Speaker 1: I'm Josh Hamer, and this is the Josh Hammer Show.
Speaker 1: Nicholas Maduro, the deposed kind of sort of maybe but
Speaker 1: not really, dictator of Venezuela, appearing in New York Federal
Speaker 1: Court on Monday alongside his wife, where he proceeds to
Speaker 1: plead not guilty to the charges for which he was
Speaker 1: indicted initially by a court in Florida, with a superseding
Speaker 1: indictment there in New York City back in the final
Speaker 1: year of the first Trump term, back in twenty twenty. Normally,
Speaker 1: a situation like this where you have a fugitive of
Speaker 1: justice does not necessarily have all the overtones of an
Speaker 1: international foreign policy issue. But because of the nature of
Speaker 1: this particular incident, because of the nature of how this
Speaker 1: went down this past weekend in Caracas, Venezuela, because of
Speaker 1: the involvements of the US Army Delta Force, because of
Speaker 1: the nature of the Maduro regime as a staunch ally
Speaker 1: of all the world's worst actors, from communist China to
Speaker 1: Russia to Iran to Cuba and North Korea to Hesbala
Speaker 1: and everyone in between. Because of all that, this is
Speaker 1: not simply a legal matter, but very much a foreign
Speaker 1: policy matter as well. First, just a further coda on
Speaker 1: the law. On the Essays show, we spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time talking about the specter in some cases, perhaps
Speaker 1: many cases, the misnomer of so called international law, which
Speaker 1: is often invoked as a sword, but is rarely understood
Speaker 1: by those who have a tendency to invoke it. Specifically,
Speaker 1: we expect at this trial, which is probably going to
Speaker 1: take years, if I had to guess, especially including the
Speaker 1: appeals that will inevitably come, Maduro's lawyers are going to
Speaker 1: invoke all sorts of so called international law defenses. They're
Speaker 1: going to appeal to his purported alleged status as the
Speaker 1: head of state, for which they are going to claim
Speaker 1: that he is entitled to absolute immunity to being prosecuted
Speaker 1: in foreign courts of law. The problem is multifault. On
Speaker 1: the one hand, this has been tried before. We mentioned
Speaker 1: yesterday that there have been multiple cinenses, Ronald Reagan going
Speaker 1: into the country of Grenada in the early nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: along with perhaps even more Saliencly to the point George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush going into Patama thirty six years to the day
Speaker 1: prior to the Caracas raid this past Saturday, and Back
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety, the George HW. Bush administration got the
Speaker 1: disputed illegitimate drug trafficking drug overlord, Dictator Patama Manuel Noriega,
Speaker 1: on very similar charges. Noriega's lawyers back then offered many
Speaker 1: defenses that Maduro's lawyers are going to offer now. Those
Speaker 1: defenses failed in nineteen ninety, and those defenses are going
Speaker 1: to fail today because Nicholas Maduro is not a legitimately
Speaker 1: elected head of state. This has been the policy of
Speaker 1: three successive presidential administrations, going back to Donald Trump's first term,
Speaker 1: going into the Biden administration, which had a fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars bounty on Maduro's head, much to the apparent surprise
Speaker 1: of the dim witted former VP Kamala Harris, who over
Speaker 1: the weekend was excoriating Donald Trump and no en certain turn.
Speaker 1: And then that policy of not recognized Nicholas Madua as
Speaker 1: the head of state has continued into this MAGA two
Speaker 1: point zero second Trump administration as well. By the way,
Speaker 1: that sentiment is not simply a sentiment of the United
Speaker 1: States of America. That legal assessment is shared by such
Speaker 1: liberal bastions as Canada and by the European Union itself.
Speaker 1: So Maduro is best understood as a fugitive justice who
Speaker 1: just happens to live in a foreign country. Now we
Speaker 1: can always got agains details as whether or not he's
Speaker 1: actually going to be convicted by a jury in New
Speaker 1: York City. This is the same location, New York City
Speaker 1: that found Donald Trump to be guilty on those outrageous,
Speaker 1: ludicrous Stormy Daniels corporate bookkeeping nonsense Alvin Bragg Stalinist prosecution
Speaker 1: hoax back in two thousand and twenty four. So we
Speaker 1: can kind of get into the juror debate and the
Speaker 1: betty markets Polymarket and the other online betting markets. We're
Speaker 1: having a lot of fun with that. Yesterday talking about
Speaker 1: whether or not he's actually going to be convicted ron
Speaker 1: the Santas of Florida and the governor having a little
Speaker 1: fun with that. He quote tweeted the Polymarket guessing game
Speaker 1: and basically said, you know what, I bet this guy
Speaker 1: would probably convicted if he were in Florida and as
Speaker 1: at Florida, and I think that our governor is absolutely right. Frankly,
Speaker 1: I would love to see Madureau try by a jury
Speaker 1: of his peers in Dural, Florida, which is one of
Speaker 1: the homes of the Venezuela and expats community, those who
Speaker 1: have fled communism there in Venezuela, very much located here
Speaker 1: in South Florida. So I do not expect Maduro's legal
Speaker 1: defenses to go well. Much that has been tried and
Speaker 1: rejected before. Having said that, when you get to a
Speaker 1: jury trial, sometimes you just don't know. And this kind
Speaker 1: of gets into the overarching debate when it comes to
Speaker 1: the jurors system, whether it has outlied its usefulness. We're
Speaker 1: going to table that discussion for now. Perhaps we will
Speaker 1: revisit it at an opportune time sometime down the road. Now, there's,
Speaker 1: as as mentioned, there are all sorts of foreign policy
Speaker 1: and domestic political overtones to the Maduro capture, And yes
Speaker 1: it is a capture. First of all. When it comes
Speaker 1: to the left, what exactly is are to say? That
Speaker 1: has not been settled ready, but we're going to say
Speaker 1: it anyway. There how many freaking absurd dictators, tyrannical jack
Speaker 1: booted thugs overseas. Will these people just leap leap to defense?
