Speaker 1: All right, news round up in Information Overload hour. Here's
Speaker 1: our toll free telephone number if you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. It's eight hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: four one Sean if you'd like to join us. About
Speaker 1: an hour ago, four o'clock Eastern, our friends at Berner
Speaker 1: Byarna dot com. I've been telling you all about them.
Speaker 1: You know, the beauty of Burner is this non lethal
Speaker 1: self protection. We have a crime epidemic in this country
Speaker 1: and it is out of control. And I argue, and
Speaker 1: I believe with all my heart, mind, body and soul
Speaker 1: that everyone needs a personal safety and security strategy for
Speaker 1: them and their family. Now, how does this relate to Berner, Well,
Speaker 1: they're breaking news today. About an hour ago they filed
Speaker 1: the lawsuit against the United Socialist Utopia of California and
Speaker 1: its governor, Gavin Newsom for the disarming of everyday civilians
Speaker 1: for even non lethal forms of self defense products. Now,
Speaker 1: remember all of these politicians, every one of them, and
Speaker 1: I believe they need it. I believe they deserve it.
Speaker 1: I don't care what their politics are. We live in
Speaker 1: an assassination culture. I want our politicians safe, whether I
Speaker 1: agree with them and disagree with them here to talk
Speaker 1: about it is Lewan Bom and he's the CMO CFO
Speaker 1: of Burner. So you just fillowed this lawsuit an hour ago.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir and Sean. Always great to join you and
Speaker 2: Merry Christmas to you and your audience. And you know,
Speaker 2: we're thankful for you giving us to giving Berner the
Speaker 2: platform to talk about something incredibly important to us and
Speaker 2: our challenge, our challenge against California's ban on Berna's pepper rounds,
Speaker 2: which we believe effects law boddying citizens of the state
Speaker 2: who simply wants a safe and effective alternative to lethal force.
Speaker 1: Well, you know it's interesting because we have a story
Speaker 1: out today. Well well, first of all, we have the
Speaker 1: story that I mentioned where, you know, because of the
Speaker 1: sanctuary state policies out there, we had another rig driver,
Speaker 1: a team wheeler driver that ended up killing a newlywed
Speaker 1: couple in Oregon, licensed from the state of California. You know,
Speaker 1: three of my fellow Floridians died because you know, you
Speaker 1: had a guy that couldn't read English and couldn't read
Speaker 1: road signs, and he had licenses in Washington State and
Speaker 1: in California. Now there's a story out today, federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: in California charged a fifty four year old ice hating
Speaker 1: lunatic after he hurled, you know, multiple molotov cocktails into
Speaker 1: a downtown federal building in an attack targeting immigration officials. Again,
Speaker 1: what have I been saying? The rhetoric is insightful. That
Speaker 1: is being used by the elected Democrats all around the country.
Speaker 1: It's insightful, it's dehumanizing, you know. And here in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. We have one National guard's been clinging to
Speaker 1: life and he's twenty four years old, and a twenty
Speaker 1: year old that lost her life keeping the nation's capital safe. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think self defense is critical and important.
Speaker 1: Why would they allow the sale when I lived in California?
Speaker 1: Now this goes back to the eighties, you know, so
Speaker 1: let's put this in perspective the late eighties. Why was
Speaker 1: I I had a license carried permit when I lived
Speaker 1: in California? Is are they hard to get?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Extremely hard. You know, as a person that lived
Speaker 2: in California for thirty five years, I who've never had
Speaker 2: access to a firearm, So you really had to go
Speaker 2: the extra mile to have the ability to lethal weapons
Speaker 2: and training. So it leaves folks with a lot of
Speaker 2: less options, and we're just dumbfounded why there is such
Speaker 2: a lack of common sense to give folks to If
Speaker 2: you're going to restrict legal force and limit it to
Speaker 2: a few, then the mass needs something that's effective to
Speaker 2: defend the sales and burnout is dessolution. And quite frankly,
Speaker 2: we have a strong customer base in California, but they're
Speaker 2: only relegated to using the kinetic rounds, which are formidable,
Speaker 2: but the chemical rounds attack the central nervousism that shuts
Speaker 2: down the aggressor for thirty to forty minutes.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, this is the point. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about the merits of the lawsuit. And I think one
Speaker 1: of the problems you have whenever you bring a lawsuit
Speaker 1: in California is jurisdiction. And obviously, liberal governors appoint liberal
Speaker 1: judges that are activist judges, and then I imagine you
Speaker 1: probably lose at the local level, then you probably have
Speaker 1: to take it to the appeals court, then you probably
Speaker 1: have to then you petition the Supreme Court at some point.
