Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Chow podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. The NYPD has arrested sixty
Speaker 1: two year old Frank James, the man suspected of a
Speaker 1: mass shooting in a Brooklyn subway yesterday. While law enforcement
Speaker 1: is still looking for clues as to why James carried
Speaker 1: out the attack, Democrats already have their answer. It's the
Speaker 1: gun's fault. And also historic inequality is what the Mayor
Speaker 1: of New York said. We'll get into this. Friends, it's
Speaker 1: time for holdinge. Welcome to hold the line. I'm Buck Sexton. Look, folks,
Speaker 1: we are in a time of elevated crime. We are
Speaker 1: in a period here where we know, naturally there's a problem.
Speaker 1: And so this latest shooting in New York City by
Speaker 1: somebody who was arrested many times and was well known
Speaker 1: to law enforcement is a reminder of just what exactly
Speaker 1: is going wrong here. Here is a photo of the suspect,
Speaker 1: sixty two year old Frank James, and as you see here,
Speaker 1: he is a black man in his early sixties, and
Speaker 1: he allegedly carried out this terror attack. It was a
Speaker 1: terror attack, by the way, according even now to the FBI.
Speaker 1: FBI came out and said that today I saw yesterday.
Speaker 1: Because they early on were saying they were not investigating
Speaker 1: it as a terror attack. That just means they hadn't
Speaker 1: yet found enough evidence to classify it as such. Now
Speaker 1: they have because it is. It was an act of terror.
Speaker 1: And it's noteworthy that this suspect was known to the FBI.
Speaker 1: Here's a headline for your Brooklyn subway attacks. Suspect previously
Speaker 1: known to the FBI, and clear, that's right. He was
Speaker 1: already on their radar, and somehow they had interviews, sit
Speaker 1: downs with him and decided, oh no, this is fine,
Speaker 1: there's no problem here. Pretty remarkable, pretty astonishing. Now, this
Speaker 1: is one incident. It's a horrible one. Thank god, nobody
Speaker 1: was killed. He shot ten people. He deployed a smoke grenade,
Speaker 1: he had a gas mask on. He also had a
Speaker 1: hatchet apparently in his bag. No one was killed. He
Speaker 1: shot people, so I'm critically injured. But he did not
Speaker 1: manage to have a lethal impact in this terrorist attack,
Speaker 1: largely because his gun jam. So he also had a
Speaker 1: very limited proficiency and understanding of firearms. Thank god, but
Speaker 1: this could have been much worse. We could have easily
Speaker 1: had a dozen people or more murdered on the New
Speaker 1: York City subway during the morning rush hour by somebody
Speaker 1: who was a career criminal, essentially arrested about a dozen
Speaker 1: times and was known to the FBI as a possible extremist.
Speaker 1: What kind of extremists? By the way, Oh, you won't
Speaker 1: see much about this, but he was an abject racist, lunatic.
Speaker 1: All right, This guy, Frank James hated white people, hated
Speaker 1: Asian people. Made this quite clear in videos he posted
Speaker 1: to YouTube where he said the most anti white, anti
Speaker 1: Asian things you could possibly imagine, repeatedly. He was a racist,
Speaker 1: saw him on the writer even calling him a black
Speaker 1: supremacist because he wanted to attack people of other racial backgrounds. Now,
Speaker 1: the media is not going to put it into that context,
Speaker 1: of course, They're just going to focus on the mental
Speaker 1: health issues here. And in the case of New York
Speaker 1: City's Mayor Eric Adams, his whole approach right now seems
Speaker 1: to be the focus on historical inequality as what caused
Speaker 1: the crime, and also other failures of society. Watch this.
Speaker 1: We are going to get better. This is going to
Speaker 1: be a safe city. And we've been here before nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty four, when I started my policing career, this was
Speaker 1: a city that was open violence. Our selway systems were unsafe.
Speaker 1: But we had to write energy and spirit to turn
Speaker 1: that around. And we want to do it again. But
Speaker 1: let's be clear, we're dealing with historical inequalities, historical abandonments
Speaker 1: and failures. And as I stated, they have many rivers
Speaker 1: that will continue to feed the sea of violence if
Speaker 1: we don't damn each river. We have an over proliferation
Speaker 1: of guns in our city and in our country. Now
Speaker 1: let's understand he's completely wrong. These are these are absurd,
Speaker 1: absurd analyzes to present, first of all, on the historic
Speaker 1: inequalities here as it pertains to the surgeon gun and
Speaker 1: other violence and just crime in general New York City.
Speaker 1: New York City has already gone through a period, went
Speaker 1: through a period in the nineties into the two thousands
Speaker 1: of cleaning up the streets, of becoming a very safe
Speaker 1: large city. And I lived here during it. I know
Speaker 1: it was a very safe city. It was a remarkable
Speaker 1: turnaround sent actually a drop in murders of ninety percent
Speaker 1: plus since the early nineteen nineties by the time you
Speaker 1: get to about two thousand and twelve. So what happened,
Speaker 1: We all of a sudden got a lot more historically
Speaker 1: unequal in the last few years. No Democrat policies about crime,
Speaker 1: from the prosecutor's office, from the State Assembly in New York,
Speaker 1: from the mayor's office, from the governor's office, Democrat ideas
Speaker 1: in the media about criminal justice reform. All of that
Speaker 1: came together and pushed away what we had learned about
Speaker 1: actual crime fighting and made people think, oh, I guess
Speaker 1: we can just let criminals out and not punish them
Speaker 1: and not enforce the law and everything will be fine.
Speaker 1: Of course this was complete maddeness. And then the focus
Speaker 1: on the guns. Well, here you go, here's Eric Adams
Speaker 1: again saying, we have to stop the flow of guns
Speaker 1: into our cities, including ghost gun All across America, big
Speaker 1: cities are dealing with this level of bindings. And so
Speaker 1: that's why the President was right to it in place
Speaker 1: attempt to a point a new head of the ATF,
Speaker 1: the nominee for ATF. We need to stop the flow
Speaker 1: of guns, including ghosts guns. That's a real crisis that
Speaker 1: we of facing. If we want to solve this problem.
