Speaker 1: People are saying this. Past Olympics has been one of
Speaker 1: the more politically significant since the nineteen thirty six per
Speaker 1: Lynn Games, when Hitler and the Nazis ruled Germany. It
Speaker 1: does feel a lot more political than past Olympics, with
Speaker 1: some athletes even going on record saying they don't want
Speaker 1: people to get the wrong idea because they are representing
Speaker 1: the United States as an Olympic athlete, speedskater Hunter Hess,
Speaker 1: for example, explained, I just kind of want to do
Speaker 1: it for my friends and my family and the people
Speaker 1: that supported me getting here. He later clarified, just because
Speaker 1: I'm wearing the flag, it doesn't mean I represent everything
Speaker 1: that's going on in the US. Using the very freedom
Speaker 1: of speech guaranteed by a nation to refuse to praise
Speaker 1: that nation while representing them is perhaps the ultimate display
Speaker 1: of ingratitude. Two of the more compelling tales of this
Speaker 1: are the stories of Eileen Gou and Alyssa Lu On paper,
Speaker 1: the two are very similar, both are Californians of Chinese descent,
Speaker 1: and both are competing at the top levels events in
Speaker 1: the Milano Olympics. Both have left leaning political views, yet
Speaker 1: in terms of gratitude, it couldn't be more dissimilar. That's
Speaker 1: because Gou made the choice to represent not the country
Speaker 1: of her birth, the country where she was raised and trained,
Speaker 1: but the communist dictatorship of China. This is her second Olympics,
Speaker 1: representing the red flag on the world stage. Lou, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, is the child of a man who's
Speaker 1: a refugee from China. He's wanted there for his involvement
Speaker 1: in the Tianaman Square protests. The last time she competed
Speaker 1: in the Beijing Olympics, she needed a security detail to
Speaker 1: protect her from PRC operatives who were targeting her and
Speaker 1: her father. Lou doesn't just represent the US. She's representing
Speaker 1: the US very well. She competed on the ice with
Speaker 1: unfettered joy and pride and brought home the gold draped
Speaker 1: in the American flag. Gou won gold too, only she
Speaker 1: didn't bring it home in the same sense. It's China's
Speaker 1: gold medal, not ours. And that's a bit of a
Speaker 1: sticking point with Goo's critics because despite the fact that
Speaker 1: she competes for China, she still lives in the country
Speaker 1: where she was raised, and that's the US. She's not
Speaker 1: disturbed much by the fact that she lives in a
Speaker 1: country she doesn't condescend to represent. She turns such criticism
Speaker 1: into an opportunity to brag, saying, if I wasn't doing well,
Speaker 1: I think that they probably wouldn't care as much, and
Speaker 1: that's okay for me. People are entitled to their opinions. Well,
Speaker 1: that's true in America at least. It's not just Americans
Speaker 1: who take issue with guz have your cake and eat
Speaker 1: it too attitude. Some of her Chinese critics also expressed
Speaker 1: dissatisfaction with the way she keeps the very country she
Speaker 1: represents on the snow at arms length. Goo's Chinese name
Speaker 1: is gu is Ling, but the story is that mift
Speaker 1: Chinese are calling her gu Ei Chin, which turns her
Speaker 1: name into Goo loves money. So she is getting criticized
Speaker 1: from that ankle. I have to say that I sympathize
Speaker 1: with the average Chinese on this one. Sure, she won
Speaker 1: medals for China, but she won't even want to live here.
Speaker 1: She doesn't really want to be connected to China, and
Speaker 1: the insult isn't hard to detect. Goo doesn't care about
Speaker 1: her Chinese critics. I don't think, considering she grew up
Speaker 1: in the US, and lives there. In twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: she decided to try to shame them as well by
Speaker 1: taunting quote, in the past five years, I've represented China
Speaker 1: in forty one international competitions and have won thirty nine
Speaker 1: medals for China? What have you done for the country?
Speaker 1: So that is horror? Come back to the Chinese people.