Speaker 1: I would like this to be a case law for
Speaker 1: the entire country, because I think every American has the
Speaker 1: same right to self defense that all of these elected
Speaker 1: officials have. You know, I had this rather infamous exchange
Speaker 1: with Bill Deblasio when he was the Mayor of New
Speaker 1: York and he came in my studio and he came
Speaker 1: in with four or five, six, I don't remember how
Speaker 1: many New York City police officers. All of them were armed, rightly,
Speaker 1: so I think he deserved the protection. I said, should
Speaker 1: every New Yorker have the right to protect themselves in
Speaker 1: their homes, in their lives the way you're being protected?
Speaker 1: And his answer was, every New Yorker has the right
Speaker 1: to be safe? And I'm would be like, that's not
Speaker 1: the question I asked you. I said, should every New
Speaker 1: Yorker have the right to have a firearm? You know,
Speaker 1: assume obviously you go through a background check, whatever the
Speaker 1: laws require. And should they have the same ability to
Speaker 1: defend themselves the way you have? And he kept saying
Speaker 1: every New Yorker has the right to be safe. It's
Speaker 1: his way of saying no. It was his way of ducking,
Speaker 1: dodging and weaving. It was his way of obfuscating because
Speaker 1: obviously the answer is he does not believe that every
Speaker 1: New Yorker should be protected like he's protected. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about the merits of the suit and what you believe. Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: by the way, used to have a similar band, did
Speaker 1: they not on stunt guns.
Speaker 2: Yes, that actually the company acts on who produces and
Speaker 2: markets the Taser stunt guns challenge the courts and one
Speaker 2: based on the fact that the stun guns are protected
Speaker 2: under the second right Second Amendment rights, and so Bernard
Speaker 2: is making that same same claim. You know, as you
Speaker 2: know Sean, we're we're Second Amendment supporters here at Berno.
Speaker 2: Many of us are firearms practitioners, but we also or
Speaker 2: the use of common sense when it comes to self
Speaker 2: protection because the laws around overuse of force, especially in
Speaker 2: the state of California, can ruin a person's life financially
Speaker 2: and take away their freedoms, et cetera. So we just
Speaker 2: want California to participate like forty other eight other states
Speaker 2: in the Union that states that having less lethal alternatives
Speaker 2: is the smart thing to do. And if you're in
Speaker 2: the blue state like California, we would think that they
Speaker 2: would be on board in full support of Burna's mission
Speaker 2: to reduce death by firearm. Yet somehow they're restricting us
Speaker 2: from giving law buying citizens the opportunity to defend themselves
Speaker 2: without taking or having to resort to deadly force.
Speaker 1: And here is that I don't understand because I researched
Speaker 1: this and I read your lawsuit. The state of California
Speaker 1: allows people to buy lethal firearms and bullets, obviously if
Speaker 1: you pass your background check, but they prohibit the sale
Speaker 1: and ownership of non lethal pepper rounds, which is what
Speaker 1: Berner uses. And they even allow in the state people
Speaker 1: to purchase their own pepper spray. The problem with pepper
Speaker 1: spray is at that point, you're now close quarter. That's
Speaker 1: called you know, at least if somebody's twelve feet away
Speaker 1: from you and you pull out your burner launcher and
Speaker 1: you can incapacitate them, that prevents them from taking your
Speaker 1: weapon from you or having a physical altercation of which
Speaker 1: most people are not trained or prepared for. And you know,
Speaker 1: and the second thing that I noticed too, is the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has been very clear in their precedence that
Speaker 1: it allows for the protection that the second member of
Speaker 1: protects citizens right to carry weapons commonly possessed for awful
Speaker 1: defensive purposes, including modern non lethal weapons. So when did
Speaker 1: this come up in California.
