Speaker 1: I'm Josh Hammer, and this is the Josh Hammer Show.
Speaker 1: Last June, during the twelve Day War between Israel and Iran,
Speaker 1: there was an ongoing debate as to whether or not
Speaker 1: Donald Trump would intervene on behalf of the United States.
Speaker 1: It was a torture debate. It was a debate that
Speaker 1: was consuming headlines day in and day out for a
Speaker 1: very chaotic nearly two week stretch. Yet again, now we
Speaker 1: find ourselves here in January of the new year, dealing
Speaker 1: with a very similar situation. Will he or won't see?
Speaker 1: Will Donald Trump intervene? Will he address the fact that
Speaker 1: his own stipulated redline has been flagrantly crossed? Or will
Speaker 1: he not? The stakes are high. In twenty twelve, as
Speaker 1: the Syrian Civil War was just getting underway, Barack Obama
Speaker 1: announced that if chemical weapons were to be utilized in
Speaker 1: the context of the war, namely by the former despot
Speaker 1: there the Russia and Iran backed Ala Whites, Bashar al Assade,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama said that would be a red line for US,
Speaker 1: mean the United States. That was in August twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: About one year later, in August twenty thirteen, that red
Speaker 1: line was flagrantly crossed Sarngas was used by Bashar al
Speaker 1: Asade to kill at least hundred, as possibly thousands of
Speaker 1: innocent Syrians. Frankly, that was just a rounding err in
Speaker 1: the total number of Syrians who were killed roughly a
Speaker 1: half million or so. That number at the time, though
Speaker 1: of the sarranghess attag included women's children, horrific. In response,
Speaker 1: the Aboministration initially uttered some tough words. Subsequently, though, they
Speaker 1: changed their tune. They deployed people like John Kerry at
Speaker 1: the State Department and Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon. They
Speaker 1: deployed them to Congress to testify and to assures that
Speaker 1: action was coming, but it would be a very narrow
Speaker 1: targeted pinprick strike. And then sure enough Obama negotiated a
Speaker 1: diplomatic off ramp with Vlamir pun in Russia, whereby Russia,
Speaker 1: which was a leading patron of Syria at the time,
Speaker 1: would allegedly find a way to get the chemical weapons
Speaker 1: inside Syria and to collect them ultimately then giving them
Speaker 1: hand them off to the proverbial international community for subsequent destruction.
Speaker 1: It was an embarrassing failure to enforce a red line.
Speaker 1: It was a moment from which Barack Obama's presidency never recovered.
Speaker 1: Is Donald Trump going to do the same thing. We're
Speaker 1: not big fans of breadlines here on this show. We
Speaker 1: discussed this earlier this week. I prefer my foreign policy
Speaker 1: to be that Alvalxander Hamilton in the Federals Number seventy
Speaker 1: in the Federal seventy, one of the great Federals papers
Speaker 1: drafted by Alexander Hamilton, arguing on behalf of the unitary
Speaker 1: executive structure, as to say, the singular president embodied an
Speaker 1: article to the Constitution. Hamilton famously argues that unity in
Speaker 1: the executive is important because decision activity, secrecy, and dispatch
Speaker 1: will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a
Speaker 1: much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.
Speaker 1: Like Hamilton, I believe in secrecy in the executive, Like
Speaker 1: Teddy Roosevelt many years later, I believe in the maxim
Speaker 1: of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. But that
Speaker 1: is not relevant to what we now face. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has issued for weeks now a recurring red line when
Speaker 1: it comes to whether or not the Ronnie regime is
Speaker 1: going to massacre their own civilians. On January second, so
Speaker 1: two weeks ago now, Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social
Speaker 1: if Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, the United
Speaker 1: States America will come to the rescue. We are locked
Speaker 1: and loaded and ready to go. Around that time, on
Speaker 1: January second, roughly five hundred to six hundred Undians were
Speaker 1: estimates who have been killed in the then nascent uprising,
Speaker 1: which had started the week prior, just before the new year.
Speaker 1: That number today has skyrocketed from five hundred to six
Speaker 1: hundred to now an estimated. Very hard to say. There's
Speaker 1: essentially ipossible to say. There's no reliable numbers here, but
Speaker 1: we think we think somewhere between twelve and twenty thousand,
Speaker 1: if not more than that. What's more, Earlier this week,
Speaker 1: Trump doubled down on shrut Social. He said, Iranian patriots
Speaker 1: keep protesting, take over your institutions, save the names of
Speaker 1: the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price.
Speaker 1: Stop help is on the way. It is impossible to
Speaker 1: avoid the obvious implications of these statements. Trump said that
Speaker 1: if the Islamist regime in Tehran continues the slaughter of
Speaker 1: its own citizens, the United States will indeed take some
Speaker 1: unspecified but nonetheless clearly major action to staunch the bleeding.