Speaker 1: And when I say leap in some cases, I mean
Speaker 1: literally leap Over the weekend on Saturday. What it took
Speaker 1: a few hours, a few hours for these these leftists,
Speaker 1: many of whom are these professional paid protesters, paid by
Speaker 1: the Soros Foundation and the Ties Foundation, all these various
Speaker 1: left wing NGOs undoubtedly paid the same thing that that
Speaker 1: the pro Hamas Jihadis on Canvas are paid. In the
Speaker 1: aftermath of the horrific October seven, twenty twenty three pro
Speaker 1: gone on Saturday, they what these folks. They leap out
Speaker 1: of bed in the morning as if they have nothing
Speaker 1: better to do on honest Saturday, and they're in the
Speaker 1: streets seemingly within minutes, within hours, the most of the
Speaker 1: news actually breaking the American airwaves that Maduro has indeed
Speaker 1: been captured by US Delta Force. As it turns out,
Speaker 1: we now know that a lot of this active of
Speaker 1: the was organized and funded buy a group known as
Speaker 1: the People's Forum, which has very very close ties to yes,
Speaker 1: you guessed have the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, that
Speaker 1: People's Forum, which is behind we know this for a
Speaker 1: fat The New York Post, among others are Portium. They
Speaker 1: are behind a lot, probably not at all, but a
Speaker 1: lot of the coordinate activity when it comes to the
Speaker 1: pro Maduro raties this past week, and there the People's Forum,
Speaker 1: taking in at least one instance, twenty million dollars in
Speaker 1: donation from a very very closely tied Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: activist by the name of Nebell Singham. Not a very
Speaker 1: Chinese signing name, but I guess he is a Chinese propagandist,
Speaker 1: and he actually lives in Shanghai, so virtually none of
Speaker 1: this is organic. But you know, it's kind of funny.
Speaker 1: Today is the five year anniversary of January six, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, a day that will live in infamy, right,
Speaker 1: And I didn't really necessarily want to talk about January
Speaker 1: sixth on say show, because frankly, I kind of forgot
Speaker 1: that it was January six, because five years later it's
Speaker 1: it's literally that much of a forgot nothing burger to me.
Speaker 1: But we should at least say the following, which is
Speaker 1: the folks who are out there, and from a quick
Speaker 1: scan of social media and so forth, they are clearly
Speaker 1: out there. The folks who are still lamenting into crying,
Speaker 1: who are still lambasting Donald Trump as being an opponent
Speaker 1: of American democracy, for being complicit in the day that
Speaker 1: democracy almost died in twenty twenty one, five years ago.
Speaker 1: To the day. Many of these folks are the same
Speaker 1: folks who are out there industrys protesting in vociferous, clamorous
Speaker 1: fashion this past weekend on behalf on behalf of the
Speaker 1: Maduro regime. Try to square that circle for me. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a threat to democracy for doing what,
Speaker 1: literally for doing what for cleaning up your streets via
Speaker 1: the National Guard. He's a threat to democracy by trying
Speaker 1: to make sure that the unelected, undemocratic administrative states does
Speaker 1: not wield disapportionate power. So he wants to say that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. But e Colis Maduro,
Speaker 1: the guy who banned opposition newspapers, guy who murdered countless
Speaker 1: of his own citizens, the guy who was literally running
Speaker 1: a transnational drug trafficking ring called the Cartel Dilla, souls
Speaker 1: that that guy is not a threat to democracy. What
Speaker 1: is wrong with you? Like, actually, what is wrong with you?
Speaker 1: I mean numerous elected officials from the democratic class, not
Speaker 1: just the lefting activists, many elect officials completely and utterly
Speaker 1: declining themselves on this question. Maggie Goodlander is a congresswoman
Speaker 1: from the granted state of the state of New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: You man have heard of her. You might have not
Speaker 1: heard of her. She refused to answer a question as
Speaker 1: to whether arresting Maderda was a good thing. Here is
Speaker 1: representative Goodlander on CNN.
Speaker 2: Do you think it's a good thing that Mduro is
Speaker 2: no longer in power?
Speaker 3: Maduall was a dictator, He is a thug, and he
Speaker 3: was a grave disservice to the Venezuelan people. But look
Speaker 3: here in New Ham sure we're celebrating today the two
Speaker 3: hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our constitution. I believe what
Speaker 3: my stage is showed in the world is that a
Speaker 3: government of buy and for the people themselves is what
Speaker 3: we should be aiming towards.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you're not answer the question, basically, you're not
Speaker 1: saying that arresting this narco terrorist who has caused immense
Speaker 1: suffering not just to his own people and very much
Speaker 1: to the American people through his international drug trafficking, just
Speaker 1: categorically refused to answer this question. By the way, she
Speaker 1: is exactly the kind of person, this backbencher congress woman
Speaker 1: who most people probably never get her. She's exactly the
Speaker 1: kind of person who I guarantee you in her various
Speaker 1: press releases and her social media feed her this or
Speaker 1: that is engaging in hysterical, hysterical melo drama and histrionics.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the five year anniversary over the
Speaker 1: day that democracy almost die January sixth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: Some other Democrats, by the way, are playing the war
Speaker 1: powers game. They're saying, oh, man, Congress is not consulted
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Maduro ray. For instance, here
Speaker 1: was Congressman Glenn Ivy of Maryland, who is big time
Speaker 1: mad big time I med that Congress wasn't briefed here
Speaker 1: as Congressman Glenn Ivy on WSA nine in Washington, DC.
Speaker 4: Can you tell us a bit more before we go?