Speaker 2: It has always been a restriction for us. We've gone
Speaker 2: to great lengths to you know, implore legislation and lawmakers
Speaker 2: in California. And you know, we are now going to
Speaker 2: the airwaves, going to court to demand that the state
Speaker 2: revisits their policies, and we're asking all Californians to pick
Speaker 2: up the phone, call your state legislat leaders and you know,
Speaker 2: demand that they give everyone in California the opportunity to
Speaker 2: defend themselves and their families. I think this is probably
Speaker 2: an overlooked policy, but it needs to be revisited in
Speaker 2: a way where you know, we allow Californians in the yeah,
Speaker 2: the era of just out of control crime and homelessness,
Speaker 2: et cetera, to give them a chance to have something
Speaker 2: that doesn't you know, leave them to resort to the
Speaker 2: nuclear option, as we say. And you know, for us,
Speaker 2: it's we're not trying to take a fight. It's about
Speaker 2: saving lives. Burn is all about saving lives. We want
Speaker 2: to work with lawmakers so Californias can legally access these
Speaker 2: tools to protect their families. And you know, this is
Speaker 2: we strongly feel this is covered and protected by the
Speaker 2: Second Amendment and these things can coexist, and burn is
Speaker 2: fighting to make sure that you know, the Californian lawmakers
Speaker 2: understand our point of view and do what's right for
Speaker 2: the for their citizens.
Speaker 1: Well, I applaud you for what you're doing. It's unfortunate,
Speaker 1: it's expensive to bring lawsuits. However, I do think if
Speaker 1: you don't take a stand here, then these blue states,
Speaker 1: you know, they're going to be like Domino's and they're
Speaker 1: going to follow. There used to be a saying, so
Speaker 1: goes California, so goes the rest of the country. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's the case anymore because they moved so
Speaker 1: far to the radical left. Did you ever have a
Speaker 1: conversation or reach out to the governor?
Speaker 2: We are we in the past, we have talked to
Speaker 2: organizations like DSIs, who manages security guards and those types
Speaker 2: of folks, and you know, we're essentially shut down. At
Speaker 2: one point, we had a program that allowed people to
Speaker 2: take an no online class to have access to chemical
Speaker 2: irriton rounds. But just overnight they changed that policy and
Speaker 2: restricted us from doing that. And we've spoke to makers
Speaker 2: in California on behalf of the citizens that we're calling
Speaker 2: in and there people called this and say hey, what's
Speaker 2: this all about, and we articulate our point of view
Speaker 2: and saying, hey, we are on the side of saving
Speaker 2: lives here, and he just didn't lead us very far
Speaker 2: and very hard to get anything going from that standpoint. So,
Speaker 2: you know, we had we were left with no other
Speaker 2: option than to bring litigation so that someone can hear
Speaker 2: us because we are we believe that we're doing the
Speaker 2: right thing from a legal perspective, from a Second Amendment perspective,
Speaker 2: and to protect the citizens of California. And Sean, you
Speaker 2: and I were both California's at one point, and it's
Speaker 2: a beautiful state, and so we're just trying to make
Speaker 2: it safe for everyone and giving folks to empowerment to
Speaker 2: go out and enjoy the freedoms that this great country provides.
Speaker 2: And in a beautiful state like California, and you're afraid
Speaker 2: to leave your own home because you think you're going
Speaker 2: to get attacked, that's a travesty and it needs to
Speaker 2: be changed and we need empower folks to you know,
Speaker 2: enjoy all the freedoms that this great country provides.
Speaker 1: Well, I got to tell you something. It is the
Speaker 1: technology is superior. Again, I go back to I've never
Speaker 1: been a big fan of tasers because if you're involved
Speaker 1: in a conflict and it's a taser, that means you're
Speaker 1: close quarter fighting. I have often said, if I'm close
Speaker 1: quarters and people don't understand what I'm saying, if it's
Speaker 1: close quarter confrontation, I would prefer dealing with a fire
Speaker 1: ar close quarter pay close attention what I'm saying, then
Speaker 1: a knife. It's much harder to defend against a blade.
Speaker 1: And I say that, however, you don't want to be
Speaker 1: in a position where it's that close that you need
Speaker 1: a taser. You don't want to be in close quarters
Speaker 1: where you need pepper spray at that point. Most people
Speaker 1: don't have situational self defense skills. I've been training in
Speaker 1: it for fifteen years. They're not going to be They're
Speaker 1: going to be overwhelmed by a lunatic and they're not
Speaker 1: going to be prepared for it, and usually they'll end
Speaker 1: up with the weapon and not you. But by the way,
Speaker 1: people should look at the videos to know exactly what
Speaker 1: Berner offers. Just go to BYRNA dot com. And you're
Speaker 1: not only an advertiser, but I believe in the cause,
Speaker 1: So I want people to really know what their options
Speaker 1: are out there, and you know this way, somebody's coming
Speaker 1: at you the twelve feet, fifteen feet, twenty feet away,
Speaker 1: you can incapacitate them and you don't have a risk
Speaker 1: that they're going to be suing you after or you're
Speaker 1: going to be arrested after. But anyway, we really appreciate
Speaker 1: your time. Thank you so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: Luan FOM, thank you. We appreciate it. BYRNA dot com.
