GOP War Hawks, Corporatists Revolt Against JD Vance; Demanding Low-Wage Workers Be Fired for Online Postings; Plus: Michael Tracey from RNC
TIMESTAMPS:
Intro (0:00)
Establishment Revolt (7:01)
Targeting Low Wage Workers (50:25)
Michael Tracey LIVE at RNC (1:10:37)
Sheriff Jow Arpaio (1:12:08)
Congressman Andy Barr (1:15:20)
Congressman Brian Mast (1:19:39)
Congressman Darin LaHood (1:29:06)
Senator Ted Cruz (1:34:52)
- - -
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
- - -
Follow Glenn:
Twitter
Instagram
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Janie Vance, the 39-year-old first-term Republican senator from Ohio and the Republican vice presidential nominee, will take the stage tonight at the Republican National Convention to deliver what will obviously be his most watched and most important speech in his short political career.
The symbolism is obvious by choosing the first-ever millennial candidate to appear on a major party national ticket.
Trump is clearly signaling where he thinks the future of his MAGA movement lies and in whose hands he envisions its continuation.
But not everyone in his party is happy with Trump's choice to put that very mildly.
Two separate wings of the Republican Party The Neocons and Warhawks from the Bush-Cheney era, as well as the Reaganite believers in pro-corporatist economic policies, are making their opposition to Vance and indeed their anger over his selection very clear.
It has long been obvious that, unlike the Democratic Party, which is almost entirely homogenized, unified, and in lockstep, you virtually never hear dissent from within that party, the Trump era has ushered in a vibrant and sometimes bitter, and I think healthy, intra-party dispute in the Republican Party over the direction of what is called, quote, the conservative movement, what updates it needs from the past.
As well as both the domestic and especially foreign policy that party ought to be pursuing.
The negative reaction to Vance among some of the worst and most destructive factions in the country are highly illustrative of what the Republican Party had been, why Donald Trump succeeded so successfully in 2016 by running against it, and where some people such as J.D.
Vance and obviously Donald Trump are trying to take the party in the future.
Then, since October 7th, we have been continuously documenting here on the show the excitement and enthusiasm on much of the pro-Israel right for so many of the values and the tactics and the weapons they long claim to despise as the sole providence of the, quote, woke left.
In the name of protecting Israel, they have caused the censorship and firing and legal restrictions and other punishments imposed on American citizens who are simply harsh critics of Israel and the U.S.' 's financing of its wars and are supporters of the Palestinian cause.
Countless people since October 7th in media, government, business, and academia have lost their jobs or otherwise been punished for the crime of expressing opposition to Israel and to the acts of that foreign government.
But now, quite predictably, those tactics on the part of that sector of the right are starting to expand into other areas and other issues.
And I think are starting to find quite a dark expression.
Anybody who, in the wake of Saturday's assassination attempt on Donald Trump, publicly lamented that the bullet missed him, in other words, people who were wishing violent death on Donald Trump or saying it was deserved or would be good for the country, are obviously expressing a despicable and twisted sentiment.
That goes without saying.
And to the extent those doing that are people who wield some sort of significant influence or power in this country, demands for them to be held accountable for such statements would obviously be reasonable.
That's what it means to wield public power and influence.
That is not what's happening.
Just as has been true of the efforts by the pro-Israel right to punish ordinary people, people with no power or influence, for their speech since October 7th, The campaign to punish people for expressing such demented thoughts about Trump are being aimed at those who wield basically no power.
People who are hourly wage workers for giant retailers or low-wage cashiers at places like Home Depot and the like.
And so I think it provokes the question, is it ever just or noble to target the least powerful and economically advantaged people in our society for the crime of simply saying something that was ill-advised, untoward, or even reprehensible after they get home from a 12-hour shift at a miserable job, and they post something like that to 20 or so of their friends on Facebook?
Should their lives be destroyed over that?
Their jobs taken away?
And although we certainly agree that the opinions they're targeting are, as we said, quite repugnant, we really want to examine both the wisdom and ethics of aiming those weapons at ordinary citizens who have zero power influence of any kind.
In fact, the least amount of influence of power in our country.
The independent roving reporter Michael Tracy continues to rove around the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where he is manically conducting more and more interviews of influential Republican politicians and others who are present at the convention for our program.
Tonight we have his interviews with people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Congressman Andy Barr, Congressman Brian Mask, as well as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
Before we get to all of that, a few programming notes.