Speaker 4: And I know we're all still learning about all of
Speaker 4: this at the same time, but there are there any
Speaker 4: other specific diplomatic or economic steps that you think Congress
Speaker 4: can do to push for some stability in Venezuela at
Speaker 4: this point?
Speaker 5: Well, you know, first step I think is to get
Speaker 5: the full briefing on where.
Speaker 1: Things actually stand.
Speaker 5: And that's why the briefing should have taken place before
Speaker 5: they made the move into Venezuela instead of afterwards, because
Speaker 5: now we're trying to play catch up with that and
Speaker 5: trying to make these guys of diplomatic decisions of you,
Speaker 5: as you've raised, but not having full information.
Speaker 1: Yet, so as we spent on yesterday's show, this is
Speaker 1: better understood and not as a military operation, but as
Speaker 1: a law enforcement operation. There are clear foreign policy overtones.
Speaker 1: We discussed it briefly yesterday and we'll get to it
Speaker 1: at greater length and greater depth momentarily, but it's primarily
Speaker 1: a law enforcement operation for the very simple reason that
Speaker 1: Maduro is one not the legit mids head of state
Speaker 1: of Venezuela. In twenty nineteen, you had Juan Waido, who
Speaker 1: according to many won the election in twenty eighteen, then
Speaker 1: the protests nearly twenty nineteen. At minimum, in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four you had and Mundo Gonzalez, who won the election
Speaker 1: most international observers, including the Eurocrats and Brussels recognized. So
Speaker 1: he's not the legitimate head of states, and this was
Speaker 1: trying to extract someone to face justice on an indictment.
Speaker 1: If Madua had been in the United States, there would
Speaker 1: have been no reason for the US military to be involved.
Speaker 1: You would have had the US marshals or the FBI
Speaker 1: or SWAT teams go ahead and do it there. So
Speaker 1: this is not a war powers question. There is no
Speaker 1: declare war operation going on. There are plenty of big
Speaker 1: questions as to what happens to Venezuela, and among those
Speaker 1: questions are what we're going to be dealing with on
Speaker 1: the rest of our show. I'm probably dealing with that,
Speaker 1: frankly for months and months and months now. But this
Speaker 1: notion of war powers is totally ludicrous there, and this
Speaker 1: congressman has no idea what we saw him about it.
Speaker 1: I'm Joshamer will be right back, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: So the foreign policy raifications are indeed dress. This was
Speaker 1: primarily a law enforcement operation. There naturally are major foreign
Speaker 1: policy overtones too much of what is going on there.
Speaker 1: The former Maduro vice president, who was sworn in pretty
Speaker 1: much immediately after the extraction Maduro as the nation's acting president,
Speaker 1: is a one by the name of Delci Rodriguez. Delcea
Speaker 1: Rodriguez is a lunatic. She's an absolute lunatic by all accounts.
Speaker 1: She gets someone who is just as far left it, frankly,
Speaker 1: not even further to the left then Nicholas Maduro himself.
Speaker 1: Among other things that Dela Rodriguez did in the immediate
Speaker 1: aftermath of being sworn in by the Venezuelan and Supreme
Speaker 1: Court as the current acting President. Among the things that
Speaker 1: Delsea Rodriguez did was she proceeded to blame the Maduro
Speaker 1: extraction on Oh, yeah, you guessed it, the Jews. No doubt,
Speaker 1: she's been watching many episodes of the Tucker Carlson Show.
Speaker 1: So Rodriguez there talking about how this is a foreign
Speaker 1: orchestrated plot generally has just been sounding like a crazy person.
Speaker 1: After she was scorn in, she immediately went to the diplomats,
Speaker 1: the emissaries of hostile American of regimes hostiles to American
Speaker 1: interests such as Russia in China, the very same notional
Speaker 1: nominal Venezuela and quote unquote allies that did absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: to prevent this extraction in the first place. There So
Speaker 1: Rodriguez walks over to the representative of the Chinese Communist government,
Speaker 1: to the representative of the Russian Federation, proceeds to thank
Speaker 1: them and glad hand them and smile at ear to air.
Speaker 1: So it seems, on the one hand that it is
Speaker 1: very much more of the same, which again raises this
Speaker 1: question as to what exactly is the trum administration doing
Speaker 1: here when it comes to trying to make this work
Speaker 1: with Delsa Rodriguez if we were actually going to quote
Speaker 1: unquote run Venezuela, which is a very open question, and
Speaker 1: it's what Donald Trump has been saying that's been being
Speaker 1: encountered a little bit by Marco Rubio, who seems to
Speaker 1: be downplaying the notion of America quote unquote running Venezuela.
Speaker 1: But if we're actually going to do this, then why
Speaker 1: in the world are we doing this with someone who
Speaker 1: is just as crazy a pink o kami as Maduro himself.