Speaker 1: Can we say that's very gu like of her. The
Speaker 1: really odd thing about Gou is that she shouldn't be
Speaker 1: in the US at all, honestly, unless she is just
Speaker 1: visiting tourist visa. According to Chinese law, she's not a
Speaker 1: native Chinese, but naturalized. And in China, when you become
Speaker 1: a citizen, you're required by law to give up your
Speaker 1: old citizenship. Yet here she is in Stanford, California. You see,
Speaker 1: America recognizes her citizenship because she was born here. So
Speaker 1: even though she's a card carrying Chinese Communist national, she
Speaker 1: is an American because she was born on our soil.
Speaker 1: Why doesn't China enforce their side of the naturalization process
Speaker 1: by forcing gu just to render her US citizenship like
Speaker 1: the law demands money status medals, Or maybe that was
Speaker 1: part of some deal when she made her decision to
Speaker 1: represent China that gave her half her genomes but none
Speaker 1: of her freedom or civil rights. Maybe it's not that
Speaker 1: unusual at all. It seems that Gou isn't so much
Speaker 1: the exception as she is the rule. You see. According
Speaker 1: to New York Times bestselling book and Visible Coup by
Speaker 1: Peter Schweizer, China has been looking the other way when
Speaker 1: it comes to her American born citizens a lot. And
Speaker 1: because this is the Chinese Communist Party we're talking about,
Speaker 1: you can bet this isn't your typical bureaucratic misstep. It's
Speaker 1: very much deliberate and part of a larger plot. In
Speaker 1: an interview with Steve Bannon that was quoted by Breitbart,
Speaker 1: Schweitzerer pointed out that for the past thirteen years, roughly
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand Chinese babies have been born in the US.
Speaker 1: Back of the envelope math tells us that's easily over
Speaker 1: a million Chinese who also claim US citizenship. And this
Speaker 1: is not normal birth tourism, if that's even normal. These
Speaker 1: are children of party elites and military officers, says Schweitzer.
Speaker 1: After being born, they're wist away back to China, where
Speaker 1: they're raised as Chinese citizens. But thanks to birthright citizenship
Speaker 1: here in the US, they are still Americans when this
Speaker 1: million plus foard of Chinese Americans churn eighteen. They can
Speaker 1: do things like a vote in our elections, they can
Speaker 1: make political donations, they can work for our government, and
Speaker 1: is all perfectly legal. Well, hopefully the Supreme Court will
Speaker 1: take a look at this, because this is a very
Speaker 1: serious national security issue. No other country has immigration policies
Speaker 1: that expose its citizen citizenry to this level of exploitation
Speaker 1: by the Chinese Communist Party. Something tells me that while
Speaker 1: these millions playing remote citizen in China would jump at
Speaker 1: the chance to work in DC, none of them are
Speaker 1: going to do us the favor of representing the US
Speaker 1: in a future Olympic game, for example. That's not the
Speaker 1: only area in which China is making waves these days.
Speaker 1: It seems Beijing is absolutely furious over the results of
Speaker 1: the recent Japanese election that one conservative Takaichi an unprecedented
Speaker 1: conservative majority. Among other items on her parties to do
Speaker 1: list is the eradication of Article nine of the Japanese Constitution,
Speaker 1: clearing the way for Japan to build up its military forces.
Speaker 1: Of course, in some sense, the changes will be primarily linguistic.
Speaker 1: Rather than a st army, Japan has a self defense force,
Speaker 1: which is, for all intents and purposes the same thing
Speaker 1: as military. The Japanese Self Defense Force currently ranks in
Speaker 1: the top ten overall among the world's militaries already. So
Speaker 1: is jettison ing Article nine really going to dramatically alter things?
Speaker 1: Leave it to China to find a reason to cut
Speaker 1: a fit over a name change. In an attempt to
Speaker 1: stop Japanese remilitarization, the PRC has announced restrictions to twenty
Speaker 1: Japanese entities to ensure that they don't end up as
Speaker 1: components in Japanese military hardware. Japan isn't about to outsource
Speaker 1: its new army of giant fighting robots to Chinese manufacturers.
Speaker 1: I'm just assuming that Japanese remilitarization will include giant fighting robots.
Speaker 1: It's the twenty first century and it's finally time for that.