Speaker 1: And it's sad that it's come to this, especially in California.
Speaker 1: But it's not a shock, is it. So we're in DC.
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio has been too busy traveling the entire globe
Speaker 1: and I went through the list last night of all
Speaker 1: the areas around the world where you know he's been able,
Speaker 1: along with the president to secure peace and that working
Speaker 1: double time, over time, triple time to hopefully get a
Speaker 1: deal with Russian Ukraine. I hope the killing stops. I
Speaker 1: hope this piece in Europe. I hope the piece holds
Speaker 1: in the Middle East as well. Here's my interview with
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio's Secretary of State.
Speaker 4: I want to start this out with a fun question,
Speaker 4: because there are really serious issues involving national security piece
Speaker 4: around the globe. I mean, you're at the highest level
Speaker 4: of discussions and we're going to get into a lot
Speaker 4: of the hot spots and success and all that. But
Speaker 4: I got to ask you. There's there's a show that's
Speaker 4: come out. It's called The Age of Disclosure. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 4: I know everyone probably that right, everyone asks you about it.
Speaker 3: Sure, it's a new documentary.
Speaker 4: We had repeated instances of something operating in the airspace
Speaker 4: over restricted nuclear facilities. It's not ours, and presidents operate
Speaker 4: on a need to know base.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay. That is So a couple points on it.
Speaker 5: First of all, I'm not disavowing that I was an
Speaker 5: interview that was done almost like maybe three or four
Speaker 5: years ago when I was in the Senate, so it
Speaker 5: wasn't recent. The second point I would make, I was
Speaker 5: describing the allegations that people have come forward with the
Speaker 5: people that came forward to us. You know, some of
Speaker 5: these people were navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever that would come.
Speaker 3: Forward and say.
Speaker 5: That there were programs in the US government that not
Speaker 5: even presidents were made aware of. So I was describing
Speaker 5: what people had said to me, not things that I
Speaker 5: have firsthand knowledge of in that regard, a little bit
Speaker 5: of selective editing, but it's okay because you know, you're
Speaker 5: trying to sell a show there. But the fundamental comments
Speaker 5: I haven't seen it, but the clips I've seen and
Speaker 5: people have shown me are fundamentally true. And that is,
Speaker 5: there are things we know this this has been documented.
Speaker 5: There have been things that fly over the airspace, restricted airspace,
Speaker 5: be it where we're conducting military exercises I like, and
Speaker 5: everyone in the government says they're not ours. And so
Speaker 5: what I worry most about, just me personally, is that
Speaker 5: some adversary, another country, for example, has developed some asymmetric
Speaker 5: capability for valance of the like that we just are
Speaker 5: not prepared for. You know, we're looking for missiles and
Speaker 5: fighter jets and they're coming at us with drones and balloons.
Speaker 5: The one observation I had is we had people that
Speaker 5: did very important jobs in the US government who are
Speaker 5: saying these things. So we have people with very high
Speaker 5: jobs in the US government that are either a liars,
Speaker 5: B crazy, or c telling the truth. And two of
Speaker 5: those three options are not good. Those three options, I
Speaker 5: don't know the answer. I don't have any point of
Speaker 5: You know, I don't want to call them liars. I
Speaker 5: just don't have any independent way to verify everythings they said.
Speaker 3: I spent time.
Speaker 4: I've been talking to the mother of the National guardsmen
Speaker 4: that's in a hospital here in d C. Who's clinging
Speaker 4: to life. The issue of the vetting of Afghan nationals.
Speaker 4: You know, we learned that so many of them had
Speaker 4: so many warning signs. And I'll put up on the
Speaker 4: screen the statistics we took in seventy six thousand. There
Speaker 4: were over five thousand that never should have.
Speaker 3: Made it into this country. We were sure to repeat.