Speaker 1: Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do it
Speaker 1: with basically the diet coke vanilla version of Maduro Delsa Rodriguez.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: An interesting conversation that was posted at the Free Press
Speaker 1: publication earlier today. David Petraeus, you might I remember him
Speaker 1: as being the head of the Iraq War era Counterincertgaincy,
Speaker 1: someone whose thoughts are generally highly esteemed considered when it
Speaker 1: comes to military matters and yes, matters of so called
Speaker 1: regime change. Dan Patreya is actually sounding a note of
Speaker 1: concurrence with the administration and basically saying that this is
Speaker 1: the least likely path to go awry, And there's some
Speaker 1: truth in that. If you're going to go in and
Speaker 1: you're going to extract someone who maybe he's not the
Speaker 1: legitimate head of state, but he at least had the entrapments,
Speaker 1: He at least had the accouterments, the quasi public impromatore
Speaker 1: of presidential status quasi because there are many folks who
Speaker 1: disputed that correctly and rightfully disputed that, but he still
Speaker 1: was viewed by many as the president. If you're going
Speaker 1: to do that, does it make sense to then just
Speaker 1: go guns fully blazing, proverbally or literally speaking, and just
Speaker 1: try to go in and install a pro American puppet. Well,
Speaker 1: that hasn't necessarily always worked out for the best case
Speaker 1: scenario for the United States when it comes to a
Speaker 1: lot of failed Latin American interventions in decades past. The
Speaker 1: point that betrays making in this interview, and it resonates
Speaker 1: a little bit with me, is that you should try
Speaker 1: to do the incrementalist thing. Right Now, Maduro was a fugitive,
Speaker 1: You had a fifty million dollars bound his head. We
Speaker 1: got them. Now, let's see if there's a way that
Speaker 1: the United States can use its overwhelming diplomatic and economic
Speaker 1: leverage to try to make do with the logical successor
Speaker 1: if Rodriguez ends up not being interested in playing ball. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe that is another conversation. This does, though, raise the
Speaker 1: broader conversation, which is what the heck is going on
Speaker 1: when it comes to American foreign policy at this moment?
Speaker 1: Is America actually emerging now as something of a twenty
Speaker 1: first empire? And that's quite a paradox, isn't it. It's
Speaker 1: quite ironic, and I think some would suggest that Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who campaigns at least to some extent, as being a
Speaker 1: much more humble, modest figure on the world stage. I
Speaker 1: think back to the twenty sixteen Republican president as a premier,
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump excoriated Jeb Bush to his face for
Speaker 1: his brother George W. Bush's adventurism, his adventurism abroad in
Speaker 1: Iraqi and Afghanistan. It is definitely something of an irony
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is now here talking and in many
Speaker 1: ways not just talking, but acting as something of a
Speaker 1: foreign interventionist himself. And the question that is being bad
Speaker 1: around I think a lot of folks all across politist
Speaker 1: past Marto asking there is what exactly is this administration
Speaker 1: doing when it comes to foreign policy. Let me throw
Speaker 1: in two additional wrinkles into the conversation. Then we will
Speaker 1: revisit this broader topic momentarily. Those two additional wrinkles are
Speaker 1: Iron and Greenland. Let's go ahead and take those situations
Speaker 1: one by one. Iran has now been facing a week
Speaker 1: and a half of protests. They started a few days
Speaker 1: after Christmas, and at this point there are Iranian protesters
Speaker 1: who are out on the streets and they are now
Speaker 1: all throughout the country of Iran. They are now in
Speaker 1: all of the twenty plus provinces of Iran. Based on
Speaker 1: what we are seeing across social media, it seems that
Speaker 1: there are protesters who have now taken actually they've actually
Speaker 1: taken over parts of Islamic Revolutionary Guard core military basis.
Speaker 1: They've taken over parts of Tehran City, municipal infrastructure, parts
Speaker 1: of markets. There. There have now been at least a
Speaker 1: dozen and a half two dozen protesters who've been visually
Speaker 1: killed by this most tyrannical of Islamus theocratic regimes. And
Speaker 1: there's been fascinating reporting coming from the Times of London,
Speaker 1: a pretty prestigious, well known British newspaper that the Ayatola
Speaker 1: himself Kaimeni, who is the quote unquote supreme leader. He's
Speaker 1: the real leader of this horrific Islamist theocracy. According to
Speaker 1: The Times London, Kaimni actually has a planning part if
Speaker 1: the IRGC stops fighting, if the regime looks like it's
Speaker 1: about the collapse, then it looks like Comedy is basically
Speaker 1: going to hit the road. He's gonna hit the panic,
Speaker 1: butt him and make a bee line straight for Lamar
Speaker 1: Putin's welcoming warm bosom in Moscow. He'll basically in that case,
Speaker 1: Comedy will basically be trying to do the same thing
Speaker 1: that Bascher al Asad did after he was toppled in Damascus, Syria,
Speaker 1: just over a year ago. Very hard to know exactly
Speaker 1: how accurate this reporting is, but it does seem pretty
Speaker 1: clear that this is the most serious uprising against the
Speaker 1: Irani regime at least since the Green Revolution of two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, during the very early years of the
Speaker 1: Obam presidency. It's true that other there have been protests
Speaker 1: against the running regime for many, many years. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of women who are protesting the he job
Speaker 1: as recently as a few years ago in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: This happens on a fairly regular basis because the regime
Speaker 1: was just frankly that evil. But this is going on
Speaker 1: for a while and they have good reason to be upset.