Speaker 1: That seems to have changed just over the past thirty
Speaker 1: six hours, give or take. Beginning on Wednesday, you had
Speaker 1: some reports that some of the Arab countries Saudi Arabia, Katar, Oman,
Speaker 1: perhaps Egypt as well, allegedly tried to persuade Donald Trump
Speaker 1: that there will be serious consequences to the US taking action,
Speaker 1: because around the same time that the US was already
Speaker 1: preemptively removing military personnel from the largest US military base
Speaker 1: in the region, all you Dd Air Base in Qatar,
Speaker 1: as well as other assets in places like Iraq, Syria,
Speaker 1: and so forth. But the fear of repercussions from the
Speaker 1: Irani regime did not stop Donald Trump from sending the
Speaker 1: B two bombers last June, did it, So that doesn't
Speaker 1: quite add up either. Even more peculiar, there was a
Speaker 1: report from The New York Times yesterday on Thursday showing
Speaker 1: that Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly, if you believe the reporting, allegedly
Speaker 1: asked Donald Trump to postpone any planned attack on Iran,
Speaker 1: which is wholly illogical taken at face value. The Iran
Speaker 1: threat has taken up large swaths of Netniahu's career, he
Speaker 1: and Trump seemed to be entirely simpot to go on
Speaker 1: the same page. Let's not forget that in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: around the time that he was being re elected to
Speaker 1: a second term, the DOJ actually formally indicted numerous individuals,
Speaker 1: charging them charging them with planned assassinations of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the militant
Speaker 1: wing of the Islamus Claricy, the theocracy there in Iran.
Speaker 1: So when the world is actually going on here now,
Speaker 1: my best guess, my best guest continues to be that
Speaker 1: we are looking at some very high profile k fabe,
Speaker 1: which is a fans way of saying WWE style wrestling.
Speaker 1: If I were replaced in my bets, I still think
Speaker 1: that there is going to be some sort of action
Speaker 1: beyond the increased tariffs, beyond the increased sanctions that we've
Speaker 1: seen over the past two days from the United States.
Speaker 1: The alternative is that perhaps the New York Times has
Speaker 1: it right. Perhaps there is a chance that Netsan Yaku
Speaker 1: does not want Trump to take action, which case we
Speaker 1: could conclude one of two things. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: perhaps Israel genuinely does fear reprisal from Iran. Maybe they
Speaker 1: genuinely do not have the missile defense in place. I
Speaker 1: find that very difficult to believe. The alternative is that
Speaker 1: perhaps perhaps the Israelis got word or they at least
Speaker 1: suspected that if Trump were to do anything, that it
Speaker 1: would be a carry Hagel Obama style pinprick strike. It's
Speaker 1: very difficult to know what to make of this. Again,
Speaker 1: the notion that can do a pink prick strike now
Speaker 1: flies in the face, flies in the face of these
Speaker 1: spectacular B two bombing runs that we saw over four
Speaker 1: down Natons and the other facilities in Iran last June.
Speaker 1: But making a mistake about it, a red line has
Speaker 1: been breached, has been violated, has been trampled over. I
Speaker 1: would not have advice that that red line being made,
Speaker 1: But now that it has been made, it has been
Speaker 1: crossed repeatedly. It's actually even worse than that. Just earlier today,
Speaker 1: Just earlier today, one of the leading advisors to the
Speaker 1: Iyatola Kammeyeni in Iran apparently said in an address. He
Speaker 1: said in an address that the Runan people heard that
Speaker 1: he was recommending to the Mudels and to Kamyenni himself
Speaker 1: that they start executing more of the protesters. So when
Speaker 1: Donald Trump said a couple days ago that the killing
Speaker 1: has stopped and there are no more executions, it's far
Speaker 1: from obvious that that continues that that looks like it
Speaker 1: will be the case moving forward. For what it's worth,
Speaker 1: Mike Walltz, the US Ambassadors to the Nations, was doubling
Speaker 1: down on all options still being on the table just
Speaker 1: on Thursday. Go ahead and watch this from Mike Wallace,
Speaker 1: the current used Ambassador to the United Nations.
Speaker 2: Let me be clear, President Trump is a man of action,
Speaker 2: not endless talk like we see at the United Nations.
Speaker 2: He has made it clear all options are on the
Speaker 2: table to stop the slaughter, and no one should know
Speaker 2: that better than the leadership of the Iranian regime.
Speaker 1: So he's reiterating that all options on the table, while
Speaker 1: the President is giving off the impression that the calculus
Speaker 1: has changed. So what is actually going to happen. Look,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, Israel is an important ally,
Speaker 1: for sure. I've heard this at great length. I even
Speaker 1: wrote a book more on these themes. But Donald Trump
Speaker 1: needs to do at this point what is best for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, United States, whether this is very high profile
Speaker 1: try to throw off the enemy head fake cafe between
Speaker 1: Trump and anti Yahoo, which I think it probably is.