First of all, we are encouraging people to download the Rumble app, which works both on your smart TV and your telephone, because if you do so, you can follow the shows you most like to watch on Rumble, obviously beginning with system update, but then other shows as well.
And if you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means any time, any minute that any of those shows begin broadcasting live on the platform, you'll be notified by a live link that you can just click on however you want, by text or email or whatever.
So that means that if these shows that you follow, these other ones start late, as we hear they do sometimes, obviously we consider punctuality very important, as you know, but other shows over here, do you start late if that happens or if other shows just go live because of a breaking news event outside of their regular scheduled time, you'll be notified.
You can click on the link.
No waiting around if those other shows are late.
No trying to figure out when people go on air.
You can just click on the link and begin watching live.
It really helps the platform.
On another note, the...
System Update Program is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after their first broadcast live here on Rumble on Spotify, Apple, and all the major podcasting platforms.
If you rate, review, and follow our show on those platforms, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night, Once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move to Locals, which is part of the Rumble platform where we have our live interactive aftershow to speak to our audience about their ideas, thoughts, critiques, suggestions.
That show is available only for members of our Locals community, so if you want to join, which gives you access not only to those twice-a-week aftershows, but to a multiple array of other features And most of all it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page and it will take you directly to that site.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.
Over the last two nights, we covered the remarks by the president of the Teamsters Union, Sean O'Brien, First, when he went on Fox News on Monday night, and he heaped praise on J.D.
Vance for a variety of specific actions that Vance took as a senator from Ohio that the Teamster Union regarded as highly pro-worker.
as promoting the interest of American labor and the working class.
And then last night, as we covered on our show, he went to the Republican National Convention, where he gave a speech that was quite remarkable, not just because he was the first Teamster president in many, many years to go to the Republican National Convention, but because he preys on other many years to go to the Republican National Convention, but because he preys on other Republicans, including Josh Hawley, and made clear that there were members in both the Democratic and Republican Party who were simply servants of big, concentrated corporate power of the kind that buys and controls Washington at
And then there were allies of the working class in both parties, and he was open to working with everyone.
But there were a lot in the Republican National Convention, he said, under Trump, which is why he was there.
Now, the reason we cover that is not just because the president of the Teamsters Union matters so much as an individual or even as a labor official, although he does, that would be important.
But the real reason is because I think one of the common themes of not just the show, but my work before the show, basically since the emergence of Donald Trump, has been this attempt to identify what is obviously a realignment, a realignment that was taking place before Donald Trump came on the scene.
It was evident with the huge vote that Ron Paul received both times he ran for president in the Republican primary, doing things like ranting and raving against neocons and their evil and the evils of foreign wars, rallying against free trade as something that has devastated The American heartland and the American working class.
All those critiques that you can even go back to Pat Buchanan who was making some of those as well when he ran against George H.W.
Bush, challenged the Republican Party incumbent in 1992 and did far better than anybody expected.
This sentiment has been percolating a long time in Republican Party politics, including vehement opposition to the kinds of foreign wars that Republican neocons have championed.
Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul were among the earliest and most vociferous and most vocal and most prescient opponents of the war in Iraq in a way that few members of the Democratic Party actually were.
You can certainly find members of the Democratic Party who are as well, and I think that's largely because that was a Republican president supporting that war, and a lot of Democrats will just reflexively oppose anything they do.
But clearly there has been a growing sentiment in the Republican Party and the American right that we fight too many wars, that we go to war too easily, we spend far too much on other countries' militaries and other countries' wars and we don't spend enough time taking care of the welfare of American citizens and American workers.
And then a lot of the fault with that lies in global internationalist institutions that have turned these gigantic corporations from what they used to be in the era of, let's say, Ronald Reagan, which were primarily American corporations.
And you can debate whether the corporatism of the Reagan era, which is now 40 years ago, was good or bad.
But it's a completely different case now because these corporations have no allegiance to the United States.
They may be called American corporations to name only.
But they have no legal limits.
They've gotten rid of all the legal limits that prevent them from shipping American jobs overseas so that they have to pay infinitely less to employ citizens of China or other Asian countries or Mexican countries where there are virtually no labor protections.
And that has gutted the conditions for the American worker at the same time that corporations in the Chamber of Commerce have cheered the shipping in of huge numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal, based on the explicit argument that doing so will increase based on the explicit argument that doing so will increase the labor supply and therefore further gut the power of American workers, their wages, and their benefits.