Speaker 1: The currency, the real has dropped forty percent, inflation is
Speaker 1: through the roof, the economy is in the toilet. The
Speaker 1: entire country is heavily sanctioned due to their financing of
Speaker 1: terrorist activity. There's been a terrible drought and the country
Speaker 1: has as deeply struggled to provide wa are the most
Speaker 1: basic of baar necessities to their people there. So is
Speaker 1: the regime going to fall? Well, look, he never acount
Speaker 1: your chickens before their hatch. Donald Trump, for what it's worth,
Speaker 1: kind of now playing this second term more moralistic, more
Speaker 1: interventionist person, Donald Trump saying that if the regime starts
Speaker 1: killing in mass some of their own distance, some of
Speaker 1: their own protests, the United States is going to get involved,
Speaker 1: which is yet another another threat of humanitarian or humanitarian
Speaker 1: adjacent intervention, playing off of his intervention on Christmas Day
Speaker 1: in Nigeria where he attacked ISIS related Islamis cells in
Speaker 1: order to save the persecuted besieged Christians of Nigeria. Now
Speaker 1: it's only humanitarian adjacent in the case of Iran, because
Speaker 1: Iran is also a horrific national security threat, and removing
Speaker 1: that regime would almost assuredly definitely be a net positive
Speaker 1: for the United States, for the West, frankly, for all
Speaker 1: of humanity there. But we're not going to get involved
Speaker 1: necessarily militarily with Iran. But it does seem entirely possible
Speaker 1: that you could see the United States engage, not just
Speaker 1: in moral or rhetorical supports, it seemed entirely possible that
Speaker 1: the administration might start getting involved when it comes to
Speaker 1: trying to vet individuals may provide weapons there at a
Speaker 1: bare minimum, this administration that is deeply morally and rhetorically
Speaker 1: supportive of the Iranian people. In fact, some of the
Speaker 1: protesters in Tehran just over the past couple of days,
Speaker 1: this is an amazing anecdote. They actually took a street
Speaker 1: and they renamed the street. The street was actually renamed
Speaker 1: over a former Islamist in the theocratic regime, and they
Speaker 1: renamed it after Donald Trump because Donald Trump is known
Speaker 1: as a champion of the Iranian people. Look in many ways, folks,
Speaker 1: I have some of the exact same horrific memories of
Speaker 1: the regime change boon doggles that you probably do. The
Speaker 1: Iraq War was a disaster, and frankly, the winner of
Speaker 1: the Iraq War was actually this regime, the Irani regime,
Speaker 1: who profited immensely off of the two trillion dollars that
Speaker 1: were wasted wasted by the United States of America. But
Speaker 1: it's important also to not overread the lessons of the
Speaker 1: failed moralistic boon doggles of yesteryear. Is simply the case
Speaker 1: of the United States has regimes on the world stage,
Speaker 1: some of which are friendly to us, some of which
Speaker 1: are hostile to us. The amount of American blood on
Speaker 1: the hands of the Irani regime is impossible to even quantify.
Speaker 1: It is a horrific regime. And when it comes to
Speaker 1: the barest of bare minimums of providing rhetorical sooker and
Speaker 1: support for these protesters, Donald Trump is doing the exact
Speaker 1: right thing. It is an active courage to do what
Speaker 1: he's doing there. He deserves tremendous credit for it. God
Speaker 1: speed to the running protesters. We'll be right back.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: As if all of these actions whether it's Nigeria, whether
Speaker 1: it's Venezuela, or whether it's the possible continuing of some
Speaker 1: sort of action in Iran. And by the way, just
Speaker 1: a quick addendum to our comments on Iran, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has indeed now all but said that if Iran starts
Speaker 1: rebuilding their nuclear capacity and their blisted mist capacity at
Speaker 1: a greater scale than they currently already are, then the
Speaker 1: United States will likely go in with some sort of
Speaker 1: additional military action, possibly done in coordination with Israel, possibly
Speaker 1: just done solo. Numerous Republican centers such as Center ricuson
Speaker 1: Nebraska nodding along vociferously when asked by that, and it
Speaker 1: seemed to that is a credible threat. Up There's also
Speaker 1: the issue of Greenland. Now, Greenland is a fascinating territory
Speaker 1: of Greenland is the largest island in the world unless
Speaker 1: you count to Australia, which you can't because of Australia
Speaker 1: is a continent. So Greenland is a massive, massive island
Speaker 1: which only has about fifty thousand people, sitting basically right
Speaker 1: in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. If you look
Speaker 1: on a map, it actually is closer to the eastern
Speaker 1: seaboard of the United States than it is to Denmark,
Speaker 1: which it is technically a part of and has been
Speaker 1: a part of that for a long time now, there
Speaker 1: have been Republicans who have been chomping at the bit
Speaker 1: to try to bring Greenland into the American fold for
Speaker 1: a long time. I think back to this OpEd that
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton wrote for The New York Times probably twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, towards the end of the first Trump term,
Speaker 1: basically calling for the United States we find a way
Speaker 1: to annex Greenland. And ever since he came back in
Speaker 1: office about a year ago last January, Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: been talking to talk quite aggressively when it comes to
Speaker 1: the issue of Greenland. He correctly correctly sees that the Arctic,
Speaker 1: the Arctic region is a very very crucial region when
Speaker 1: it comes to mintal resources, when it comes to military defense.
Speaker 1: Think about it, it's the literal top of the world.
Speaker 1: When you are flying from Russia to Alaska to Canada,
Speaker 1: the Greenland there. The nature of the physical global mass
Speaker 1: entity is such a these are quicker lights up there,
Speaker 1: or these are these are these are quicker ships on
Speaker 1: the icebreaker ships that go through the Arctic Ocean. You
Speaker 1: can cut off a lot of time. And because of that,
Speaker 1: and because it is where a lot of countries and
Speaker 1: land masses meets, whether it's Russia, whether it's Canada, Greenlands
Speaker 1: and so forth, it is a it is considered a crucial, crucial,
Speaker 1: crucial part of the world. And what Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: been saying is that Denmark and the European Union are
Speaker 1: not doing a particularly great job of safeguarding the the
Speaker 1: very real ravications of Greenland, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: trying to ward off Chinese and Russian aggression. China, for
Speaker 1: what it's worth, has been investing a ton of resources
Speaker 1: when it comes to its own military, the People's Liberation Army,
Speaker 1: they are in the Arctic. And a fascinating joint statement
Speaker 1: that came out or to Stay a statement signed by
Speaker 1: President's Manuel macrona France chancellor mergers with Germany Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Georgia Maloney of Italy, Donald Tuska, Poland, and on and
Speaker 1: on and on. This joint statement says Arctic security remains
Speaker 1: a key priority for Europe and is crucial for international
Speaker 1: and transland security. But Denmark is a NATO country, Greenland's
Speaker 1: part of NATO. And if you do this, mister President
Speaker 1: you're basically going to blow up the NATO alliance Woodsworth.
Speaker 1: John Bolton, Yes, that John Bolton was on CNN and
Speaker 1: saying much the exact same thing. Here is John Bolton.