Speaker 1: The affected Japanese companies include Sumiitomo, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, Fujitsu Ihi Corporation,
Speaker 1: and sup So. China is getting a little nervous that
Speaker 1: the Japanese might recall their previous military might. The Chinese
Speaker 1: have been highly critical of the Prime Minister, especially since
Speaker 1: she called for Japan to develop nuclear weapons. A militarized
Speaker 1: in nuclear armed Japan certainly seems like it would add
Speaker 1: a few wrinkles to the Chinese goal of invading the
Speaker 1: peaceful and free nation of Taiwan. It would also make
Speaker 1: it harder to enact a naval blockade of Japan in
Speaker 1: order to cut her off from the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: which is another one of China's long standing strategic goals.
Speaker 1: By the way, across the planet, the elements needed to
Speaker 1: realize China's goals have been steadily falling into place. They've
Speaker 1: been in economic support an arms dealer to the Ayatola
Speaker 1: and Iran for years, and they were in the process
Speaker 1: of negotiating with Venezuela as well when our little game
Speaker 1: of cash the Dictator ended up ruining that point. Across
Speaker 1: the globe, from South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines in
Speaker 1: Asia to the South American countries of Ecuador, Peru, Chile,
Speaker 1: and Argentina, China's engaging in exploited illegal fishing practices, I
Speaker 1: guess they wanted to make sure that everywhere had a
Speaker 1: reason not to like them. I mean, they certainly are
Speaker 1: eating that much fish. No such gray zone tactics allow
Speaker 1: their vessels to function as a paramilitary force, thereby allowing
Speaker 1: Beijing to exert control just below the threshold of open
Speaker 1: armed conflict. It is a surg meeting in reserve, if
Speaker 1: you will. Just as their ubiquitous fishing fleets may be
Speaker 1: other than they seen, China's population may not be as
Speaker 1: large as reporting. Bushi Yan, a researcher at the University
Speaker 1: of Wisconsin, asserts the country doesn't have as many people
Speaker 1: as she claims. Why would a government want to keep
Speaker 1: its country's population size secret? Well, because the size of
Speaker 1: the Chinese market is one of its biggest draws. It
Speaker 1: also helps at the local level to fudge those numbers
Speaker 1: in order to get bigger government subsidies. Well, Fushion believes
Speaker 1: that China's population of one point four billion is actually
Speaker 1: about one point three billion. That translates to one hundred
Speaker 1: and million fewer Chinese people than reported. Other estimates say
Speaker 1: that China's actual population is less than half of what
Speaker 1: it's reported to be. That may be a stretch, but
Speaker 1: it would explain why there are whole sections of cities
Speaker 1: where the buildings are completely empty. These topics and more
Speaker 1: will make for some very interesting research, and this is
Speaker 1: something Peter Schweizer has dived into in his recent book.
Speaker 1: He has been looking into a lot of this and
Speaker 1: it's very interesting to see everything he's uncovered, because it
Speaker 1: just goes to show us that the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: is using America's own laws, America's own rules, in order
Speaker 1: to actually subvert the country. I am delighted to welcome
Speaker 1: our guest today, Larry Taunton. He is an author, columnist,
Speaker 1: and cultural commentator. His work has been cut by the BBC,
Speaker 1: the New York Times, and many other places. Larry, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: Great to be with you, Danielle.
Speaker 1: Great well. I thought we could start off by maybe
Speaker 1: talking a little bit about the news that transpired this
Speaker 1: weekend with Iran, and maybe you can just start by
Speaker 1: telling us your initial reaction to all that.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I have so many initial thoughts, Danielle.
Speaker 3: One of them is I'm kind of tired of the
Speaker 3: so called America first crowd that really is America, only
Speaker 3: they don't quite understand that America first means that for
Speaker 3: your own house to be safe, you may have to
Speaker 3: burn down the crack house that's across the street. And
Speaker 3: I see this very much as authentic America first, just
Speaker 3: as I see that being the case with operations in Venezuela.
Speaker 3: I don't think the same thing about Ukraine, for example.
Speaker 3: But you know, Iran has been funding terrorism. Have they
Speaker 3: funded hamas they funded the October seventh attacks in Israel?
Speaker 3: And I know that there's some will be listening who
Speaker 3: are not sympathetic to Israeli people who were murdered, mutilated,
Speaker 3: women raped.
Speaker 2: I know that there's plenty that are within that.