And that's exactly what happened.
That's why the American heartland is gutted and devastated, and why it was only Donald Trump who, in their view, spoke to them and spoke about those problems, and that was one of the reasons why he attracted so many working-class voters who had long, for generations, voted for Democrats, and these multiracial working-class voters for generations, voted for Democrats, and these multiracial working-class voters continued to migrate to the Republican Party.
And at the same time, some of the worst sectors of the Republican Party, the neocons, even the hardcore corporatists, have seen the changes in the Republican Party that I consider positive and a lot of people consider positive, but that establishment goons in Washington consider very negative because it takes but that establishment goons in Washington consider very negative because it takes away centralized power from Washington and from the corporations that It denies the wars that they are eager to fight and profit off of, and they have migrated away from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.
Recognizing correctly that their agenda would be better served by the Democratic Party.
That is all that is taking place.
And the only people who don't see that are Democrats and Liberals and even certain people on the left who just cannot and will not believe no matter what, no matter how much evidence you place in front of them.
That anybody who has an R after their name could possibly have a genuine concern for the working class, for working people.
They've been trained for so long to believe that it's Democrats who fight for the little guy, for the worker, but it's Republicans who serve corporate power.
And for some time decades ago, that was true.
One of the things the Trump era did has transformed the Republican Party into something very different than it was under George Bush and Dick Cheney, certainly, but also under Ronald Reagan as well.
Which again was 40 years ago.
So even if you like the version of Reaganomics that prevailed in the Republican Party, we're very far removed from that.
And what worked then, if you think it worked then, doesn't necessarily work now.
Now, that is the crucial context for understanding the importance of J.D.
Vance's Choice by Donald Trump as Vice President because as is evident by the reaction, the angry reaction of so many of these traditional establishment Republicans, the warmongers, the neocons in the Republican Party, the corporate servants in the Republican Party who are backlashing and expressing horror and anger at the choice of J.D.
Vance.
They can't really challenge Trump because he's way too powerful in the party.
Anyone who does that destroys their future as a Republican.
That's why they have to leave the party.
In order to denounce Trump, you cannot denounce Trump and have any future in the Republican Party.
So instead, they're trying to take it out on JD Vance.
Now, just to underscore this point, Frank Luntz is a longtime Republican pollster.
He was the person who has long been specializing in teaching Republicans how to speak, what words to use based on polling.
Republicans in the Bush administration believe that he was this young genius.
He made a ton of money consulting the Republican Party.
But he is very, very much a core part of the establishment wing, the pre-Trump establishment wing of the Republican Party.
So much so that, as Tucker Carlson revealed on his show last year, when Kevin McCarthy was in Washington when he was the House Speaker.
He was rooming with Frank Luntz.
And at the time, Frank Luntz was serving as, among other things, a paid lobbyist for Google.
So the Republican Speaker of the House was a roommate in Frank Luntz's house that was paid for by paid lobbying from Google.
That's the kind of thing that both the Republican and the Democratic Party establishment wings have become.
Frank Luntz does not like Donald Trump.
He does not like this new version of the Republican Party.
He wants his old Republican Party back, led by the Mitch McConnells of the world.
And you may have seen the video that when Mitch McConnell went to speak.
Even though what he was there to do was to speak on behalf of the delegates of Kentucky and pledge those delegates to Donald Trump, he was viciously viewed, Mitch McConnell was, by the delegates of the Republican Party.
Because he represents this old, established wing of the Republican Party and the ideology that this new version of Trump supporters absolutely hates.
That's just the reality.
And if you don't see that internal division in the Republican Party, if you don't see that realignment, it's impossible to understand American politics.
Here's what Frank Luntz said after watching the first night of the Republican Convention.
On July 16th, he tweeted the following, quote, last night, voters saw a Republican Party that they and I have never seen before.
A stage filled with hardworking taxpayers, African-Americans, working women, union members and delegates dancing in the aisles.
Speeches bashing corporate America and the status quo.
We witnessed the realignment of American politics Trump style.
And in this tweet, he's obviously opposed to the new version of the Republican Party.
He very much likes the lobbyists serving, drowning in corporate money, fighting wars version of the Bush Republican Party that made Franklin's career.
But what he describes there is very accurate.
It is a new Republican Party of the kind never seen in most of our lifetimes when looking at the Republican Party.
And all of those different elements are now part of the Republican Party that previously never were, including booing and ranting and raving against corporate power, something that would have been heretical in Ronald Reagan's Republican Party or in George Bush and Dick Cheney's.