Speaker 1: It's about all of us getting on board, not those
Speaker 1: who are living in an alternate reality of what's taking
Speaker 1: place in reality or no speech every day. So initial
Speaker 1: reports just to look at how stupid this talking point
Speaker 1: is that you're hearing from a lot of Democrats right now.
Speaker 1: Initial reports are that this was illegally purchased firearm that
Speaker 1: he had in the state of Ohio, and then he
Speaker 1: took it across state lines and was in violation of
Speaker 1: New York City and New York State law in doing so.
Speaker 1: That's what we know as of now. How are you
Speaker 1: going to stay? How is the City of New York
Speaker 1: going to stop that? Are they going to search every
Speaker 1: vehicle that enters New York City? He drove a U
Speaker 1: haul apparently. Are they going to search every vehicle that
Speaker 1: enters a city to make sure there's no illegal guns
Speaker 1: coming into the city. No, They're just gonna make it
Speaker 1: impossible for too legally owned firearms. They're going to harass
Speaker 1: and annoy lawful gun owners or would be gun owners
Speaker 1: and violate their Second Amendment rights and lock people up
Speaker 1: because they didn't properly register a twenty gage shotgun that
Speaker 1: they used to go pheasant hunting on the weekends. That's
Speaker 1: the kind of bullcrap the New York City authorities, the NYPD,
Speaker 1: and others are forced to do because of Democrat lunacy
Speaker 1: on guns. Speaking of Democrat lunacy pathy, hokel whose antics
Speaker 1: yesterday work just absurd. She showed up and seemed to
Speaker 1: think that she was leading some kind of a political
Speaker 1: rally against violence. We need the governor of New York
Speaker 1: to start giving completely worthless pablum in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: a terrorist attack on our subway. Watch this. No more
Speaker 1: mass shootings, no more disrupting lives, no more creating heartbreak
Speaker 1: for people just trying to live their lives as normal
Speaker 1: New Yorkers. It has to end. It ends now, and
Speaker 1: we are sick and tired of reading headlines about crime.
Speaker 1: It has to stop. I'm committing the full resources of
Speaker 1: our state to fight this surge of crime, this insanity
Speaker 1: that is seizing our city because we want to get
Speaker 1: back to normal, normal mass shooting. She shouts, Oh thanks,
Speaker 1: I'm sure the criminals are going to pay close attention
Speaker 1: to the shrill idiot governor of New York. It's outrageous,
Speaker 1: isn't it that this person is the governor of any state.
Speaker 1: This woman shouldn't be the governor of a lemonade stand,
Speaker 1: and yet she runs New York States Executive Branch. Right now.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons we have so many problems in
Speaker 1: these blue states is because Democrats keep electing morons. All right,
Speaker 1: it's beginning to look like Russian President Vladimir Putin's effort
Speaker 1: to prevent By the way, she wasn't even elected. She
Speaker 1: just was who was left after the last Democrat elected
Speaker 1: governor you got pushed out. Putin he's trying to prevent
Speaker 1: NATO expansion in Eastern Europe by invaded Ukraine, and guess
Speaker 1: what that may have backfired. The nations of Sweden and
Speaker 1: Finland are now seriously considering joining the Defensive Alliance, with
Speaker 1: the decision expected to come within weeks. We'll have more
Speaker 1: on that with the Heritage Foundations Nile Gardner coming up. Listen.
Speaker 1: You know I'm skeptical by nature, So when I heard
Speaker 1: about home title theft, I figured, can this really happen?
Speaker 1: Can someone just forwarde your name off of a quick
Speaker 1: claim deed and then act like they own your home
Speaker 1: and it's all done online. Yeah, they can actually steal
Speaker 1: your home online. This is real. According to the FBI,
Speaker 1: this is a fast growing crime, much faster growing than
Speaker 1: even credit card fraud and not covered by the normal
Speaker 1: homeowners insurance. You probably have home title lock earned my trust.
Speaker 1: They put a barrier around your home title. The instant
Speaker 1: they detect anyone messing with their home title, they mobilized
Speaker 1: to shut it down. Here's what I urge you to do.
Speaker 1: Number one, go to home tuttlelock dot com and read
Speaker 1: the testimonials from FBI agents and government officials. And number two,
Speaker 1: register your home address to see if you're already a
Speaker 1: victim and don't even know it when it comes to
Speaker 1: protecting your home. Tell them buck sex and sent you
Speaker 1: to get my listener discount hometuittlelock dot com. Again, that's
Speaker 1: home titlelock dot com. We'll be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold the line. Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine in part to prevent the expansion of NATO
Speaker 1: along Russia's border, while it seems his plan may have
Speaker 1: blown up in his face. Today, the prime ministers of
Speaker 1: Finland and Sweden met to discuss the possibility of both
Speaker 1: nations joining the Alliance, citing Russian aggression as the catalyst
Speaker 1: for their potential membership. Here's what Finland's Prime Minister Santa
Speaker 1: Marin had to say earlier today. The European security architecture
Speaker 1: have changed fundamentally after Russian's invasion of Ukraine. To change
Speaker 1: in the security landscape make it necessary to analyze how
Speaker 1: we best secure peace for Finland and in our region
Speaker 1: in the future. The Prime minister added that a final
Speaker 1: decision on whether or not Finland will apply for membership
Speaker 1: could come within weeks. A spokesman for the Kremlin warned
Speaker 1: against the two nations joining NATO, saying it would not
Speaker 1: quote bring ability to the European continent. All right, well,
Speaker 1: let's dive into this. Joining me now is Now Gardner,
Speaker 1: director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation Nile. Is this a big backfire for Putin?