Speaker 4: Leave by the Biden administration that they had been vetted.
Speaker 4: There's no way that many of them could have been vetted.
Speaker 4: Eight hundred and eighty six of them. Will put that
Speaker 4: on the screen. Also are at large in the country
Speaker 4: as we speak. Right, you put a pause on this.
Speaker 4: The State Department has, the President has Christy Noma's spoken out,
Speaker 4: where are we with all of this and how dangerous
Speaker 4: is this?
Speaker 5: Well the pause is actually you know, we've announced it,
Speaker 5: but in fact we've we've been much more careful since
Speaker 5: we took over, with a lot of pressure on us
Speaker 5: by the way to let more people in so many
Speaker 5: of them served as interpreters alongside us in Afghanistan, and
Speaker 5: so their lives were at risk. So we had a
Speaker 5: lot of pressure to begin with, but we slowed that
Speaker 5: process down from day number one to take an extra
Speaker 5: look at people. Here's the problem with vetting people. You
Speaker 5: can't have a perfect vet, no matter who that person
Speaker 5: is for a couple of reasons. The first is we
Speaker 5: don't You can only vet information that exists, right, so
Speaker 5: it is possible that in many cases there are things
Speaker 5: about these people.
Speaker 3: You just don't know no matter how much you vet them.
Speaker 3: You just don't have certain information.
Speaker 5: And in some parts of the world where there's very
Speaker 5: limited documentation, very limited, you can't just go out and
Speaker 5: interview people. In many cases because of the presence of
Speaker 5: the Taliban, et cetera, it becomes very difficult. The second thing,
Speaker 5: you can't vet. You can vet what people have done
Speaker 5: in the past. You can't vet what people might do
Speaker 5: in the future. There's another dynamic at play here, and
Speaker 5: that is you could allow someone into our country who
Speaker 5: has no history of radicalization, perhaps they even have worked
Speaker 5: with you in the past, but they are susceptible to
Speaker 5: radicalization once they enter the United States because they don't
Speaker 5: assimilate well, because they fall victim to some of this
Speaker 5: online propaganda and efforts to radicalize people, and two or
Speaker 5: three years later you find that they have radicalized.
Speaker 3: That is a threat, That is a real threat. It
Speaker 3: is a threat for everyone.
Speaker 5: We have homegrown people people in the United States born
Speaker 5: here that have been radicalized. But I do think it
Speaker 5: is a higher threat among people that come from cultures
Speaker 5: and backgrounds that make them make it harder for them
Speaker 5: to assimilate once they get into the United States.
Speaker 3: And that make them vulnerable to Arabic.
Speaker 5: Language, for example, a propaganda by ISIS or al Qaida
Speaker 5: or any.
Speaker 3: Of these other groups that are looking to radicalize people.
Speaker 5: So it's look, the bottom line is there is no
Speaker 5: effective way to allow hundreds of thousands of people to
Speaker 5: enter any country in the world and not face consequences.
Speaker 5: You take one hundred thousand people from anywhere in the world,
Speaker 5: and you're going to have some percentage of them to
Speaker 5: turn out bad, either to turn into criminals or potentially terrorists.
Speaker 5: I think that threat is heightened when you come from
Speaker 5: places that have terrorist movement that would target these people
Speaker 5: for odicalization once they enter our country.
Speaker 4: You know, there seems to be some misunderstanding I called
Speaker 4: the Trump doctrine. I have my definition of it. Okay,
Speaker 4: I agree with the president. I don't want America involved
Speaker 4: in forever wars. Ever, again, I agree with that part,
Speaker 4: But that does not mean isolationism. There seems to be
Speaker 4: a group of Americans that misinterpret what the president means.
Speaker 4: As an example, soon his first term, he wiped out
Speaker 4: the Isis Caliphate. He took out Solo money on the tarmac,
Speaker 4: he took out Magdady and associates. He dropped the mother
Speaker 4: of all bombs on Afghanistan. You know, I don't know
Speaker 4: how anybody could think the world's not a safer place
Speaker 4: by taking out Rand's nuclear sites.
Speaker 3: That's not isolationism.
Speaker 4: That is American force used for good and twelve days
Speaker 4: later Israel and Iran stopped fighting.
Speaker 5: But the way I would describe it, it's not isolationism.