Speaker 3: Crowd and that thinking, but they're not understanding that Iran
Speaker 3: as the head of the snake and the Biden administration
Speaker 3: as well as the Obama administration is and no doubt
Speaker 3: the Biden administration, being directed by Obama himself, basically funded
Speaker 3: all of these kinds of attacks. Iran has directed tax
Speaker 3: against the United States more than ninety times just since
Speaker 3: twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's very interesting because I noticed Trump recently
Speaker 1: was saying that he thought that Iran, you know, tried
Speaker 1: to get him first, and then he was saying, but
Speaker 1: I actually got you first. So in a way, it
Speaker 1: was very clear why Trump was going after community for example.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, he's he's privy to a lot of intelligence,
Speaker 3: of course that we don't see. But it's you know,
Speaker 3: I'm old enough, Danielle. You're quite young, and I'm old
Speaker 3: enough to remember when I was a kid, the storming
Speaker 3: of the US embassy nineteen seventy nine in Tehran and
Speaker 3: the holding for more than I want to say it
Speaker 3: was four hundred and forty five days, something like that,
Speaker 3: of American hostages that were paraded nightly, you know, on
Speaker 3: our news screens. I'm also old enough to recall many
Speaker 3: of their attacks, murdering Americans, boarding American vessels, holding American
Speaker 3: sailors hostage, and successive ministration is doing virtually nothing about this,
Speaker 3: and I would get it. You know, if the United
Speaker 3: States were let's say, Cameroon, we might not have the
Speaker 3: ability to do these things. But I'm appreciative of the
Speaker 3: fact that Donald Trump has taken seriously the care of
Speaker 3: the American people, the attacks on our soldiers, and the
Speaker 3: realization that I saw Matt Walsh tweeted yesterday, and that's
Speaker 3: a bright guy. But Matt had tweeted more or less
Speaker 3: implying that the attacks that are taking place in the
Speaker 3: United States and attacking I ran that those things are
Speaker 3: you know, kind of mutually exclusive, and you have to
Speaker 3: choose one or the other. Well, I mean, who do
Speaker 3: you think is funding you know a lot of these
Speaker 3: kinds of things. So where do they think the weaponry,
Speaker 3: you know, is coming from. Who do they think is
Speaker 3: supplying the training as they did with October seventh, supplying
Speaker 3: the technical expertise for cyber attacks and things of this nature.
Speaker 3: You can go after both at the same time.
Speaker 1: Right, do you think that it's interesting because we've seen
Speaker 1: kind of the left and the right are almost like
Speaker 1: especially like the woke right sort of, not that he is,
Speaker 1: but there are people on that side. Do you feel
Speaker 1: like they're basically becoming like the left because they are
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of the same kind of talking points.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, this actually be an interesting conversation with your
Speaker 3: dad because I hate the term woke right. That's an oxymoron.
Speaker 3: It makes no sense at all if you're woke your left,
Speaker 3: I mean, just period. I realized that we kind of
Speaker 3: get stuck with these kind of terms, and I realized
Speaker 3: the individual you know who came up with this, I said, idiotic,
Speaker 3: It's an idiotic notion. If you're woke you're on the left.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean that you can't hold views that are
Speaker 3: on the right, that you can't be a combination in
Speaker 3: some sense of the two. But the mob, they're totalitarian
Speaker 3: and their leanings. They're the kind of people that gather,
Speaker 3: you know, I was just at the World Economic Forum
Speaker 3: last month, or I should say now the month before last,
Speaker 3: in mid January, where these are the kind of people
Speaker 3: who meet and who want to dictate to the rest
Speaker 3: of us the manner.
Speaker 2: Which we live.
Speaker 3: But yes, I think we're seeing a lot of people
Speaker 3: that we previously fought, Danielle were solid conservatives who are
Speaker 3: not actually solid conservatives. And I don't think it's because
Speaker 3: they were lying about being conservative. I think it's what
Speaker 3: we're seeing is their worldview being exposed. That these weren't
Speaker 3: individuals who are actually rooted in an absolute that is
Speaker 3: to say, in eternal principles. They were more kind of
Speaker 3: rooted in their feelings and how they you know, a
Speaker 3: kind of vague patriotism or a misty eyed Americana rather
Speaker 3: than actually being rooted in you know, ideals, the kind
Speaker 3: of ideals that we find expressed in the Declaration of
Speaker 3: Independence and in our Constitution. And of course ultimately in scripture.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and many of those people are actually just liberal.