Speaker 1: I mean, what is it looking like? Well, but thanks
Speaker 1: very much having me on the show today. And you know,
Speaker 1: without a doubt, I think this is very bad news
Speaker 1: for a Putin and for the Russian regime. I think
Speaker 1: certainly Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which has gone incredibly badly,
Speaker 1: is really backfiring on multiple fronts, including of course, you know,
Speaker 1: the big picture with regard to to NATO, because you know,
Speaker 1: without without a doubt, I think that you know, the
Speaker 1: Native Alliance is going to expand as a result of
Speaker 1: the Russian aggression against Ukraine and Finland and Sweden I
Speaker 1: believe will become in short time full members of the
Speaker 1: Native Alliance. They are on track to do so that
Speaker 1: governments are I think committed to bringing that about. This
Speaker 1: may happen this year, and I think there will be
Speaker 1: unanimous support within the Native Alliance for expanding the partnership
Speaker 1: to bring on board Finland and Sweden. They'll become the
Speaker 1: you know, the thirty first and thirty second members of NATO.
Speaker 1: Yen Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, has voiced his full
Speaker 1: support for the you know, for the expansion of the
Speaker 1: Native Alliance, and so, you know, I do think that
Speaker 1: you know, Putin's you know, very very you know, spectacular
Speaker 1: unsuccessful operation Ukraine. It's all backfiring, I think for the
Speaker 1: for the Russian dictator. What role do you think the
Speaker 1: evidence of war crimes has played in Sweden and Finland's
Speaker 1: obviously heightened interest in joining the NATO Alliance. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a good question, you know. I think it's an important issue,
Speaker 1: and you know, especially for a country like Sweden, for example,
Speaker 1: which prides itself on playing a very active role in
Speaker 1: terms of advancing you know, human rights on on the
Speaker 1: world stage. I think the you know, the Swedish population,
Speaker 1: the Finnish population was absolutely horrified by the tremendous barbarism
Speaker 1: and savagery that you're seeing being carried out by the
Speaker 1: Russians inside Ukraine. So that's a factor. But I think
Speaker 1: the number one factor, by a long way back in
Speaker 1: terms of the thinking in both countries, is to prevent
Speaker 1: the Russians from you know, daring to set foot in
Speaker 1: either of those countries. And after all, you know, Finland
Speaker 1: shares a you know, a boarder that's over eight hundred
Speaker 1: miles with Russia, and so the Finns, who have been
Speaker 1: invaded twice by the Russians in the past, they are
Speaker 1: acutely aware of the tremendous threat level. And a recent
Speaker 1: opinion poll that came out in Finland showed actually that
Speaker 1: by six to one margin Finns were in favor actually
Speaker 1: of joining NATO. That the numbers are a bit closer
Speaker 1: in Sweden but you know, for the Finns right on
Speaker 1: the boarder with Russia, the threaten invasion is a very
Speaker 1: very real, you know, scenario, and they are on the
Speaker 1: on the guard. But as you point out what we're
Speaker 1: witnessing round Ukraine, they're the horrific atrocities, the war crimes.
Speaker 1: This is focusing things well, not only in Finland and Sweden,
Speaker 1: but all over all over Europe when people are actually
Speaker 1: horrified by what's happening, and they of course are also
Speaker 1: worried that, you know, this could happen in their own countries,
Speaker 1: that the Russians decided to invade. How quickly could they
Speaker 1: become good? Sweden and Finland become full members of NATO
Speaker 1: if they do apply in the coming weeks. And is
Speaker 1: there any way that that process, I mean, can it
Speaker 1: be expedited? Are the Russians going to try to bring
Speaker 1: some kind of pressure to derail it if it starts
Speaker 1: to happen, I mean, how does the actual process play out? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's a very important question. And I think there's
Speaker 1: going to be discussion of this at the Madrid NATO summit,
Speaker 1: which takes place in the last week of June too,
Speaker 1: So that's where I think this will be discussed. Both
Speaker 1: the Fins and the Swedes indicated that they would like
Speaker 1: to it possibly move forward in the course of the
Speaker 1: next few weeks, so in advance of the Madrid summits.
Speaker 1: So basically it would require a unanimous vote from all
Speaker 1: NATO members to approve this. Every NATO country has to
Speaker 1: approve an application to join, and I would expect that
Speaker 1: the whole Native Alliance would would support this. So I
Speaker 1: think it would be a fast tracked process and you
Speaker 1: could see both Finland and Sweden as full members of
Speaker 1: the Native Alliance, I would say in the second half
Speaker 1: of this year. So it can be a very very
Speaker 1: quick process here. And I don't expect there's going to
Speaker 1: be any opposition among other NATO countries to those two
Speaker 1: nations adjoining. The Russians will you know, will huff and
Speaker 1: puff and put, will make all kinds of threats, but
Speaker 1: it will it will make no difference Russia does any
Speaker 1: veto over who joins the Native Alliance. And my expectation
Speaker 1: is that both Finland and Sweden will be full members
Speaker 1: of the Native Alliance, certainly before the year is over,
Speaker 1: if not significant helium and what what practical effect. Let's
Speaker 1: say we get to the point where Finland and Sweden
Speaker 1: are now part of the Alliance. How would you expect
Speaker 1: that that would affect things in Europe? Could there be
Speaker 1: a US base perhaps even in one of those countries soon?
Speaker 1: How do you think that would play out? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a good question, you know, in both countries of course.