Speaker 1: But in the alternative, if there actually is a combination
Speaker 1: of pushback both within the Trump administration from the more
Speaker 1: isolation as actors within the administration on the one hand,
Speaker 1: combined with potentially not just Arab allies the Middle East,
Speaker 1: but also Israel, So on the one hand, this could
Speaker 1: be high profile cafe of this head fake. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, there could be a real pushback. The relevant
Speaker 1: point is this that it is Donald Trump's reputation now
Speaker 1: that is on the line. It is his reputation that
Speaker 1: he has to uphold. He chose to make those posts,
Speaker 1: He chose to issue those those threats, those very clear
Speaker 1: statements on his own social media site, through social He
Speaker 1: didn't have to do that, but he chose to do it.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it was advisable, Perhaps it was inadvisable. It does
Speaker 1: not matter. At this point. You cannot let this regime
Speaker 1: get away with trampling on your red line. Trump didn't
Speaker 1: allow them to do it. Last June. He didn't allow
Speaker 1: Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela to escape after making lots of
Speaker 1: threats against him. He didn't allow the various Islamist factions
Speaker 1: in Nigeria to escape after making lots of threats to
Speaker 1: them to stop slaughtering Christians. They learned that the hard
Speaker 1: way on Christmas Day, symbolically of all days, and now
Speaker 1: it is incumbent upon the president to make sure that
Speaker 1: the Molas do not escape neatly. This time, Trump faces
Speaker 1: a fork in the road. On the one hand, he
Speaker 1: could go down God forbid the path of Barack Obama
Speaker 1: as a president, to let his foreign policy dwindle by
Speaker 1: not enforcing a clear red line. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has a unique opportunity to be even more
Speaker 1: of a man of history, a great man of history,
Speaker 1: that is, than he already is. I hope he does
Speaker 1: the right thing for what it's worth. I think he
Speaker 1: will stay with us through the break. I'm Josh Hammer.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Welcome back. Well, there's all this talk,
Speaker 1: of course about the US tend to taking military action
Speaker 1: in Iran, but most of the conversation otherwise continues to
Speaker 1: focus on immigration, ice and what the heck is happening
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis. Again. I don't pretend to know what exactly
Speaker 1: is happening there in the Twin Cities either something in
Speaker 1: the tap water. Why in the world is Minneapolis, this
Speaker 1: frigid coal city with this longstanding Democrat farmer Labor party tradition,
Speaker 1: I mean, why are they at the epicenter of all
Speaker 1: of us? Really? I mean George Floyd in twenty and
Speaker 1: twenty to the Somali fraud scandal that continues to be
Speaker 1: just an exploding national story. I'm hoping to see many
Speaker 1: more indictments, prosecutions and in that story for what it's worth.
Speaker 1: And now to the Renee Good shooting from Jonathan Ross,
Speaker 1: the ICE agents and the protests that are are now
Speaker 1: threatening to spread over the country. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on in Minnesota, but I know
Speaker 1: that it is not good. And one of the things
Speaker 1: that are not good is the adle brains Governor Tim Wallas,
Speaker 1: who really ought to resign in disgrace if he had
Speaker 1: any modicum of shame or self awareness about him whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Tim Walls is an utter and complete disgrace to his job,
Speaker 1: to his position, to a state, to his people, to
Speaker 1: his countrymen. He is an appalling, absolute disgrace. A couple
Speaker 1: of nights ago, he took to YouTube to call on
Speaker 1: Minnesota as his own citizens to take their cameras and
Speaker 1: be citizen activists and start to film, to film the
Speaker 1: ICE agents, film their atrocities, he said, for purposes of
Speaker 1: future lawsuits by who by the ACLU. What are you doing, dude?
Speaker 1: What is your goal?
Speaker 3: Here?
Speaker 1: Is your goal? Actually, as we speculate on this show,
Speaker 1: is your actual goal not just to danger, but God
Speaker 1: forbid to get more ICE agents actually killed for what
Speaker 1: it's worth. Reporting at the Washington Free Beacon indicates that
Speaker 1: the ragtag Rogue Marx's organization known as ICE Watch, which
Speaker 1: is the organization that Renee Good belonged to that she
Speaker 1: was quote unquote trained by before she had her fatal
Speaker 1: confrontation with Jonathan Ross. The ICE Agent is an organization
Speaker 1: that tries to train leftist citizen activists to stop ICE
Speaker 1: immigration forrest in in order to engage in d arresting operations,
Speaker 1: Which is a very fancy way of saying that you
Speaker 1: tried then to go to the federal agents while he
Speaker 1: is arresting and legal alien and stop the arrest. You know,
Speaker 1: A better word for d arrest is anarchy or maybe insurrection,
Speaker 1: as well, you know his case may be Stephan Miller,
Speaker 1: the top domestic policy deputy staff at the White House. Two.
Speaker 1: Miller has some thoughts on anarchy and insurrection in Innesota.
Speaker 1: Go ahead and watch this from Stephen Miller.
Speaker 4: I guess I just go back full circle and say
Speaker 4: that on Minnesota right now, the insurrectionists have come out
Speaker 4: of hiding. They're confronting our officers on the street. They're
Speaker 4: being arrested. This is a national security priority. More arrests.
Speaker 4: The insurrections are being made every day, and each of
Speaker 4: those are rests that provides an opportunity to learn more
Speaker 4: about the network from a law enforcement and national security standpoint.
Speaker 1: So he's calling this an insurrection because it looks a
Speaker 1: lot like an insurrection. Again, Ice watch this organization that
Speaker 1: is apparently behind a lot of these protests. By the way,
Speaker 1: there was a big follow the Money style report that
Speaker 1: showed that this big climate change boondoggles actually behind and
Speaker 1: potentially paying many of these protests as well. That climate
Speaker 1: change organization has gotten funding from all the usual suspects,
Speaker 1: whether it's the Ties Foundation, George Sorosis opens its foundation,
Speaker 1: all the usual left wing suspects are in on the
Speaker 1: action here in Minnesota. So ice Watch, that other far
Speaker 1: left group that Renee a Good, the now deceased leftist
Speaker 1: activist who was killed by Jonathan Rosth, the ICE agent
Speaker 1: in an act cel defense. Ice Watch, the group that
Speaker 1: she belonged to, has now come out with a new
Speaker 1: statement to Stephen Miller's point. Ice Watch now saying that quote,
Speaker 1: the time is ripe to embrace militancy, militancy, and they're
Speaker 1: saying that you have to escalate your demands against ICE
Speaker 1: officers by any means necessary. That is code word for
Speaker 1: violence is appropriate. Force is appropriate by any means necessary.