Speaker 2: And as for Greenland, every time he mentions this, Trump
Speaker 2: endangers the NATO alliance. And if we were to take
Speaker 2: a military action against Greenland, God forbid, it would be
Speaker 2: the end of NATO. There are some of the administration
Speaker 2: who would consider that a twofer. Unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Okay, so first of all, he's song you hear about
Speaker 1: folks who desired the grid of NATO. I don't desire
Speaker 1: the grid of NATO. But what I have been saying
Speaker 1: for many years is that NATO was founded in the
Speaker 1: Cold War to accomplish an objective. The objective was to contain,
Speaker 1: roll back, or defeat the Soviet Union. That goal was
Speaker 1: accomplished three and a half decades ago. So if you
Speaker 1: want to have some sort of international coalition of first
Speaker 1: world powers and the G seven is not enough for you,
Speaker 1: or the G twenty, if you want to do that,
Speaker 1: I'm open to it, but the mission surely should change.
Speaker 1: What exactly is the mission of NATO at this point?
Speaker 4: There?
Speaker 1: I mean, I support fully some sort of similar coalition
Speaker 1: to try to contain Chinese Communist Party hegemony. But the
Speaker 1: parties will look quite a bit different than trying to
Speaker 1: make a common cause with many of these European powers
Speaker 1: that the Trump Minstration, to their great credit, has been
Speaker 1: noting time and time again, they increasedly do not even
Speaker 1: share our same values. Now. Jason Miller, who's been part
Speaker 1: of the Trump infrastructure for the better part of a decade.
Speaker 1: He's been a very frequently Trump presidential campaign hand. He's
Speaker 1: been in and out of government as well. Jason Miller
Speaker 1: was on gb News of the UK to say that
Speaker 1: Greenland should be a territorial area that's controlled by the US.
Speaker 1: But no, there's not going to be invasion of Greenland.
Speaker 1: That's just a silly distraction to me. That seems totally right. Look,
Speaker 1: there is preston tier in American foreign policy when it
Speaker 1: comes to engaging in what Trump calls the art of
Speaker 1: the deal. Think back to the purchase of Alaska, William
Speaker 1: Sewer's purchase of Alaska in the eighteen sixties from Russia.
Speaker 1: From Czarist to Russia. We purchased Alaska, the Louisiana purchase. Hello,
Speaker 1: have you ever read a history book, you get people.
Speaker 1: The Louisiana purchase was purchase as the name would apply
Speaker 1: from King Louis and the French Thomas Jarreson double the
Speaker 1: size of the United States. How about the Gadsden purchase
Speaker 1: in southwestern United States? To this narrow sliver at the
Speaker 1: southern end of Arizona, New Mexico. We've done this any
Speaker 1: number of times before, where you make an offer to
Speaker 1: a foreign power if you try to purchase a land.
Speaker 1: Is it really that crazy that the pre the United
Speaker 1: States is talking about possibly trying to purchase Greenland. There's
Speaker 1: not any boots on the ground. For God's sake, what
Speaker 1: are these history honus? I mean, John Bolton, what are
Speaker 1: you smoking?
Speaker 3: Dude?
Speaker 1: Like are what are you smoking? At this point? No
Speaker 1: one talking about that. Look, when it comes to this
Speaker 1: Trump two point zero foreign policy agenda in general, whether
Speaker 1: it's Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, is Greenland talk, here's how to
Speaker 1: view it. Donald Trump fundamentally rejects the false dichotomy of
Speaker 1: hawk or dove, of neo conservative or isolationists. And he
Speaker 1: rejects it for a very simple reason because that dichotomy
Speaker 1: is stupid. It's outmoded, it's overly simplistic, and it's really
Speaker 1: really freaking stupid. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: like the vast majority of Americans, lies somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 1: His foreign policies is simple. He assesses every single area,
Speaker 1: every hot spot around the world and says, what is
Speaker 1: the American national interest in this spot and what can
Speaker 1: and should the United States do when it comes to
Speaker 1: trying to improve, augment, bolsters and secure our interests In
Speaker 1: this particular response, when it comes to Greenland, the President
Speaker 1: correctly deduces that our interests would be furthered by actually
Speaker 1: controlling it ourselves and having US military bases there in
Speaker 1: this crucial part of the world in the Arctic. To
Speaker 1: better word off Russian and Chinese gemony, among others. When
Speaker 1: it comes to Venezuela, a Donald Trump called the Donro
Speaker 1: doctrine instead the Monroe doctrine. Dontum correctly recognizes that not
Speaker 1: having this Hezbollah run Russia, China Cuba tied illegitimate dictator
Speaker 1: and power is a win for the United States. What
Speaker 1: happens next, we'll have to find out, but it's a
Speaker 1: win for the United States. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: he's the head of an international cartel ring, the Cartel
Speaker 1: de la Souls, and was indicted with a fifty million
Speaker 1: dollar bounty on his head. So it's this case by
Speaker 1: case assessments. There are a lot of folks out there
Speaker 1: who are now scratching their head and saying, eh, I
Speaker 1: didn't vote for this. I didn't really vote for this.
Speaker 1: This is not what I had in mind there. This
Speaker 1: is This is empire, not humble American Republicanism, to which
Speaker 1: I say, were you paying attention during the first Trump administration?
Speaker 1: Did Donald Trump give you any indication during the first
Speaker 1: term that he was a Ron Pohl style isolationist? The
Speaker 1: guy who likes to take credit for bombing isis out
Speaker 1: of effective existence in Iraq and Syria for things like
Speaker 1: the assassination of the Iranian arch terrorists Kasai Sulimani at
Speaker 1: the baged at a Rock airport in January of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Was this the act of an isolationist? The guy who
Speaker 1: bolstered anti Russian missile defense in Central and Eastern Europe
Speaker 1: repeatedly delivered a positively reaganized speech in Warsaw, Poland in
Speaker 1: the first year as presidency. In twenty seventeen, facing eastward,
Speaker 1: looking directly into the offing at vamer Putin and the Kremlin.