Speaker 1: Finland Sweden have you know, have prided themselves on neutrality
Speaker 1: for many decades. But I think in the new reality
Speaker 1: that we have in Europe with the Russians, you know,
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand troops or they used have two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand trips in Ukraine, that number's fallen significantly because they've
Speaker 1: taken a lot of casualties. But um, you know, everyone's
Speaker 1: seeing what was happening in Ukraine, and so I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be surprised if you know, Finland, for example, approached the
Speaker 1: United States or Great Britain or another you know, or
Speaker 1: other NATO members to you know, to establish a you know,
Speaker 1: a full permanent NATO base in Finland, and I think
Speaker 1: that would be the wise thing to do. You know,
Speaker 1: the Swedes have been very actively engaged in supporting Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They've sent over ten thousand missiles to the Ukrainians actually,
Speaker 1: and so you know, even in in Sweden, a country
Speaker 1: that that has you know, been neutral so long, I
Speaker 1: think there's a possibility as well of you know, NATO
Speaker 1: and NATO based in Sweden also, so anything can happen here.
Speaker 1: It's a very different landscape in Europe. It would be
Speaker 1: a wise move both finn and Sweden to welcome you know,
Speaker 1: permanent NATO basis in their in their countries. The Poles
Speaker 1: have been seeking that for a long time and I
Speaker 1: hope that that will be the case for Poland as well.
Speaker 1: And also you know, the Fins and the Swedes, I mean,
Speaker 1: they know how to fight, they have highly effective fighting forces.
Speaker 1: They will be traditional added value to the Native alliance
Speaker 1: um and they also know how to fight you know,
Speaker 1: winter warfare, and they know how to fight Biden. Just
Speaker 1: to get your take on this quickly, I didn't call
Speaker 1: the Ukraine invasion a genocide today watch this yet I
Speaker 1: called this genocide because it become clearer and clearer that
Speaker 1: proved the sin of wipe out the ideas he can
Speaker 1: feeling between Ukraine and the mount The evidence is mounting
Speaker 1: good different nowaks last week or evidence is coming out
Speaker 1: of literally the horrible thing be the Russians have done
Speaker 1: gior Krane. So we're gonna only learn more and more
Speaker 1: about the defication and for about the Morris decides internationally
Speaker 1: is whether or not a qualifier. But it sure sees
Speaker 1: that way to be. Actually, the Biden essentially says he's
Speaker 1: not sure if it under international law qualifies as a genocide,
Speaker 1: but he used the term genocide. How significant is that?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's significant, and I think that clearly.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Russians are you know, have genocidal intent
Speaker 1: in Ukraine there ethnically cleansing parts of the country. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, one can quible over you know, over the
Speaker 1: use the term, you know, genocide the legal definition. But um,
Speaker 1: you know, I do think that you know, Putin's regime
Speaker 1: as a genocidal regime and that that is true. But
Speaker 1: you know, with with regard to Joe Biden, you know,
Speaker 1: it's also important that when you make comments like this
Speaker 1: that you back up, you know, retric with you know,
Speaker 1: with tough action on every single fund against the Russians.
Speaker 1: You know, don't sit down with the Russians negotiating and
Speaker 1: a rand nuclear deal while they carrying out genocide. So
Speaker 1: you know, I hope Joe Biden lives up to you know,
Speaker 1: the words that he uses and not does not partner
Speaker 1: with a genocidal regime. That's absolutely madness. That's what the
Speaker 1: Bidendministration is doing right now. So Joe Biden needs to
Speaker 1: wake up on the Rand front. Nile. I always appreciate
Speaker 1: the insight. Thank you so much. It's my pleasure. Thanks
Speaker 1: very much, Bud. An expression of NATO wouldn't come without cost.
Speaker 1: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley
Speaker 1: recently told lawmakers that new permanent American bases in Europe
Speaker 1: could be needed in the coming years. But is that
Speaker 1: such a great idea? I answer the question with the
Speaker 1: host of the President's Daily Brief podcast, Brian Dean Wright.
Speaker 1: When we come back. First, I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about protecting your online data. A lot of companies
Speaker 1: promise your privacy is guaranteed. We know that's not true.
Speaker 1: That's why you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application
Speaker 1: tool called Secure and Spelled SEK. You are security is
Speaker 1: using proprietary encryption and offer secure instant messaging an email
Speaker 1: with secure all of your communications based on servers and
Speaker 1: data centers hosted in Switzerland without using any of the
Speaker 1: big tech platforms. Privacy is a big issue now. Without
Speaker 1: real security, people can read your emails, messages, even your
Speaker 1: bank information. Secure will never mind your data, never ask
Speaker 1: for your phone number. You can send emails to your doctor, banker, lawyer,
Speaker 1: or anyone with total confidence you're not being spied on
Speaker 1: by your internet provider or big peck. Secure is your
Speaker 1: solution to stop the constant theft of your digital identity.
Speaker 1: Costs only five dollars for the messenger, only ten dollars
Speaker 1: from a messenger and email combination package. Go to secure
Speaker 1: dot com and take back your privacy today. That's sekure
Speaker 1: dot com and use promo code buck for twenty five
Speaker 1: percent off. We'll be right back with more all the line.
Speaker 1: As we noted in the previous segment, with Russia's brutality
Speaker 1: on full display in Ukraine, many of America's allies in
Speaker 1: Eastern Europe are worried they could be next. In a
Speaker 1: recent congressional hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark
Speaker 1: Millie told lawmakers the US should consider sending more troops
Speaker 1: and establishing new bases in Europe to deter Putin from
Speaker 1: further aggression. Take a look. My advice would be to
Speaker 1: create permanent bases, but don't permanently station. So you get
Speaker 1: the effect of permanence by rotational forces cycling through permanent bases.
Speaker 1: And what you don't have to do is incur the
Speaker 1: cost of family moves, px's, schools, housing and that sort
Speaker 1: of thing. So you cycle through expeditionary forces through forward
Speaker 1: deployed permanent bases. And I believe that a lot of
Speaker 1: our European allies, especially those such as in the Baltics,
Speaker 1: or Poland or Romania elsewhere, they are very very willing
Speaker 1: to establish permanent bases. They'll build them, they'll pay form,
Speaker 1: et cetera, sending more of America's sons and daughters to
Speaker 1: Europe in a military capacity. What do we think about this?