Speaker 1: Is the exact same language you hear from the Kafiah
Speaker 1: clad Hamas freaks, the from the River to the Sea
Speaker 1: people when they support Hamas and they support Gihab and
Speaker 1: they support murder, rate, pillaging violence, they say by any
Speaker 1: means necessary. That's what ice Watch is saying here in
Speaker 1: a domestic about ICE agents in Minneapolis. By the way,
Speaker 1: just corroborating this, So ice Watch saying there is nothing
Speaker 1: left to do but escalate. Disgusting and Tim Walts and
Speaker 1: Governor totally corroborating this by saying hours after this ice
Speaker 1: Watch team was put out, Tim Waltz, saying that he
Speaker 1: also encouraged residents to resist Ice, and he accused Ice
Speaker 1: of carrying out quote a campaign of organized brutality. Organize brutality.
Speaker 1: Just unbelievable stuff. I absolutely unbelievable. You know, once upon
Speaker 1: a time the Democrats were not totally totally crazy on
Speaker 1: the issue of immigration. Earlier this week, we were discussing
Speaker 1: this portion of Bill Clinton's nine to ninety five State
Speaker 1: of the Union dress talking about the threat of legal immigration.
Speaker 1: Turns out it actually was not just Bill Clinton, actually
Speaker 1: even include people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Go
Speaker 1: ahead and watch this montage compiled by Fox Business.
Speaker 5: And as long as the current laws are on the books,
Speaker 5: it's not just hardened felons who are subject to removal,
Speaker 5: but sometimes families who are just trying to earn a living.
Speaker 5: And sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, you know,
Speaker 5: they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the
Speaker 5: law myself. But that's not how democracy works. To the
Speaker 5: undocumented workers, you have to say, look, you've broken the law.
Speaker 5: You didn't come here the way you were supposed to.
Speaker 5: So this is not going to be a free ride.
Speaker 3: We must continue to do everything we can to strengthen
Speaker 3: our borders, enforce our laws, and remove the illegal aliens
Speaker 3: from our country. Whether they're innocent or guilty of the
Speaker 3: crimes they're charged with in court, they're still here illegally
Speaker 3: and they should be sent out of the country.
Speaker 1: Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.
Speaker 4: People who enter the United States without our permission are
Speaker 4: illegal aliens.
Speaker 3: Democrats support also enforcing laws, current laws against those who
Speaker 3: came here illegally.
Speaker 1: Could you imagine any of that happening today? Literally, any
Speaker 1: of that? Chuck Schumer, Chuck freaking Schumer, Chuck Schumer saying
Speaker 1: that Democrats support and forcing immigration law against illegals, undocumented,
Speaker 1: whatever or Willian term you want to use. Could you
Speaker 1: imagine them saying that today? Unbelievable, Just just absolutely unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Look right now, you have one of the two major
Speaker 1: political parties in America that cannot squarely answer the question,
Speaker 1: as Jacob Fry, the mayor of Minneapolis, deeply struggled to
Speaker 1: do earlier this week in a Fox's interview with Griff Jenkins.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of Democrats who are struggling mightily
Speaker 1: to answer the very basic question as to whether or
Speaker 1: not ICE should be abolished. And in that context, ICE
Speaker 1: is not just an agency, it is a proxy for
Speaker 1: immigration law. You see, this is the globalist dream. They
Speaker 1: don't believe in borders. They don't believe in such thing
Speaker 1: as immigration law. If you actually take the John Lennon
Speaker 1: imagine the globalism utopia, no nations, no religion, no borders,
Speaker 1: no war. You take that to its laws of conclusion.
Speaker 1: They don't believe in immigration law. And that is why
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller is fundamentally correct that this is an insurrection,
Speaker 1: is an insurrection in his domestic anarchy, very similar as
Speaker 1: we've been arguing for weeks now to the Neo Confederate
Speaker 1: insurrection and anarchy that Abraham Lincoln put down. Abraham Lincoln,
Speaker 1: by the way, knew a thing or two about the
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act of eighteen oh seven. In fact, Abraham Lincoln
Speaker 1: actually invoked the Insurrection Act on April fifteenth, eighteen sixty one,
Speaker 1: just days after the first shots of Civil War were
Speaker 1: fired at Fort Sumter. The Insurrection Act, which Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is now threatening to invoke, has been invoked all throughout
Speaker 1: American history, beginning with Jefferson in eighteen oh eight, most
Speaker 1: recently with President George H. W. Bush in ninet ninety two,
Speaker 1: in the context of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: is a statue that allows the domestic use of the
Speaker 1: military to restore order amidst insurrection and anarchy. Well, if
Speaker 1: so called sanctuary cities really are the bastions of neo
Speaker 1: Confederate sentiments that I believe that they that they are,
Speaker 1: If they really believe that the fellow government is immortal
Speaker 1: and evil, and the states have an obligation to defy,
Speaker 1: to nullify federal law, then wouldn't stand to reason that
Speaker 1: the remedy is the same remedy that Lincoln invoked. That's
Speaker 1: the Insurrection Act of eighteen oh seven. For days, President
Speaker 1: tran has been threatening to invoke this statute. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure as a president what you're waiting for. You should
Speaker 1: act on this law. Order must be restored. And yes,
Speaker 1: as they say, by any means necessary, stay with us
Speaker 1: with the break. I'm Josh Hammer will be right back.