Speaker 1: Is that the guy that is going to just duck
Speaker 1: and hide. Who's going to just let in this case
Speaker 1: Maduro Love the American homeland with drugs. Who's going to
Speaker 1: allow Russian and China to make ever more aggressive encroachments
Speaker 1: in our hemisphere when it comes to things like Greenland. No,
Speaker 1: dald Trump is America first, and he understands America first
Speaker 1: to mean that he's going to put his country's interest first.
Speaker 1: How that plays out is going to differ on the situation.
Speaker 1: But America first is not the same as do nothing. Sometimes,
Speaker 1: in order to put your country first, you have to
Speaker 1: actually act on it. Donald Trump is a man of action.
Speaker 1: He demonstrates that time and time again. So the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister of Denmark, I would say, be careful and be
Speaker 1: on the lookout for an offer coming your way. Probably
Speaker 1: fairly soon, we'll be right back to be America first.
Speaker 1: Dald Trump makes clear means sometimes to actually simply focus
Speaker 1: from seed deshining sea here on the American confidence. Oftentimes
Speaker 1: that is the case. Oftentimes it means trying to to
Speaker 1: secure the southern border or trying to stop crime in
Speaker 1: America's crime ridden cities like Memphis, Saint Louis, Kansas City,
Speaker 1: and on and on and on. Oftentimes it means focusing
Speaker 1: on the economy and things like that. But sometimes being
Speaker 1: America first does mean to care beyond your country, to
Speaker 1: care beyond your borders, and to care beyond your shores.
Speaker 1: If America were a country like Lithuania or Kosovo, or Ghana, Botswana, whatever,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe, maybe maybe you can actually be Botswana first
Speaker 1: and just care about domestic Botswana issues. But the United
Speaker 1: States is not Botswana. We are a superpower, the greatest
Speaker 1: superpower in the history of Western civilization, at least as
Speaker 1: far back as the Roman Empire itself. We demonstrably and
Speaker 1: self evidently have interests around the world, and above all,
Speaker 1: when it comes to our own backyard, to our own hemisphere.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is on more more than firm footing for
Speaker 1: doing what he did in Venezuela. He is on more
Speaker 1: than firm footing for talking about the possibility of acquiring Greenland.
Speaker 1: Will not be boots on the ground. Perhaps it will
Speaker 1: be an offer. I personally would very much like to
Speaker 1: see that offer, because from Venezuela to Greenland. This administration
Speaker 1: that cares about our interests around the world, and above all,
Speaker 1: it seems really cares first and foremost about America's clear
Speaker 1: interests here in the West hemisphere. That is good and
Speaker 1: as it should be. We mentioned yesterday show as well
Speaker 1: the saga of Tim Walls in in Minnesota, tim Walls
Speaker 1: announcing that he is not going to seek a third
Speaker 1: term and he's not seeing a third term basically because
Speaker 1: he's bad. Because Tim Walls is a loser. Because Tim
Speaker 1: Walls is someone who has epically failed due to his
Speaker 1: grotesque incurio, his lack of curiosity, his lack of ability
Speaker 1: to root out one of the largest fraud scandals in
Speaker 1: the history of United States that happened under his negligent watch.
Speaker 1: There is a big time lesson here. We discussed on
Speaker 1: yesterday show a little bit one of the lessons, which
Speaker 1: is that independent podcasters and YouTubers like Nick Shirley are
Speaker 1: doing a lot of the work that the corporate media
Speaker 1: some people will not do. Another key lesson is this
Speaker 1: do not go all in for the left wing intersectional agenda.
Speaker 1: The number one reason that Tim Walls repeatedly, over and
Speaker 1: over again said that he was not going to do
Speaker 1: anything that he His justification for not doing anything on
Speaker 1: this issue was he said, he said, you guys are racist.
Speaker 1: You're a bunch of racists for raising this issue. Or
Speaker 1: Republicans are racists. They don't. They don't like brown people,
Speaker 1: they don't like Samalies, they don't like Islam. Maybe we
Speaker 1: actually have a real question about Islam. But hold that aside.
Speaker 1: The point is there was asked Themali fraud and you
Speaker 1: just called everyone a racist, and you let your taxpayers
Speaker 1: because someone's federal All taxpayers get built to the tune
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars because of that. So the political
Speaker 1: lesson is, do not indulge the far left craziness. Don't
Speaker 1: do it is a recipe for political extinction, and political
Speaker 1: extinction is what Tim Walls now finds himself now that
Speaker 1: he is not seeking a third term. It really is
Speaker 1: a tremendous scalp. So huge kudos not just to Nick Shirley,
Speaker 1: in many ways, huge kodos kudos to Chris Rufo, the
Speaker 1: amazing investigative journalists and activists who first really got this
Speaker 1: story going, and Donald Trump blew it up. Then Nick
Speaker 1: Sureley blew it up. There and ultimately Chris Rufo and
Speaker 1: others got their scalp, and their scalp came in the
Speaker 1: form of Tim Walls announced that he's not running for
Speaker 1: reelection again. It's just an incredible change from Tim Walls
Speaker 1: nearly being a Vice president of the United States and
Speaker 1: what a sad, sad talent is. Democrats, I feel expect
Speaker 1: will not actually learn any of these lessons, but frankly,
Speaker 1: if they had any wits about them, they really really should.