Speaker 1: Jo want I mean to answer that question is former
Speaker 1: CIA operations officer and host of the newly launched The
Speaker 1: President's Daily Brief the PDB podcast, Brian Dean Wright. Mister BDW. Bryant.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, sir, Very good day to you.
Speaker 1: So I mean, let's start with this one. You're here
Speaker 1: and there, Mark Miller, we'll leave aside Mark Millie's fealty
Speaker 1: to the pronoun announcing blue haired left wing gender warrior
Speaker 1: crowd in the general American context, right, I mean, he's
Speaker 1: a guy that seems to panar to the left specifically
Speaker 1: on the military situation here as it's as it's projected
Speaker 1: in Europe. What are your thoughts when you hear him saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's build some permanent bases, additional permanent bases in Europe
Speaker 1: and send more US military personnel to staff them. All Right,
Speaker 1: a couple of things. There's already over one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: troops in the European continent, so let's just start there.
Speaker 1: We already have a very big footprint. Second, you'll have
Speaker 1: to forgive me if I'm a little bit suspicious of
Speaker 1: people in Pentagon right now. That guy that we just
Speaker 1: heard talking about how he needs more and more and
Speaker 1: more had a lot and then some in Afghanistan twenty
Speaker 1: years and he lost that war. Sort of the people
Speaker 1: down at the White House right now organizing this new
Speaker 1: effort in Europe. So I'm a little bit suspicious of
Speaker 1: the people who's saying we need to do all these
Speaker 1: great big things in Europe after they just lost the
Speaker 1: last big thing. So that's where I start right the
Speaker 1: second pieces. Look, it may be that our European friends
Speaker 1: build the basis, but to your point, we're sending the people,
Speaker 1: it's our sons and daughters. But we're also hooking ourselves
Speaker 1: up to a multi year billion dollars each year effort
Speaker 1: to fund all of this. So it's still going to
Speaker 1: be expected, right obviously, and we're hooking ourselves into that
Speaker 1: for many years, if not decades to come. When you
Speaker 1: put these bases in, you don't just rip them out
Speaker 1: the next year. So let's be also very clear about
Speaker 1: our long term commitment that we are signing up for,
Speaker 1: or our elites are signing this up for. But the
Speaker 1: other piece that I talked about in the podcast I
Speaker 1: know you are aware of. This country was founded by
Speaker 1: a man or multiple folks, but one in particular, George Washington,
Speaker 1: who said very clearly, especially on the European issue, Look,
Speaker 1: they have a very a complicated set of internal dynamics.
Speaker 1: Let's be very careful about setting up permanent alliances. We
Speaker 1: don't want to do it. Make sure that we base
Speaker 1: our foreign policy on an issue or a foundation of neutrality.
Speaker 1: That's what I think that we're forgetting in this conversation
Speaker 1: where we're signing up for this stuff is to really
Speaker 1: put our sons and daughters in harms way. And I
Speaker 1: don't know that that's the best way that certainly our
Speaker 1: founders would want us to handle this issue. I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I don't think you probably share that to
Speaker 1: some degree as well. We've been burned certainly the last
Speaker 1: twenty years. I don't want to be And again, yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember being in Afghanistan for our former employer or
Speaker 1: ten years ago, thinking is not going to work, folks,
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen. The mission here is never anyway.
Speaker 1: And then we saw how it ended. It took ten
Speaker 1: more years. But here's President Biden, by the way, the
Speaker 1: commander in chief, Brian. It's not pretty amazing. I know,
Speaker 1: I still haven't really gotten used to it. Announced that
Speaker 1: he'll be sending even more aid over to Ukraine in
Speaker 1: the form of eight hundred million dollars to help him
Speaker 1: take the stand, help him take a stand against Russia.
Speaker 1: I watch this one nine once again using my presidential
Speaker 1: authority to actively to activate an additional security assistance to
Speaker 1: continue to help Ukraine fend off Russia's assault. An additional
Speaker 1: eight hundred million dollars in assistance that brings the total
Speaker 1: of new US security assistance to Ukraine to one billion
Speaker 1: dollars just this week. These are the large These are
Speaker 1: direct transfers of equipment from our Department of Defense to
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian military to help them as they fight against
Speaker 1: this invasion. Is this the right move? Should we send more?
Speaker 1: Should we provide planes? Where do you standing all that stuff? Look,
Speaker 1: I think the interesting thing here is he's celebrating the
Speaker 1: fact that he's sending billions of dollars to Ukraine. Meanwhile
Speaker 1: everybody is like writing checks to all the grocery stores
Speaker 1: and the gas stations and so forth, you know, paying
Speaker 1: those big bills, and they're like, hey, can we focus
Speaker 1: on on the disaster that's happening here in the United
Speaker 1: States right now. So the context, the tone deafness of
Speaker 1: his announcements I think are pretty alarming that most Americans say, Hey,
Speaker 1: we got a problem here, let's let's focus our resources
Speaker 1: on that. But okay, put that aside. The issue of
Speaker 1: sending equipment to Ukraine. I don't necessarily have a problem
Speaker 1: with it, and that if we are going to send
Speaker 1: some low grade equipment that bogs putting down. I think
Speaker 1: a reasonable person can say, hey, that's a smart move
Speaker 1: to at least show not only putting but the rest
Speaker 1: of the world that there's a cost when you do
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff. All right, The piece that concerns me.