Speaker 1: They pretend to be conservative, but they're not.
Speaker 2: One name one, give me names, come on, give me oh.
Speaker 1: Well, definitely like the Nick f Onetastes type crowd, because
Speaker 1: they're trying to undo the those they want us to over,
Speaker 1: the Democrats or whatever, so they're just very open about it,
Speaker 1: of course. But then there are some other people who
Speaker 1: are maybe normal people who are just kind of like
Speaker 1: confused or swept in the middle of this stuff and
Speaker 1: they're not really sure what they think about what's going
Speaker 1: on with Iran. Maybe you can tell us what's your
Speaker 1: kind of main argument for how this is America First?
Speaker 1: What is your kind of way that you would explain
Speaker 1: it to someone who's maybe not against it, but is
Speaker 1: just kind of not sure.
Speaker 3: Well, I think again, I'd want to make a distinction
Speaker 3: between uh, the the America firsters who really are America only.
Speaker 3: They're only concerned with anything that happens inside our borders.
Speaker 2: And I get it.
Speaker 3: I understand that at a very elementary level. But it's
Speaker 3: elementary kind of thinking, you know, as I was, you know,
Speaker 3: indicated earlier. You know, if your own home let's just
Speaker 3: let's just think of it like this. If your own
Speaker 3: home is constantly being you know, robbed, and there are
Speaker 3: people trying to you know, break through your front door,
Speaker 3: and you have you have a choice there. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: guess you can keep barricading it and try to make
Speaker 3: your fences higher and these kind of things. Or you
Speaker 3: could try to clean up the neighborhood. You know, these
Speaker 3: things tend to not happen, uh when you're in a
Speaker 3: little better neighborhood. And I think Trump's approach here is
Speaker 3: the recognition.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 3: I was following caravans all over South America. I did
Speaker 3: this for five years. You know. I was going to
Speaker 3: cartel towns and Dairian Gap. I was following what we
Speaker 3: were mostly, or let's just say, a plurality of Venezuelans
Speaker 3: making their way up to Mexico City where they could
Speaker 3: board Labstia the Beast with a freight train where they
Speaker 3: would get on the roof of it and follow it
Speaker 3: to the six hundred miles north to the US border.
Speaker 3: I kept screaming that until we solve the problem in Venezuela,
Speaker 3: this is going to keep happening. And anybody who's going
Speaker 3: to go through the dairy and gap in flip flops,
Speaker 3: holding a baby and carrying a bottle of water. I
Speaker 3: promise you, your wall is not going to stop them.
Speaker 3: Your wall isn't going to stop them. Now, according to CNN,
Speaker 3: this was all being caused by global warming, which we
Speaker 3: know is complete nonsense. It was being caused by Marxism
Speaker 3: that was turning economies one right after the other in
Speaker 3: South America, cratering them. So this was causing a problem.
Speaker 3: So to me, Venezuela was America first. Well, the same
Speaker 3: thing is true. Well, we're talking about Iran and we're
Speaker 3: talking about the funding of terrorism. It doesn't seem like
Speaker 3: it's received much play in the United States, Danielle.
Speaker 2: That again, just.
Speaker 3: During the first two and a half years of Biden's
Speaker 3: term in office, there were eighty three attacks on American
Speaker 3: troops in the Middle East, either directly by Iran or
Speaker 3: sponsored by Iran. So to me, going after Iran as
Speaker 3: America first, we have to defend our people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely. And Trump has been so great on a
Speaker 1: lot of these foreign policy issues. And like you've said,
Speaker 1: he is very privy to a lot of information we
Speaker 1: are privy to, and he's very swept in his actions.
Speaker 1: He's very quick, very decisive, and I think does things
Speaker 1: that actually make a difference as opposed to maybe people
Speaker 1: fearing some kind of long dragged out war situation. But
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't really operate like that. How likely are you
Speaker 1: to see some kind of successful regime chain in Iran?
Speaker 1: What do you think is going to be the next
Speaker 1: step for people there? Do you think people are kind
Speaker 1: of rising up? Or how do you see it?