Speaker 1: Welcome back. Jordan Peterson one of the most famous persons
Speaker 1: in the entire not just right of center speaking commenting space,
Speaker 1: really this one one of the most well known academics,
Speaker 1: just individuals really in North America. Jordan Peterson became famous,
Speaker 1: among other things, for saying over and over, over and
Speaker 1: over over again, to make your bed in the morning.
Speaker 1: He was really reaching out, above all to disaffected young men.
Speaker 1: He was saying. His message was that if you begin
Speaker 1: your day by, among other things, making your bed, by
Speaker 1: taking care of the small things, you are setting yourself
Speaker 1: up for success and a good day. That order and
Speaker 1: structure are important, and that order and s ructure begin
Speaker 1: with the small things. Think of it as Rudy Giuliani's
Speaker 1: style broken windows policing, and then turn that into day
Speaker 1: to day living in ethics. So broken windows policing is
Speaker 1: the theory that if you begin enforcing crimes against broken windows,
Speaker 1: petty crime, petty larseny, things like that, then that will
Speaker 1: then send a message that the bigger crimes, the rape,
Speaker 1: the homicide, grand theft, auto, et cetera, then that will
Speaker 1: definitely be enforced. And it was remarkably successful for whatever
Speaker 1: it's worth as a matter of urban policing, from the
Speaker 1: JULII minstration through the Bloomberger mistration before build a blasio
Speaker 1: through out the window. Well, so too is Jordan Peterson's
Speaker 1: style make your bed a very successful basic guideline for
Speaker 1: how to live your life. This is one of the
Speaker 1: big big divides as well, between Charlie Kirk and his
Speaker 1: lifelong arch foe, an archfoe who not the last people
Speaker 1: like Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly continue to to laud and
Speaker 1: promote that being Nick Flentes, Charlie Kirk makes memory of
Speaker 1: be a blessing very much took the Jordan Peterson approach.
Speaker 1: If you look at the massive archive of Charlie's talks
Speaker 1: and lecturers and his back and forth with questioners at
Speaker 1: his myriad events, all of that digital archive on YouTuber elsewhere,
Speaker 1: you will see him repeatedly say two young men, teenagers,
Speaker 1: twenty somethings, his core audience for his tragically truncated life.
Speaker 1: He said, over and over and over again, take your
Speaker 1: life into your own hands. If you look in the
Speaker 1: mirror and you don't like the way you look, go
Speaker 1: to the gym, start working out. If you're tired of
Speaker 1: eating dinner by yourself and your one bedroom apartment, you're
Speaker 1: tired of going to sleep by yourself a night you're lonely,
Speaker 1: find that girl and ask her out on a date.
Speaker 1: Maybe you'll even ask her hand in marriage, God willing,
Speaker 1: you'll have children. You don't like your current job, your occupation,
Speaker 1: work harter, develop a new skill set, if you go
Speaker 1: back to school, learn a new technical trade. Whatever the
Speaker 1: case it be. You control because we are human beings,
Speaker 1: we have free will and we have human agency. It's
Speaker 1: a core Peterson Kirk concept. On the other hand, you
Speaker 1: have the Nick Flente style of victimology, a victimology that
Speaker 1: is shared by both the flent Day's quote unquote rights
Speaker 1: to extend that it's on the rights, which not really
Speaker 1: it really isn't, and that victimology that that victim mentality
Speaker 1: is shared by the left. In kind of a bizarre
Speaker 1: horseshoe effect. You have this victimology between parts of the
Speaker 1: so called right and the large bulk of the left,
Speaker 1: best embodied and encapsulated by the DEI mentality. The entire
Speaker 1: premise of DEI diversity, equity of and inclusion is a
Speaker 1: victim mentality. If you are a black person, a Hispanic person,
Speaker 1: if you are a sexual minority, whatever the case may be,
Speaker 1: then you're oppressed and it's not your fault. You see
Speaker 1: the DII. People say, because you were born into that repression,
Speaker 1: you're white Christian and also Asian and Jewish overlords. They
Speaker 1: have systematically been impressing you since before you were born.
Speaker 1: You didn't even know it. This is basically Nick finds
Speaker 1: his message as well when he calls for people to
Speaker 1: so aggressively rage against the machine as he does. He
Speaker 1: doesn't believe in human agency. He believes that his followers
Speaker 1: of the groupers are victims. Well, ironically, I didn't necessarily
Speaker 1: see this coming, but Oprah Winfrey, of all people, had
Speaker 1: some very interesting and i'm very troubling comments when it
Speaker 1: comes to weight loss. Oprah is one of the largest
Speaker 1: stakeholders of weight Watchers. She very famously has been back
Speaker 1: and forth when it comes to her own weight over
Speaker 1: the years, She's spoken about this at great length, and
Speaker 1: she had comments on this that really brought me back
Speaker 1: to this whole broader debate between agency versus victimology. Go
Speaker 1: ahead and watch Oprah Winfrey talking on the view. Yes,
Speaker 1: you know why.