Speaker 1: In fact, there was another little blip on the news
Speaker 1: today hasn't been covered much. The US government's going to
Speaker 1: give even more tactical intelligence to our Ukrainian partners, which
Speaker 1: means that our spies and satellites are drawing in X
Speaker 1: over the Russian soldiers heads and on their tanks and
Speaker 1: so forth. That is a much more intense involvement by
Speaker 1: our government in this war. It's not just equipment. So
Speaker 1: that's the part that I think that if you're in
Speaker 1: Moscow you are thinking about, hey, do we need to
Speaker 1: hit the United States back? At what point does this
Speaker 1: no longer become a spies gentleman's game? You know this
Speaker 1: world that former guys like Putin, who are or AGB spies,
Speaker 1: they're willing to tolerate some of this shenanigans because they
Speaker 1: did it against us. But when you start drawing that
Speaker 1: X on the forehead of a Russian soldier. The calculus
Speaker 1: starts to change in Moscow, and we have to be
Speaker 1: thinking about that, because they're going to engage in some
Speaker 1: kind of strike against us, whether it's in places throughout
Speaker 1: Eastern Europe, whether it's an asymmetric strike of super attacks
Speaker 1: the United States. That's the part. When I hear about
Speaker 1: all this money and all the equipment, I'm thinking, all
Speaker 1: Ukraine has been invaded. We have to support them, But
Speaker 1: what does this due in Moscow in terms? If it's
Speaker 1: willingness to strike us, that's what we should be talking
Speaker 1: about and thinking about when we hear this kind of
Speaker 1: new switching gears here just for a minute or so,
Speaker 1: Brian Russia is the only hostile foreign government that we
Speaker 1: have to worry about. Of course, China is making its
Speaker 1: present presence felt right here in the US by pumping
Speaker 1: millions of dollars into American universities and colleges. According to
Speaker 1: a recent Fox report, China based entities, including the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: secured one hundred and twenty million dollars in contracts with
Speaker 1: American colleges in twenty twenty one, and the Chinese institutions
Speaker 1: entered into agreements ranging from one hundred and five to
Speaker 1: thirty one million dollars more than two dozen other universities.
Speaker 1: China is waging, it seems to me Brian with dollars,
Speaker 1: a kind of economic warfare campaign, similar to the ideological
Speaker 1: and political allies campaign the Soviets did back in the
Speaker 1: day against the Western world, specifically against us. You were
Speaker 1: absolutely right. Look, you and I know what these folks,
Speaker 1: these Chinese communist folks are up. They are trying to.
Speaker 1: In fact, they have borrowed themselves in our government, in
Speaker 1: our press, and in our universities. And they do that
Speaker 1: for lots of different reasons. But the university piece really
Speaker 1: is a twofold one. They use it to steal our
Speaker 1: intellectual property, all the ingenuity and research that's going out
Speaker 1: at these universities. They do it to target dissidents, Chinese
Speaker 1: citizens that are here going to school. They find them
Speaker 1: and they target them their families. They also use these
Speaker 1: relationships as platforms to then send their spies to pretend
Speaker 1: that they're professor, let's say. Then they go out and
Speaker 1: they start collecting intelligence with some of their other agents,
Speaker 1: US agents, right, So they use it as a platform.
Speaker 1: So there are lots of reasons why this is a bad,
Speaker 1: bad deal. I think that the alarming piece for me
Speaker 1: is we have a president who is compromised or may
Speaker 1: very well be compromised by the Chinese. He's shutting down
Speaker 1: these investigations into this stuff. That's what's alarming. We know
Speaker 1: what's happening, and that's really what we should be talking about.
Speaker 1: Why isn't our president outraged by these relationships and why
Speaker 1: isn't he trying to shut it down? And I think
Speaker 1: we all know why. The big guy isn't Brian. Good
Speaker 1: to see you, my friend. Welcome aboard, Thank you. Mainstream
Speaker 1: media can no longer deny the verification of Hunter Biden's laptop.
Speaker 1: Oh no, But managing editor at the Chicago Thinker, Avida
Speaker 1: Duffy was able to interview some of the journalists who
Speaker 1: denied the massive story for the past few years. She'll
Speaker 1: tell us what they had to say. It's quite amusing.
Speaker 1: That's coming up. Let's talk about the newest sponsor here
Speaker 1: at Hold the Line, this silencer shop. I'm a big
Speaker 1: supporter of the Second Amendment. For many gun owners, using
Speaker 1: a suppressor is a must. They protect your hearing and
Speaker 1: they improve your accuracy. Suppressors are one hundred percent legal
Speaker 1: in forty three states. So if you want to practice safe,
Speaker 1: accurate shooting, the best way to get your suppressor is
Speaker 1: through this silencer shop. They have a variety of suppressors
Speaker 1: starting in just three hundred and sixty five dollars. My
Speaker 1: friends at silencer Shop are the industry leaders were suppressors.
Speaker 1: They're a Texas based company that excels at customer service.
Speaker 1: Their online reviews are amazing. You've got to check them out.
Speaker 1: You can get more details online at Silencershop website that's
Speaker 1: Silendsershop dot com, Soundsershop dot com, or on Instagram at
Speaker 1: instagram dot com, slash Silencershop Shop now at soundsershop dot com.
Speaker 1: They make a silencer ownership simple. Go check it out today.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back with more all the line. Since
Speaker 1: the New York Times the Washington Post, ever so courageously,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, verified hundred Biden's laptop because it was already verified,
Speaker 1: but whatever, journalists in the mainstream media can no longer
Speaker 1: deny its authenticity, at least in public. So what is
Speaker 1: their excuse for failing to acknowledge the scandal for all
Speaker 1: this time? Well, one Atlantic writer and Applebaum also Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: truth or lunatic says it was because it just wasn't interesting.
Speaker 1: Check this one out. My problem with Hunter Biden's laptop
Speaker 1: is I think totally irrelevant. I mean, it's not whether
Speaker 1: it's disinformation or I mean, I didn't think the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's business relationships have anything to do with who should
Speaker 1: be president of the United States. So I didn't find
Speaker 1: I don't find it to be interesting. He doesn't find
Speaker 1: it to be interesting. Oh okay. Our next guest is
Speaker 1: a U Chicago student who attended that event you just
Speaker 1: saw the clip from, says she doesn't buy this elitist
Speaker 1: narrative coming from the MSM in general mainstream media. We've
Speaker 1: got managing editor at the Chicago Thinker, Evita Duffy, who
Speaker 1: joins me now with reaction. Evita, good to see it,
Speaker 1: Good to see you. Thank you. So what was it
Speaker 1: like at this event where you had a disinformation conference.