Speaker 3: You know, that's a that's a good question. It's a
Speaker 3: complicated question. Let me deal with the first part of that.
Speaker 3: You're right, you know, Trump is decisive. I don't think
Speaker 3: Trump spends a lot of time hand ringing, you know,
Speaker 3: over issues. I think he listens to the counsel of
Speaker 3: his generals and various other strategists and so forth and
Speaker 3: are involved here, and then he he uh, he takes action.
Speaker 3: I loved what he said yesterday, which was hilarious, that
Speaker 3: he was creating job openings, you know, in Iran, And.
Speaker 2: There's no question that he's doing that. Now.
Speaker 3: Nation building in the Middle East is not something that
Speaker 3: the United States has proven to be particularly good at.
Speaker 3: I don't get the impression that that's his intention here.
Speaker 3: That he's not intending to, you know, turn this into
Speaker 3: another Afghanistan or or or something to that effect, but
Speaker 3: rather kind of leave it, at least to some extent
Speaker 3: to the Iranian people. But Danielle something that I think
Speaker 3: that Americans are incredibly naive about it. And presently I'm
Speaker 3: in Europe, I was in I was just in the
Speaker 3: Middle East, you know, so I just came here from
Speaker 3: the Middle East. Americans do not understand Islam. They don't.
Speaker 3: They're starting to understand it, you know, better. But the
Speaker 3: notion that you know, like, for instance, the Pope I'm
Speaker 3: I can look out a window right here and almost
Speaker 3: see the Vatican. I'm here in Rome. Yesterday the Pope
Speaker 3: right here was talking about how there just needs to
Speaker 3: be dialogue and if we could all just get along.
Speaker 3: I mean, if only the Hobbits and the Orcs could
Speaker 3: just get together and have a conversation, I'm sure they
Speaker 3: could work out all their differences. Never mind the fact
Speaker 3: that that Orcs eat Hobbits. I mean, that's that's where
Speaker 3: we find ourselves in Islam. Islam is an ideology of hate.
Speaker 3: It is an ideology of conquest, It is an ideology
Speaker 3: of misogyny, and the senator from my own state state
Speaker 3: of Alabama, Tommy Tupperval, who I can appreciate now more
Speaker 3: as a senator than I could when he was coach
Speaker 3: at the at Auburn University Tuberville, and he's starting to
Speaker 3: gather others around him are pushing for the banning of Sharia.
Speaker 3: I want to say to them, that's that's not the
Speaker 3: root of the tree. You have to ban Islam. And
Speaker 3: I know that they probably think, well, we can't do
Speaker 3: that because it's covered under the Bill of Rights. As
Speaker 3: you know, you can practice, you know, your religion fairly
Speaker 3: and openly in the United States. Therefore we can't ban it. No,
Speaker 3: I think we can, and I think we can with
Speaker 3: the Constitution, because when Islam is taken seriously in his
Speaker 3: practice according to the Qoran, according to the hdiv and
Speaker 3: to the life of Muhammad, which every Muslim is supposed
Speaker 3: to model themselves after, then it is by definition anti
Speaker 3: constitutional because it is by definition not about freedom of speech,
Speaker 3: not about freedom of religion. It's not about freedom of
Speaker 3: the press, it's not about freedom of the assembly, it's
Speaker 3: not about freedom of petition. The entire Bill of Rights
Speaker 3: is nullified by Islam. When Islam is taken seriously, which
Speaker 3: is to say nothing of things like you know, child marriage,
Speaker 3: and you know, human trafficking and beheadings and these kinds
Speaker 3: of things. This is real Islam. And when people say
Speaker 3: that they know a Muslim who's a very friendly person,
Speaker 3: I know plenty myself. But those are those are not
Speaker 3: Muslims who are practicing real Islam. Those are people that
Speaker 3: I liken to Methodists in not taking their holy scriptures
Speaker 3: very seriously. And I say that I could say that
Speaker 3: as a form of Methodist. Please don't pelt me the
Speaker 3: people who are listening out there, but you know, these
Speaker 3: are these are very we'll say liberal Muslims that we're talking.