Speaker 6: It's one of my biggest regrets because I think that
Speaker 6: moment contributed to the diet culture in a way to say,
Speaker 6: look at what I've done, Now you can do it.
Speaker 6: And even though everybody said to me, oh, you're going
Speaker 6: to put it back on because I thought it was
Speaker 6: my fault, and because I always thought, like so many
Speaker 6: of you in the world are thinking it's about willpower,
Speaker 6: it is not. Because I thought it was about willpower.
Speaker 6: I thought that moment, Oh it's gone. I thought that moment.
Speaker 6: I thought that moment had proven that I have the
Speaker 6: willpower because I went four months and I didn't eat
Speaker 6: a morsel of food.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Oprah Winfrey essentially saying that sheer willpower is
Speaker 1: not enough, that willpower is not enough, nor to lose weight,
Speaker 1: but you actually really ought to get on medication as well.
Speaker 1: Now most people I think hear that and they say, well,
Speaker 1: that's a little weird, But then you think about a
Speaker 1: little more, and perhaps it's actually even more than weird.
Speaker 1: You would not be wrong to ask whether there are
Speaker 1: some ulterior motives going on here. In fact, I was
Speaker 1: looking around and Jillian Michaels, actually the well known fitness girls,
Speaker 1: actually on Jillian's own show just a Called weeks ago
Speaker 1: to discuss the Maduro operation of Venezuela. So about two
Speaker 1: years ago, Jillian Michaels actually claimed that Oprah Winfrey has
Speaker 1: a quote financial incentive with ozempic after Oprah admitted to
Speaker 1: using various weight loss medication and losing forty pounds, and apparently,
Speaker 1: according to Jillian Michaels, Oprah has this financial incentive to
Speaker 1: ozempic and maybe perhaps a big farm and more generally
Speaker 1: through her stake at weight Watchers. WeightWatchers is now in
Speaker 1: the ozempic business. If you have not been paying attention
Speaker 1: to their particular bismodel, your miles may vary as to
Speaker 1: what to make of that for what it's worth. Shortly
Speaker 1: after Jullie Michaels made these comments January twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Oprah Winfrey actually resigned from the board of Weight Watchers,
Speaker 1: but to my knowledgy has not financially divested, so the
Speaker 1: financial complications may well still be there. But even more
Speaker 1: troubling than whatever ulterior motive there may or may not
Speaker 1: be when it comes to Oprah Winfree talking about how
Speaker 1: will power is not enough, Even more troubling, indeed profoundly
Speaker 1: more troubling than that is the actual message itself. Oprah
Speaker 1: is someone who has led a very inspiring story, coming
Speaker 1: up from the poor background she did and now being
Speaker 1: a billionaire, one of the wealthiest black people in America,
Speaker 1: and frankly the world. She has looked up to as
Speaker 1: a hero by countless, countless Americans, mostly on the left,
Speaker 1: because she's very publicly of the left, speaking as she
Speaker 1: did at the Democrat National Committee in Chicago in August
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. But still she is still lionized by
Speaker 1: many of both a political and an apolitical variety. So
Speaker 1: it should really disturb us that Oprah Winfrey is questioning
Speaker 1: and calling into calling into a deep question, really undermining
Speaker 1: the entire notion that human beings can take their own
Speaker 1: lives into their hands. I could not disagree with this more.
Speaker 1: I have countless friends. I've never been obese. My weights
Speaker 1: fluctuate a little bit like any adults. But I have
Speaker 1: numerous friends who were actually obese. I'm not talking like
Speaker 1: weigh you know, three hundred plus weiy pounds who lost
Speaker 1: a ton of weight. I have one friend who lost
Speaker 1: like one hundred and eighty pounds by doing nothing more
Speaker 1: than walking insane amounts over the course of the day
Speaker 1: and giving up alcohol. That's it. I have another friends
Speaker 1: who lost a similar amounts, easily over one hundred pounds.
Speaker 1: Not sure of one hundred and eighty, but one three whatever.
Speaker 1: Same thing, just walks around all day in New York City,
Speaker 1: eats a little healthier and gave up, gave up the booze, Oprah,
Speaker 1: Why is that not good enough? You know, shouldn't we
Speaker 1: be encouraging young people to do it on natural to
Speaker 1: do it the natural way. This definitely is the Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk Jordan Pier's mentality called the Josh hammerd mentality too.
Speaker 1: If you have a chronic medical condition, by all means,
Speaker 1: takes some medication. I take some prescription drugs as well
Speaker 1: for various conditions, nothing severe, but a couple of smaller things.
Speaker 1: But this is not that it's a weight loss. If
Speaker 1: you are so undisciplined that you can't get yourself to
Speaker 1: eat better, go to the gym, do things to lose weight,
Speaker 1: then you're never gonna have the discipline that's necessary for
Speaker 1: life itself. And that is the real problem with Oprah's
Speaker 1: terrible comments. Frankly, she should be a shame of herself. Awful,
Speaker 1: awful stuff from Oprah Winfrey. I'm Josh Hammer. Stay with us,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back after this break. I'm Josh Hammer,
Speaker 1: and welcome back. Before the break, we were speaking about
Speaker 1: Oprah Winfrey and human agency. Does she believe in it?