Speaker 1: I know you guys have gotten a lot of conservative
Speaker 1: media coverage about this, a disinformation conference run by the
Speaker 1: Atlantic magazine. People like that, you get fake news Stelter.
Speaker 1: They're a bunch of others, and you and some of
Speaker 1: your colleagues got to ask some questions about their fake news.
Speaker 1: How did it go right? So this is a disinformation
Speaker 1: event that was put on by some of the greatest
Speaker 1: purveyor of disinformation in America. So the The Insuit of
Speaker 1: Politics ran this event with The Atlantic and David Axelrodi
Speaker 1: really brought in experts on the subject, and our Chicago
Speaker 1: Thinker student journalists came to ask them not got your questions,
Speaker 1: but really honest questions about the way that they have
Speaker 1: botched every major story over the last couple of years
Speaker 1: and have a major agenda over and so they they've
Speaker 1: really proved, you know, how how bad they are by
Speaker 1: by not actually you know, coming clean and apologizing for
Speaker 1: what they've done, but actually being dismissive of the students
Speaker 1: who asked some questions. You saw how elitist and appam was.
Speaker 1: And in another clip, Brian Stelter was of one of
Speaker 1: my other Chicago Thinker colleagues. And then later on towards
Speaker 1: the end of the event, the editor in chief of
Speaker 1: The Atlantic actually said that the Chicago Thinkers reporting on
Speaker 1: this entire event constitutes a disinformation campaign on social media.
Speaker 1: So it's obvious that disinformation isn't actually disinformation, it's just
Speaker 1: information they don't like, and they're actually even willing to
Speaker 1: try and silence a little Chicago student newspaper for embarrassing
Speaker 1: them publicly. Here we go. We got some great clips,
Speaker 1: some highlights, if you will, from the disinformation event actly named,
Speaker 1: but not in the way they thought. Here is Amy
Speaker 1: Klobashaw refusing to answer a question from you, miss Duffy.
Speaker 1: Let's let the audience enjoy who introduced the bill that
Speaker 1: you talked about today that would punish social media companies
Speaker 1: like Facebook and Twitter for having health misinformation on their platforms.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to ask you if I were to
Speaker 1: say that there are only two sexes, male and female,
Speaker 1: would that be considered misinformation that you think should be
Speaker 1: banned speech on social media platforms? Okay, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to get into what misinformation. First of all, I think
Speaker 1: the bill you're talking about is different than the one
Speaker 1: we asleep been talking about, So I want to make
Speaker 1: that clear. We've been talking about the competition bill, but
Speaker 1: there is another bill that I have on vaccine misinformation.
Speaker 1: It is that specific in a public health crisis. Okay,
Speaker 1: but I don't I feel like there wasn't an answer
Speaker 1: to your question. Was there an answer your question did
Speaker 1: it come later? Answer? And you should. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: your bill. You should know what kind of misinformation is
Speaker 1: going to be considered misinformation in your own bill. So
Speaker 1: it was a complete non answer. Here is Brian Stelter,
Speaker 1: who sometimes I think just exists so that conservative media
Speaker 1: has the ultimate left wing media journal guy to just
Speaker 1: hold up and let everyone see. This is who they
Speaker 1: say is calling balls and strikes on journalism ethics. Here
Speaker 1: he is responding when he was asked about his network's
Speaker 1: ethics and the history of its misinformation. Let's look at
Speaker 1: this one. My honest answer to you and I will
Speaker 1: all come over and talk in more detail after this
Speaker 1: is that I think you're describing a different channel than
Speaker 1: the one that I watch. But I understand that that
Speaker 1: is a popular right wing narrative about CNN. I think
Speaker 1: it's important we're talking about shared reality and democracy. All
Speaker 1: these networks, all these news outlets, have to defend democracy
Speaker 1: and when they screw up, admit it. But when Benjamin Hall,
Speaker 1: the Fox correspondent was wounded in Ukraine, the news crews
Speaker 1: at CNN and The New York Times stopped what they
Speaker 1: were doing and they tried to help. They tried to
Speaker 1: help him get out of the country. They tried to
Speaker 1: find the dead crew members. That's what news outlets do,
Speaker 1: that's how they actually do work together. To your question
Speaker 1: about sharing those kinds of connections and trust, yeah, watching
Speaker 1: a different channel. I don't know what channel he thinks
Speaker 1: he works for, but it's not CNN apparently, if that's
Speaker 1: what he thinks. No, of course not. And I mean
Speaker 1: this is so embarrassing for the mainstream media. This entire
Speaker 1: event has been just an utter and complete embarrassment and
Speaker 1: the fact that they're trying to I mean, An Applebaum,
Speaker 1: who was from that first clip, has actually blocked the
Speaker 1: Chicago Thinker on Twitter, and then Jonah Goldberg doubled down
Speaker 1: and defended her, essentially saying that you know that Daniel
Speaker 1: Schmidt's question to her to Anne Ababama was trollish. I mean,
Speaker 1: these people are losing their minds over us posting clips
Speaker 1: of their full answers. This is not disinformation. This is
Speaker 1: just straight up journalism that they're now trying to smear.