Speaker 2: About in this case.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think when it comes to immigrants especially,
Speaker 1: we can decide who comes to this country. We can
Speaker 1: decide what criteria we want to use and bring them
Speaker 1: in because many of these people who are Muslim are
Speaker 1: very recent immigrants to the US. It's not like we
Speaker 1: just all of a sudden have these, you know, people
Speaker 1: who are converting to Islam here. Most of it really
Speaker 1: being imported here, So can definitely be stopped. Wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you about. So when it comes to kind of
Speaker 1: the nation building. We sort of touched on them a
Speaker 1: little bit. How do you think this might be Do
Speaker 1: you think this might be similar, might be different to
Speaker 1: what happened in Japan. Do you think people in Iran
Speaker 1: are I mean, we've seen the videos because they're very
Speaker 1: much celebratory, they're very excited. Do you think that they're
Speaker 1: going to step up in this time?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: I like the reference to Japan. That's an astute reference
Speaker 3: and a very good one. Japan serves as a model
Speaker 3: for us and a reminder, a historical reminder that we
Speaker 3: have defeated these types of ideologies before. So the you know,
Speaker 3: the the Kamikazes of the nineteen thirties and forties were
Speaker 3: you know, the suicide bombers of that era, and the
Speaker 3: Japanese ultimately they some would argue they have the most
Speaker 3: democratic constitution in the world, was written by General Douglas
Speaker 3: MacArthur and his staff, and it remains in effect there
Speaker 3: to this day in Japan. Having been there, it's a
Speaker 3: remarkable peaceful country. So we have done that before. I
Speaker 3: don't know, however, that the United States today is as
Speaker 3: committed to bringing something like that about as the United
Speaker 3: States was at the time. I want to say MacArthur was,
Speaker 3: I can't remember, but he was basically, you know, as
Speaker 3: William Manchester says, an American caesar in Japan for quite
Speaker 3: some time, with extraordinary power at his disposal. But the
Speaker 3: fact of the matter is Japan does serve as a
Speaker 3: model that this can be done. These types of ideologies
Speaker 3: can be defeated.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: One of the problems, unfortunately, is while Japan an Ireland
Speaker 3: and emperor worship in fascist militarism that characterized Japan at
Speaker 3: that time was isolated to Japan. Right now we're talking about,
Speaker 3: you know, a country that's surrounded, you know, by other
Speaker 3: countries that share the same type of ideology, which makes
Speaker 3: it much much more difficult. So I don't know, I'm
Speaker 3: not sure if the United States will try to follow
Speaker 3: a policy like that. I tend to think as much
Speaker 3: as I like Trump, and I was Gotsha was at
Speaker 3: mar A Lago a few times and there to see
Speaker 3: your father's movie, wonderful movie two thousand Mules. So I
Speaker 3: like I like Donald Trump very much, but I think
Speaker 3: Donald Trump shares one of the flaws that is common
Speaker 3: to Americans and to American foreign policy forever and that
Speaker 3: is that we're a fairly trusting, give the other guy
Speaker 3: the benefit of the doubt, and a little naive when
Speaker 3: we're dealing, particularly when we're dealing with ideologies like this,
Speaker 3: and and I think we can't be we can We
Speaker 3: dare not risk that in this case. Case in point
Speaker 3: the Israelis. If anybody in the world should know better
Speaker 3: than to be naive, it would be the Israelis.
Speaker 2: Yaya Sinoir, who who engineered the October seventh attacks, spent
Speaker 2: more than half of his adult life in Israeli prison,
Speaker 2: who's having fainting spells, headaches. The Israelis discovered he had
Speaker 2: a brain tumor. They took him to an Israeli hospital.
Speaker 2: Surgery was performed removing the brain tumor, saving his life,
Speaker 2: which he himself acknowledged. In twenty eleven or twelve, he
Speaker 2: was exchanged in a prison swap, that is, for Israeli hostages.
Speaker 3: And how did he pay the Israelis. I'm sure they
Speaker 3: thought he would feel indebted to them.
Speaker 2: He didn't.
Speaker 3: He raped and murdered and mutilated their people. That's what
Speaker 3: we're dealing with here, and we can't let our guard down.
Speaker 3: We can't be naive in dealing with it.
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. We cannot let our guard down be naive.
Speaker 1: Great point, well, Larry, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us today. I really appreciate your insights here well.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Danielle, pleasure to be with you.