Speaker 1: Or does she not believe in it? Frankly, you might
Speaker 1: be confused based on her astounding recent comments about human willpower,
Speaker 1: ozeenpic and weight loss. I think now about the foreign stage,
Speaker 1: there is one particular population across the world who Western powers,
Speaker 1: for decades have said, don't really have human agency to
Speaker 1: overcome their own circumstances. Think for a second about what
Speaker 1: that could be. I'll give you a second. Really got it? Okay? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's the Palestinian Arabs. How many times over the past
Speaker 1: fifty sixty seven years have we heard Western lawmakers from
Speaker 1: Brussels to Turtle Bay, the Nine Nations to everywhere everywhere,
Speaker 1: all the cours of power, the UN, the Democratic National Committee,
Speaker 1: the the Baraco bombinistration, they always say the Palestinians are
Speaker 1: victims of their own circumstances. You can't expect them to
Speaker 1: stop subsidizing jihad, the pay for slave scheme. How can
Speaker 1: you convince them or how can you expect them to
Speaker 1: do that? They're the victims of their own circumstances. Don't
Speaker 1: you see Palestinianism as an identity? Is this dei Twente
Speaker 1: style of victimology transported to the world stage. The Palestinians,
Speaker 1: the so called Palestinians, are now back in the news
Speaker 1: yet again this week. Steve Wikoff, who is the US
Speaker 1: Special Envoy not just for the Middle East but for
Speaker 1: Rush Ukraine, and he's kind of just Donald Trump's right
Speaker 1: hand man when it comes to international diplomacy, for better
Speaker 1: or for worse, as the case may be. So on
Speaker 1: Wednesday earlier this week, Steve Wikoff announcing the launch of
Speaker 1: what is known as Phase two of Donald Trump's twenty
Speaker 1: point plan for finally winding down the war in Gaza.
Speaker 1: And the big news specifically this week is that Phase
Speaker 1: two commences with the establishments of a new quasi government
Speaker 1: of sorts in the Gaza strip is a technocratic Palestinian administration.
Speaker 1: It's known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. Allegedly,
Speaker 1: these folks who are ruling this some folks from the PA,
Speaker 1: the Palatine Authority Mahmunda Bass's group, not particularly moderate, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, but allegedly, allegedly the individuals in
Speaker 1: charge have been vetted by the United States and by
Speaker 1: israel I. Keep on saying, allegedly and heading my language,
Speaker 1: because I'm frankly not unteally sure how much vetting was
Speaker 1: done here. So the leader of this committee, of this
Speaker 1: new technocratic interim phase to committee to try to rule
Speaker 1: Gaza outside of Hamas. The leader is the former Deputy
Speaker 1: Transportation Minister of the Palatine Authority, a man by the
Speaker 1: name of doctor Ali shaff. He doesn't necessarily seem to
Speaker 1: be a moderate figure. So, for instance, when it comes
Speaker 1: to Palestine, Arab sovereignty over broader parts of the broader
Speaker 1: land of Israel, the Holy Land. He said at one point, quote,
Speaker 1: we need a new vision as Palestine people, to transfer
Speaker 1: the destruction of the war to a resilient environment that
Speaker 1: will lead to liberty, liberty from the Israeli occupation and
Speaker 1: to Palestinian sovereignty on Palestinian lands in the West Bank,
Speaker 1: Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. Ah Jerusalem. He wants to conquer Jerusalem. Great.
Speaker 1: So this is the so called moderate now in charge
Speaker 1: of this technocratic government in stage two. Crazy hoot, how
Speaker 1: about on the use of jihad. So the same guy
Speaker 1: who's the head of the technocracy now kind of sort
Speaker 1: of may be ruling Gaza, doctor Ali shot. When it
Speaker 1: comes to Jiha says quoted, international law gives the right
Speaker 1: to any people that live under the occupation to resist
Speaker 1: that occupation. Here we go again, folks. Earlier in the
Speaker 1: contents of Ice, I was talking about by any means necessary,
Speaker 1: that's this. By any means necessary, that's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: There some moderate Look, we'll see where it goes. Obviously,
Speaker 1: everyone wants the bloodshed to wind down. The fundamental problem
Speaker 1: with this whole ritualistic song and dance, this twenty point plan,
Speaker 1: all of this, I wish nothing with the best. The
Speaker 1: fundamental problem is that you are dealing with profoundly ideological actors.
Speaker 1: These are not rational, calculating figures. They're not the Cold
Speaker 1: War era atheist Soviets whose moves you can basically map
Speaker 1: out using game theory or wargame exercises. You can't predict
Speaker 1: this because they are idiologues. Hamas exists to subjugate all infidels,
Speaker 1: and they define as Jews, Christians and non true supremacist Muslims.
Speaker 1: Good luck in terms of trying to get them to
Speaker 1: bow out of power. By the way, even at this point,
Speaker 1: the stipulated terms for so called Phase two have not
Speaker 1: actually really been many yet, having specifically, the final body
Speaker 1: of a slain Israeli has not actually been returned from
Speaker 1: the Gaza stro This is a Master's sergeant who was
Speaker 1: killed on Ntober sent by the name of Ron Gavilli.