Speaker 1: Oh yes they are. I mean, here's the Atlantic editor
Speaker 1: in chief. This guy's a real windbag who calls the
Speaker 1: Chicago Thinker where you write, and they're reporting on the
Speaker 1: disinformation events, right, it was a disinformation seminar of sorts,
Speaker 1: or from symposium or whatever. They say that you guys
Speaker 1: were doing a disinformation campaign. Watch. I think one darkly
Speaker 1: humorous but inevitable measurement of our success is that our
Speaker 1: disinformation conference has been the subject of disinformation campaigns on
Speaker 1: social media already. So, yeah, congratulate yourselves for that. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll study that next year's disinformation again. What was the
Speaker 1: disinformation exactly? I'm just wondering. I mean, that's the title
Speaker 1: of the conference. It's like they don't know what it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's what I've been saying. It's not disinformation,
Speaker 1: it's just information they don't like and information that's been
Speaker 1: embarrassing for them. And I think it's important to talk
Speaker 1: about what they want to do with the disinformation that
Speaker 1: they're so concerned about. They want to give government algorithmic
Speaker 1: control over social media platforms to stop the spread of
Speaker 1: whatever they deem misinformation and who's going to decide what's
Speaker 1: true and what's not And the answer is they are.
Speaker 1: They want to have the gate keeping power that they
Speaker 1: lost when social media democratized information and independent journalists became
Speaker 1: a thing. And if you watch Tucker last night, you
Speaker 1: saw that, and we saw that in Canada, they're actually
Speaker 1: having the government a preapproved journalist and decide who has
Speaker 1: the ability to spread their information online and who doesn't.
Speaker 1: And I don't know. I mean this, this conference is
Speaker 1: kind of telling me that it's it might be coming
Speaker 1: here soon and so disinformation right now. It should be
Speaker 1: the scariest word in the dictionary. Anybody that hears that word,
Speaker 1: you know that they're not talking about trying to find
Speaker 1: the truth. They're trying to stop. They're talking about trying
Speaker 1: to shut down people they don't like. Good to see,
Speaker 1: avida and good work, appreciate it. A preschool teacher claimed
Speaker 1: she makes her students choose new pronoun pins every day
Speaker 1: to teach about diversity. They say they are in adoptrinating
Speaker 1: your kids, folks. We'll have that video for you. And
Speaker 1: quick hits stay with us. America's Treasury secretary goes full
Speaker 1: blown climate alarmist, and a job listing shows just how
Speaker 1: out of touch the Washington Post is with average Americans.
Speaker 1: We've got those stories coming up in quick hits. Let's
Speaker 1: get right to it. Um yelling Treasury secretary. He knows
Speaker 1: the FED stuff well. Right, So she's been a longstanding
Speaker 1: person involved in monetary policy and the government and all
Speaker 1: the rest of this stuff. Right, She's somebody who you
Speaker 1: think knows about this stuff. And here's the thing, she's
Speaker 1: also a liberal zealot in her own way. You have
Speaker 1: to remember this. So even some of the people who
Speaker 1: are knowledgeable about economics at some level, knowledgeable about FED
Speaker 1: policy monetary policy inflation obviously hasn't done a great job
Speaker 1: stopping that from happening. But you see what their politics
Speaker 1: are on other issues. You understand. Oh, even in areas
Speaker 1: where they have expertise at some level, they're being influenced
Speaker 1: by their left wing agenda. Here is the Treasury secretary
Speaker 1: worried that the window is closing to decarbonize our Economy's quatch.
Speaker 1: The recent IPCC reports confirm that our window of opportunity
Speaker 1: to weave our planet worthy of our children and children
Speaker 1: it's even closer to being permanently shut. We must redouble
Speaker 1: our efforts to decarbonize our economies, recognizing the countries will
Speaker 1: use a range of tools, including carbon pricing, regulation and
Speaker 1: subsidies to achieve needed emission reductions. Green socialism, that's what
Speaker 1: she's really talking about. Green socialism. That's what you want.
Speaker 1: Carbon pricing. You're gonna pay extra money because you're living
Speaker 1: life in a modern economy and having to give me friends.
Speaker 1: Right outrageous. But this is how crazy the left is.
Speaker 1: Even the Treasury Secretary buys into this green new deal Lunacy.
Speaker 1: Washington Post tweeted out quite a job listing for a
Speaker 1: reporter to cover this foreign country far far away that
Speaker 1: the Libs don't understand, called Texas. Job posting. The Washington
Speaker 1: Post is looking for an enterprising reporter based in Texas
Speaker 1: to document life in Red State America and develop a
Speaker 1: new beat mapping the culture, public policies, and politics and
Speaker 1: a region shaped by conservative ideology. You know, it's it's
Speaker 1: almost like they're going out there to you know, study,
Speaker 1: you know, study a pot of dolphins in the wild.
Speaker 1: There's like red state Texans, isn't it? This is mean? Look,
Speaker 1: I actually think it's good that the journos might try
Speaker 1: to learn what it's like for people who live in
Speaker 1: the rest of the country to live their lives in
Speaker 1: places that are read and I think it's funny. It's
Speaker 1: just though an admission of the fact that they just
Speaker 1: have no idea. I mean, they do live in this
Speaker 1: alternative universe a lot of soy Lante's being consumed. Preschool
Speaker 1: teacher here says she makes her four year olds pick
Speaker 1: a different pronoun pen not once in a while, every day. Hi,
Speaker 1: my name's us and I'm a preschool teacher. So my
Speaker 1: classroom celebrates diversity. It's probably my favorite thing to teach.
Speaker 1: We usually use kids books to talk about this kind
Speaker 1: of thing. Recently we started wearing pronoun pins and the
Speaker 1: kids get to pick a new pronoun pin every We
Speaker 1: have something that picked like she her every single day,
Speaker 1: and we have something that change it up. So diversity
Speaker 1: is really important in my crime. So I recently realized
Speaker 1: that there's a whole lot of really amazing figureheads and
Speaker 1: people to look up to in this world who aren't
Speaker 1: white or straight, or male or what have you, and
Speaker 1: that we should learn a little bit more about these people.
Speaker 1: They are trying to indocunate your kids. Obviously, obviously that's
Speaker 1: ever Tonight's hold the Line the Nose Spinoos of BILLI
Speaker 1: Radio's next builds high