Speaker 1: One final up story that I want to make sure
Speaker 1: touched on before we let it go another day without
Speaker 1: mentioning it a major secondmenment case that came out of
Speaker 1: California this past weekend that the media has barely touched on,
Speaker 1: but I think it's actually really really important. This is
Speaker 1: a case out of California called Baird be a Banta,
Speaker 1: and it reached a two to one well a three
Speaker 1: judge panel of Use corret Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
Speaker 1: and the panel ruling in two to one fashion against
Speaker 1: against California's complete ban on openly carrying a firearm in public.
Speaker 1: This two to one panel in a majority opinion led
Speaker 1: by Judge Lawrence Van Dyke, who is a Trump nominee,
Speaker 1: who was a fantastic judge, one of the most stalwart
Speaker 1: conservative constitutional judges there on the Ninth Circuit Judge Van
Speaker 1: Dyke saying that this is actually a very straightforward case
Speaker 1: under the Supreme Court's precedence from a few years ago.
Speaker 1: So recall that in twenty twenty two the Court for
Speaker 1: the very first time stepped back into the gun rights
Speaker 1: segment debate since the all important Heller and McDonald's cases,
Speaker 1: which for the first time codified your individual rights steam
Speaker 1: bear arms back into the date in twenty ten. For many,
Speaker 1: many years, many years, the Court totally neglected after Heller
Speaker 1: McDonald's to get involved in the Secmendment, which led Justine
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas to bemoan the fat that the Court was
Speaker 1: treating the Second Amendment as a second class right. Finally,
Speaker 1: finally they got involved, and in twenty twenty two are
Speaker 1: the Court rules on this case called Bruin out of
Speaker 1: New York City. And in the Bruin case, the Court
Speaker 1: basically held that if you have a ban on carrying
Speaker 1: out to the home, it is presumed presumed to be
Speaker 1: unconstitutional unless it is well within this nation's history and traditions.
Speaker 1: It basically establishes this history and traditions test. But Judge
Speaker 1: Van Dyke, writing for the Ninth Circuit, in this total
Speaker 1: ban on open carrying this case out of California just
Speaker 1: this past Friday, Judge Van Dyke, writing for the Ninth Circuit, quote,
Speaker 1: under Bruin is a straightforward case. California is attempting to
Speaker 1: address a general societal problem through materially different means than
Speaker 1: we're used during either the founding or reconstruction. So he's
Speaker 1: talking here about the Second Amendments and then the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: It's this kind of Bruin history and traditions test. Look,
Speaker 1: the Court unfortunately is going to have to step back
Speaker 1: into to this Second Amendment thicket sooner rather than later.
Speaker 1: They do not want to repeat their mistake that they
Speaker 1: made after the Hell or at McDonald cases, where they
Speaker 1: refuse to touch this thing, this lightning wrought issue. They refuse
Speaker 1: to get involved there over the repeated descents of Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: the same Alito who were just encouraging the colleagues, please
Speaker 1: please please, this second moment is no less important a
Speaker 1: right than the first, fourth, fifth Amendment and so forth
Speaker 1: there it is crucial that we get this right and
Speaker 1: then when we issue a ruling, that we enforce it.
Speaker 1: How many times have we seen, just in this first
Speaker 1: year of the Trump term, how many times have we
Speaker 1: seen a judge just willfully ignored a Supreme Court order.
Speaker 1: It's happened repeatedly. A judge of Massachusetts did it in
Speaker 1: prolific fashion announced that he was doing so. So when
Speaker 1: the Court has a case that it sees is not
Speaker 1: being upheld by the lower courts, which not here but
Speaker 1: in many other times, the Bruin case has actually met
Speaker 1: that fate, they have to step in and solidify it. Look,
Speaker 1: the segments of the Constitution reads, the right of the
Speaker 1: people to keeping bear arms shall not be infringed in
Speaker 1: relevant parts. That's the main clause. What does the term
Speaker 1: bare arms means? We know what the word keep means,
Speaker 1: and keep arms. That's the Heller case of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight and the McDonald's case of twenty ten. You
Speaker 1: have an individual right to own a firearm for wall purposes,
Speaker 1: self defense, it's hunting, et cetera, in your home. What
Speaker 1: does it means to bear arms? Well, it's really not
Speaker 1: much more complicated than what it means to keep arms.
Speaker 1: What it means is that for shoulder hoisted weaponry, you
Speaker 1: have the ability to carry it outside of your home,
Speaker 1: and a naked ban on carrying is not going to
Speaker 1: cut it. Now, how exactly to draw this line between
Speaker 1: concealed carrying open carrying. There is going to be some
Speaker 1: room here for state legislation ultimately tailored to some extent
Speaker 1: to the common good, within the confines of history, traditions,
Speaker 1: and the various Brewer details there. But you can't just
Speaker 1: legislate the word bear in the bare arms clause out
Speaker 1: of the Secondmendment. You can't do it. So to this
Speaker 1: stupid revenue from democratic sacramento. You guys can't do that.
Speaker 1: You lost. Feel free to appeal this one to the
Speaker 1: on Bang nine Circuit. The Supreme Court should get involved
Speaker 1: here if this litigation go south, because this is a crucial,
Speaker 1: crucial right. I've been conceal a carrier for the better
Speaker 1: part of a decade now, I very rarely leave my
Speaker 1: home without my firearm at my side. Why Because I'm
Speaker 1: an American and that's my constitutional right, and that's your
Speaker 1: constitutional right too, And that constution right does not matter
Speaker 1: whether you live in Florida, Texas or in New York
Speaker 1: or California. We all have the same constitution. It's a
Speaker 1: brilliant ruling for the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, I fear that
Speaker 1: the en banc cord the full Court could potentially overturn this,
Speaker 1: in which case just is really have to get involved.
Speaker 1: I expect, frankly that they will at that point. I'm
Speaker 1: Joshammer and this has been the Josh Ammer Show. The
Speaker 1: Josh Amber Show is a member of the Trust Project