Speaker 1: So the latest is that US intelligence believes that it's
Speaker 1: not Hamas but Palestini Islamic jihad that is currently holding
Speaker 1: his body. Wikaugh saying basically that we don't want to
Speaker 1: allow this to prevent us going to Phase two Gaza.
Speaker 1: We'll see where it goes. The big thing to me
Speaker 1: is one, be on the lookout for these Jihattis, these
Speaker 1: wolfs in sheep's clothing who are leading this so called
Speaker 1: moderate technocratic committee. That's one major pause we're concerned right now.
Speaker 1: The other is make sure that pro Islamist, pro Muslim Brotherhood,
Speaker 1: pro Hamas actors don't have a presence in Gaza. There's
Speaker 1: don't a lot to talk about Turkey rest of type Ertawa,
Speaker 1: and the leader of Turkey is a fanatical Islamist. Along
Speaker 1: with Katar. Turkey is one of the largest supporters of
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood, that is the spiritual head of Hamas.
Speaker 1: Why would we give Turkey power in Gaza. Yes, they're
Speaker 1: part of NATO. I don't see why that matters. There's
Speaker 1: absolutely no reason for Turkey to be part of situation
Speaker 1: in Gaza. Absolutely absolutely not. It makes no sense whatsoever,
Speaker 1: God willing things stabilize there in Gaza, God willing the
Speaker 1: notion of Palestinianism, as this Oprah Winfrey style of victimology ends.
Speaker 1: And much as young men these days, a new woman
Speaker 1: can lose weight without ozembic, so too can the Arabs
Speaker 1: build themselves a better life if they are so inclined.
Speaker 1: Thus far, Leaves and Gaza, they have shown very little
Speaker 1: interest in doing that. Before we go for the day,
Speaker 1: I want to briefly touch on this week's tour portions. So,
Speaker 1: as Jews, we read a portion of the five Books
Speaker 1: of Moses Genesis through Deuteronomy every week, and we're getting
Speaker 1: kind of to a really fun part. I mean, objectively,
Speaker 1: it's all holy, it's all amazing, of course, but this
Speaker 1: is a particularly fun part of the tour of the
Speaker 1: five Books Moses. So we are now just in the
Speaker 1: second partia of the second tour portion of the Book
Speaker 1: of Exodus, what we refer to as Parsha Vaira, and
Speaker 1: this is where Moses and his brother Aaron go to
Speaker 1: Pharaoh and they start saying, as you probably heard, let
Speaker 1: my people go. And they say it over and over
Speaker 1: and over again, and Pharaoh just repeatedly says no, repeatedly
Speaker 1: says no. And eventually the staff, the physical staff like
Speaker 1: the walking stick of Aaron most brother, then swallows the
Speaker 1: magic sticks of the Egyptian sorcerers. And this is supposed
Speaker 1: to convince Pharaoh to say, oh, my God, the God
Speaker 1: of the Hebrew people is real, etcetera, etcetera. He still
Speaker 1: doesn't listen, and at that point we get the first
Speaker 1: of the seven of the Ten plagues, the famous ten plagues.
Speaker 1: So the last three will be in next week's tour
Speaker 1: a portion, but the first seven. So, the Nile River
Speaker 1: turns to blood. Swarms of frogs overrun the entire land
Speaker 1: of Egypt. Lice infest all men and beasts, Hordes of
Speaker 1: wild animals invade the cities, A pestilence kills domestic animals,
Speaker 1: Boils afflict the Egyptians. And then for the seventh flake,
Speaker 1: fire and ice continued to descend from the skies in
Speaker 1: the form of a devastating hail. Nonetheless, Pharaoh's heart was
Speaker 1: hardened and it took these three more plagues, including the
Speaker 1: ultimate tenth play, the killing of the first Born, in
Speaker 1: order to convince him to actually let the Israelites go.
Speaker 1: The question that I want to raise and briefly answer
Speaker 1: here in our final moments is this why God, God
Speaker 1: is almighty. Jews and Christians like believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient.
Speaker 1: He is almighty, all powerful. So if the goal here
Speaker 1: of God's goal in the beginning of Exodus is to
Speaker 1: free his chosen people out of bond digit enslavements and
Speaker 1: to bring them back to the chosen land and the
Speaker 1: land that he promised to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Speaker 1: the question is, why couldn't he just do it in
Speaker 1: one fell swoop. Why this painful, painful process, with all
Speaker 1: these ten different plagues. What's the point? The answer, I
Speaker 1: believe is as follows, God is not doing this for
Speaker 1: the Egyptians. He was doing it for the Israelites. It
Speaker 1: was all a bit of an extended act in order
Speaker 1: to increase their faith, their physical awareness that God controls everything,
Speaker 1: that he is almighty. It was an act to increase
Speaker 1: what in Hebrew we've described as Emunah which is faith,
Speaker 1: and vitagne, which is knowledge. In God's omnipotence and omniscients,
Speaker 1: you two can better yourself in life and get away
Speaker 1: from this victimology mentality if you believe with all of
Speaker 1: your emunampta clone your faith and knowledge, that God is real,
Speaker 1: He exists, He loves you, and he cares about you,
Speaker 1: and he wants to make your life better. I'm Josh Hammer.
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend, folks. We'll be right back on Monday.
Speaker 4: The Josh Hammer Show is a member of the Trust Project.