Speaker 5: It's also not adventurism, which is this argument that others
Speaker 5: have fallen into that somehow there's a problem in the
Speaker 5: world and the only solution to it is for the
Speaker 5: United States to send military assets to go solve it.
Speaker 5: What the President has done is he has Number one,
Speaker 5: he defines what's.
Speaker 3: In the core national interest to the United States. There's
Speaker 3: a lot of.
Speaker 5: Terrible things happening in the world, not all of them
Speaker 5: are at our core national interest. Number two, he defines
Speaker 5: what the outcome he wants, and number three, he takes
Speaker 5: actions that are very specific and limited to getting the
Speaker 5: outcome that's good for our country.
Speaker 3: So the case in point is irong Iran had these
Speaker 3: nuclear facilities.
Speaker 5: We know what they were, We've known what they were
Speaker 5: for a long time, and the president conducted a precise campaign.
Speaker 5: It wasn't a prolonged war. It was a twenty four
Speaker 5: hour operation. B two bombers left the mainland of the
Speaker 5: United States, came over a defined target, dropped payload fourteen
Speaker 5: missiles or fourteen rockets right into the holes of the
Speaker 5: boilers the bunker of us, turned around and went home.
Speaker 5: And that's it. It didn't involve five days of fighting.
Speaker 5: It in't all fifteen days of fighting. It involved ground
Speaker 5: troops or six months.
Speaker 3: He had a goal.
Speaker 5: The goal was we were going to destroy this nuclear facility.
Speaker 5: We were going to obliterate it. He went in, he
Speaker 5: did it, he got out, We were done.
Speaker 3: We achieved our objective. The objective was the destruction.
Speaker 5: Of the nuclear facility, which was achieved without entangling America
Speaker 5: on something broader than that. That's a great example of
Speaker 5: the limited and strategic and focused use of American power
Speaker 5: to achieve something that's in our national interest.
Speaker 3: It was in our national interest not to have her
Speaker 3: on have.
Speaker 5: A nuclear program that can be turned into a weapons
Speaker 5: program that could one day threat in the United States,
Speaker 5: and the presidents found an opportunity to do something about.
Speaker 3: It, and he did it.
Speaker 4: We talk a lot and a lot of people talk
Speaker 4: in the Make America Great Again movement about America first,
Speaker 4: and I believe in America first, but I also believe
Speaker 4: that we have to insight wisdom understanding.
Speaker 3: That goes along with that.
Speaker 4: And it seems like every one of the examples I
Speaker 4: just gave you where the President did use the might
Speaker 4: of the US military, it's against radical Islam and that
Speaker 4: threat I think, you know when people are chanting death
Speaker 4: to Israel, when they chanting death to America, specific threats
Speaker 4: against against our country. I have not forgotten nine to
Speaker 4: eleven oh one. What is the nature of radicalism that
Speaker 4: maybe some people don't understand, why it's in America's first interest.
Speaker 5: Because ultimately, all radical Islamic movements in the world identify
Speaker 5: you the West written large, but the United States in particular,
Speaker 5: as the greatest evil on the earth. And every chance
Speaker 5: to have the notion that somehow Radical Islam would be
Speaker 5: comfortable with simply controlling some province in Iraq or Syria
Speaker 5: is just not born.
Speaker 3: Out by history.
Speaker 5: Radical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply
Speaker 5: to occupy one part of the world and be happy
Speaker 5: with their own little califee. They want to expand. It
Speaker 5: is a revolutionary in its nature. It seeks to expand
Speaker 5: and control more territories and more people. And Radical Islam
Speaker 5: has designs openly on the West, on the.
Speaker 3: United States, on Europe.
Speaker 5: We've seen that progress there as well, and they are
Speaker 5: prepared to conduct acts of terrorism in the case of
Speaker 5: Iran nation, state actions, assassinations, murderers, you name it, whatever
Speaker 5: it takes for them to gain their influence and ultimately
Speaker 5: their domination of different.
Speaker 3: Cultures and societies.
Speaker 5: That's a clear and imminent threat to the world and
Speaker 5: to the broader West, but especially to the United States,
Speaker 5: who they identify as the chief chief source of evil
Speaker 5: on the planet. The reason why they hate the Kingdom
Speaker 5: of Saudi Arabia, the leadership of the UAE of Bahrain
Speaker 5: is because they've allowed the United States to partner with them.
Speaker 5: That's why they hate them. They consider them infidels for it.
