker 1: tech censorship issue been a major major theme of our
Speaker 1: show and my writings outside the show for a long time.
Speaker 1: But to say that it was wrong for mainstream conservatives
Speaker 1: to be censored shadow band or d platforms during the
Speaker 1: Jack Dorsey era of Twitter for talking about things like
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden laptop or about how transgenderism is alive.
Speaker 1: That is very different. Righteous combination of shadow banning and
Speaker 1: deplatforming for things like that. That is very different than
Speaker 1: fast forward to today. For saying that it's quote unquote
Speaker 1: cancelation to simply criticize someone else within the alleged purporterfold.
Speaker 1: Because that's what they're saying about those of us who
Speaker 1: don't have a problem speaking up against the Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: Candice owns a Sammy. They're telling us that we're engaged
Speaker 1: in cancelation. What again, No one's trying to cancel anyone.
Speaker 1: This is a free country. Go to rumble, go to YouTube,
Speaker 1: go to your Instagram, meals, TikTok, whatever the hell you
Speaker 1: want to do, go get on there and monetize it
Speaker 1: to your heart's content. That's fine with me, That's fine
Speaker 1: with anyone. I know. What we're saying here is who
Speaker 1: is part of the twenty twenty eight coalition. And the
Speaker 1: more that you welcome in the crazies. The more that major,
Speaker 1: major iconic concern institutions like the hairsmon Nation play foot
Speaker 1: seat with the crazies, the greater the chances of a
Speaker 1: president's gavenusmwhere president aocr This is the part that I
Speaker 1: wish more people understood. For every eighteen or nineteen year
Speaker 1: old basement dwelling graper that you're trying to bring into
Speaker 1: the coalition, you're going to repulse three, four or five
Speaker 1: relative normies, Hispanics, black men, Jews, all the various groups
Speaker 1: that were coming increasingly to the Trump coalition, this whole
Speaker 1: notion of the multi ethnic working class coalition. How many
Speaker 1: times do we hear that buzzword? We heard a lot
Speaker 1: because it was a real thing, young people. For goodness sake,
Speaker 1: all these former elements of the Obama coalition have been
Speaker 1: trending right word. It's an amazing thing. Don't mess it up.
Speaker 1: I see a lot of people, frankly, that are interested,
Speaker 1: if nothing else, in trying to muddy the waters, potentially
Speaker 1: even mess this up. And that causes me great concern,
Speaker 1: not really frankly as a Jew, but as an American
Speaker 1: who wants to see America prevail. And the only way
Speaker 1: that America prevails is for the right to prevail, and
Speaker 1: the right must be capable of prevailing, have the intellectual
Speaker 1: fortitude to actually prevail, and that means, frankly, patrolling our
Speaker 1: own boundaries. One final notes for today's show, and it's
Speaker 1: something of a somber one. Ben sass the former senator
Speaker 1: from from Nebraska and he became most recently the president
Speaker 1: of the University of Florida. Your mileage may vary on
Speaker 1: Ben Sas as an individual. I certainly was not the
Speaker 1: greatest fan of all of his exploits in the US Senate.
Speaker 1: Sanctimonious Sassis on my former Senate staffers calt him and
Speaker 1: those all sorts of investigative work from his time at
Speaker 1: the University of Florida showing potential corruption there. Okay, your
Speaker 1: mileage to me very like I said there. And I've
Speaker 1: had my I've had my own prisons. But none of
Speaker 1: that's really relevant for the posts that he posted earlier today.
Speaker 1: And it's uh, it's really quite hard wrenching, galling stuff.
Speaker 1: So Ben Sas posted I'm only gonna read a snippet
Speaker 1: of it. The full thing is available at his at
Speaker 1: his x feed at Ben SaaS he writes, quote, Friends,
Speaker 1: this is a tough note to write, but since a
Speaker 1: bunch of you have started to suspect something, I'll cut
Speaker 1: to the chase. Last week I was diagnosed with metastasized
Speaker 1: stage four pancreatic cancer, and I'm gonna die. Advanced pancreatic
Speaker 1: is nasty stuff. It's a death sentence, but I already
Speaker 1: had a death sentence. But before last week two we
Speaker 1: all do. I'm blessed with amazing siblings and half a
Speaker 1: dozen buddies that are genuinely brothers. As one of them
Speaker 1: put it, sure you're on the clock, but we're all
Speaker 1: on the clock. Death is a wicked thief, and the
Speaker 1: bastard pursues us all. Look, it's a lot longer of
Speaker 1: a post. I could read more of it, but I
Speaker 1: think you get the gist of it. Frankly from there,
Speaker 1: you know. I read this and I thought back to
Speaker 1: my childhood. I grew up, among other things, as as
Speaker 1: a diehard fan of the New York Yankees baseball team.