Speaker 5: They hate Israel, but they also hate America, and they
Speaker 5: hate anywhere in the world that we have influenced. They
Speaker 5: seek to attack it, including here in the homeland. If
Speaker 5: you look at the domestic terrorists, at the attacks that
Speaker 5: happened here domestically, the overwhelming majority of them have been
Speaker 5: inspired by radical Islamic viewpoints.
Speaker 4: Let me move to Venezuela and Venezuela, it seems like
Speaker 4: America is showing its military presence. We've been taken out
Speaker 4: in Arcro terrorists conflict about that. Pete haik Set, the
Speaker 4: Secretary of Ward, addressed us earlier today in terms of
Speaker 4: the chain of command and taking out the right decision
Speaker 4: to take out these boats that are bringing drugs into
Speaker 4: our country.
Speaker 3: They are killing Americans. Maduro has been.
Speaker 4: Basically told by the President to get out. We on
Speaker 4: the verge of a possible conflict here now.
Speaker 5: So the a couple of things that I would say
Speaker 5: about it. The first is what the president is authorized
Speaker 5: as the.
Speaker 3: Counter drug mission in the region.
Speaker 5: The fact that Maduro is upset about it tells you
Speaker 5: the drugs are coming out of Venezuela. If you look
Speaker 5: at these boats today, the Maduro regime is not a
Speaker 5: legitimate government.
Speaker 3: What it is is that takes transhipment organization.
Speaker 5: It allows and other drugs that are produced in Colombia
Speaker 5: to be trafficked through Venezuelan territory, and with the cooperation
Speaker 5: of elements of the regime, are allowed to sail out
Speaker 5: on airplanes and lead Venezuela on airplanes and ships headed
Speaker 5: towards the United States, so they openly cooperate with the
Speaker 5: drug dealers. In addition to that, the Venezuelan regime is
Speaker 5: a source of instability in the entire region. Over eight
Speaker 5: million Venezuelans have flooded into neighboring countries as a result
Speaker 5: of the regime's activities within their own country, including into
Speaker 5: the United States. They also happen to be the foothold
Speaker 5: of Iran that's.
Speaker 3: Not spoken about enough. Iran.
Speaker 5: It's IRGC and even Hesbolah has a presence in South
Speaker 5: America and one of their anchor presents, especially for the Iranians,
Speaker 5: is inside of Venezuela. So we we just finished talking
Speaker 5: about Iran and the hostility it has towards the United States,
Speaker 5: where they have planted their flag in our hemisphere is
Speaker 5: on Venezuelan territory with a full an open cooperation of
Speaker 5: that regime. So the fact that Maduro feels threatened by
Speaker 5: the presence of US assets in the region and accounter
Speaker 5: drug mission, it proves that he's into the drug business.
Speaker 5: And by the way, we don't it's not me saying it.
Speaker 5: I'm not just making this up. This was an indictment
Speaker 5: that came out of the Southern District of New York
Speaker 5: back in twenty twenty, an indictment. It was undisputed until
Speaker 5: the President decided to do something about it. No one
Speaker 5: disputed that Maduro was in the drug trafficking business.
Speaker 3: No one.
Speaker 5: Now that he's doing something about you have all these
Speaker 5: people on the left and others that are coming out saying, well,
Speaker 5: it's not.
Speaker 3: True and it hasn't been proven.
Speaker 5: We have an indictment by a grand jury, not by politicians,
Speaker 5: by a grand jury in the Southern District of New
Speaker 5: York that indicted him and a bunch of people in
Speaker 5: the regime so.
Speaker 3: That's what's important to point out here.
Speaker 1: All right, that's going to wrap things up for it today.
Speaker 1: Back in the Free State of Florida tomorrow, Thank goodness.
Speaker 1: Loaded up tonight. You know, Scott Bessen is going to
Speaker 1: explain the economy to everybody. It's important. Also, Senator John
Speaker 1: Kennedy will join us. Also, we'll check in with Steve Miller.
Speaker 1: He'll be with us tonight, and Christy nomanill be on
Speaker 1: set as we're in Washington, DC all the we're going
Speaker 1: to have our own little cabinet me basically say DVR
Speaker 1: nine Eastern from the Swamp. Hannity back in the Free
Speaker 1: State of Florida tomorrow. Thank you for making this show possible.
Speaker 1: We'll see you tonight.