Speaker 1: My childhood bedroom was something of a shrine to the
Speaker 1: New York Yankees. We have partial season tickets. I watch
Speaker 1: virtually every game in fact my brother and I are
Speaker 1: are childhood baby sitters were actually these two brothers who
Speaker 1: were both bat boys for the Yankees in the mid
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties. So I grew up steeped in the Yankees
Speaker 1: Lord and my favorite player in the history of baseball
Speaker 1: was the Yankee great Lou Garrick, who many folks remember
Speaker 1: for being the cleanup hitter when Babe Ruth was batting third.
Speaker 1: He was rep behind Babe Ruth in the nineteen twenty
Speaker 1: seven Yankees lineup, one of the greatest lineups in the
Speaker 1: history of Major League Baseball, and Garrigan de was oftentimes
Speaker 1: overshadowed by Babe Ruth. He was an extraordinary basil player
Speaker 1: in his own right, but as extraordinary as he was
Speaker 1: a player, he was arguably even more extraordinary as a
Speaker 1: human being. He grew up dirt poor as the son
Speaker 1: of German immigrants in New York City and then became
Speaker 1: one of the greatest basil players of all time. And
Speaker 1: he was dealt a tremendous blow when he was diagnosed
Speaker 1: way way too young with als the disease that is
Speaker 1: now known as Lou Gharrig's disease. And in this clip
Speaker 1: that perhaps you have seen. If not, you should really
Speaker 1: watch it. This grainy black and white footage from about
Speaker 1: eighty five years ago. Now more or less, they brought
Speaker 1: out lou Garrey that thats the Yankees in nineteen forty one,
Speaker 1: when he was in the final year ish of his
Speaker 1: life for lou Geyrig Appreciation Day. He also, like Ben Sas,
Speaker 1: knew that he was going to die. And what Ben's
Speaker 1: excuse me, What lou Gareg famously said was he was
Speaker 1: not there to cry and to bemoan his bad luck,
Speaker 1: his bad a lot in life. What he said was
Speaker 1: today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face
Speaker 1: of the earth. He said that he may have caught
Speaker 1: a bad break, but he had an awful lot to
Speaker 1: live for. It's one of the most inspiring things that
Speaker 1: I've ever heard from a pro athlete, or one of
Speaker 1: most aspiring things that I've ever heard from from frankly anyone.
Speaker 1: And I saw shades of that in Ben SAS's post
Speaker 1: this morning. The first thing to say is I offer
Speaker 1: my whatever it's wor, my absolute sincereous, heartfelt condolences both
Speaker 1: the center Sass and to his family, his children. Unspeakable stuff. Truly,
Speaker 1: I simply cannot even imagine him. The broader message, perhaps,
Speaker 1: is this, this is the most wonderful time of the year.
Speaker 1: As we say this stretch between Thanksgiving a late no
Speaker 1: November and New Year's Day Christmas coming up this Thursday,
Speaker 1: It's a time of the year to take stock of
Speaker 1: the most important things of family and congregation and community,
Speaker 1: and your children, your loved ones, your faith, God Almighty
Speaker 1: in the heavens, and we're all made in the image
Speaker 1: of God. That's the truth of Genesis one, verse twenty seven,
Speaker 1: the verse that changed all of human history for the better.
Speaker 1: God loves each and every one of us. He loved
Speaker 1: lou Garrig, not necessarily because Lou Gary was a Hall
Speaker 1: of fam Basse player. He loved Lou Garrey because Louke
Speaker 1: Garrey was one of his sons. He loves Ben Sas too,
Speaker 1: not necessarily because Ben Sas was a senator or the
Speaker 1: president of Universe Parry, not because Ben Sas was one
Speaker 1: of his sons. He loves me, and he loves you too.
Speaker 1: We all have so much to be grateful for, and
Speaker 1: perhaps maybe this would be a particularly good time to
Speaker 1: give your loved ones a particularly large hug and remind
Speaker 1: them that you really, truly do very much love them
Speaker 1: as smartophos. Hope you like and subscribe to The Josh
Speaker 1: hammershow wherever you get your podcast or video fee if
Speaker 1: you're just listening to show our video fee is available
Speaker 1: at Newsweek's YouTube page, also available at the Salem News
Speaker 1: Channel Salemnewschannel dot com. But for now, Josh Hammer is
Speaker 1: signing off Onnday's episode of The Josh Hammers