And because of that, there are a lot of members of the Republican Party who, again, because they cannot take it out on Trump, are instead now taking it out on J.D.
Vance.
This article is one of the most interesting I've seen in quite some time.
A bunch of warmongers in the Republican House ran to Politico, hid behind anonymity, most of them, a few spoke on the record, and here you see the headlines.
Scared to death, GOP security hawks slam J.D.
Vance's election.
You know why they slammed it?
Because they're scared to death of him.
Who are?
GOP security hawks.
Now, one of the things I dislike about J.D.
Vance is that he is a, quote, skeptic when it comes to endlessly funding the Ukraine war.
And Politico says that the selection of Vance by Trump accelerates his party's rejection of its Reaganite roots.
Now, the one thing I dislike about this framing is that Ronald Reagan did fight a lot of covert wars that I think were extremely destructive, including in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
But that was part of the Cold War.
It was all justified in the name of keeping communism out of Latin America.
We backed coups.
We armed all kinds of death squads.
And so a lot of people believe, well, during the Cold War, we should be fighting those wars because we were fighting against Soviet ideology.
But Soviet communism doesn't exist anymore.
It fell in the late 1980s.
Russia is not a communist country anymore, which is why it's valid to question NATO's ongoing purpose.
Since its whole purpose was to prevent the Soviet Russians from spreading into Western Europe.
But I think that oftentimes Ronald Reagan is depicted deliberately as far more of a warmonger or a militarist than he really was.
You can go back actually and look at the fact that Reagan was one of the very few presidents in recent history who often told Israel no when the Israelis demanded more American involvement in the Middle East.
In fact, When Ronald Reagan came into office, there was a gigantic military marine base in Lebanon, and it was attacked by people in that region who don't want the United States' gigantic, sprawling marine base in their region.
And something like 250 marines were killed, I think, over that, something like 280.
This is at the start of the Reagan administration.
And the Israelis said, The people who did that were Iran, and you need to go to war with Iran.
And he was pressured by a lot of people in Washington and both parties to do exactly that.
Instead, what Reagan did is he said, we have no business keeping military bases in the Middle East.
And he closed the military base and withdrew from Lebanon as a response to having it attacked in a suicide bombing that killed a huge number of Marines who, for some reason, were kept in Lebanon.
So it's a much more mixed record.
Reagan came from this more old-style Republican Party that oftentimes were questioning, kind of the wing of the Buchananites and the like, the need for intervention.
The opposition to intervention over the previous decades had come from what was called the isolationist right.
And so that strain of Republican Party and right-wing politics was always there.
And sometimes Reagan rejected it, and oftentimes he embodied it.
The real era That this comes from, this kind of neocon warmongering, is the Bush and Cheney administration.
But the people who want to glorify this obviously don't want to call it the Bush and Cheney militarism because Bush and Cheney were widely unpopular and hated.
And so they attribute it to the Reagan era.
Trump is abandoning the Reagan era.
What he's really abandoning, at least in foreign policy, is the Bush-Cheney neocon.
Foreign policy, one that neocons recognize, which is why they've largely migrated, and one that J.D.
Vance overtly hates.
So here's what Politico reports.
Quote, should Trump prevail in November, the non-interventionists will have one of their most articulate advocates at Trump's side.
Oh no!
That seems really scary.
If Donald Trump wins in November, the non-interventionists, meaning the war opponents, will have one of their most articulate advocates at Trump's side.
Does that sound like A thing that we're supposed to fear?
Well, obviously the people in the Republican Party who love war and want more war do in fact fear that.
Quote, what worries the Hawks is that Vance may also be the last advisor in the former president's ear.
You can't have a non-interventionist as the last word in the president's ear.
Quote, Representative Ken Calvert, a Republican of California who oversees military spending as the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair, told one associate, according to a person familiar with the exchange, quote, the Ukrainians better hurry up and win.
Another influential Congressional Republican simply told me about the Vance election, quote, I'm scared to death.
In a series of interviews, Republicans from the Reaganite wing, and again, I would call that more the Bush 43 wing, openly urged Trump to counter Vance's influence by appointing more hawkish national security officials.
Quote, I would love to see more like-minded people in cabinet positions, said Joni Ernst, a Republican of Iowa.
Citing former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Senator Tom Cotton, the Republican senator from Arkansas, Bob Hawks, as, quote, Ernst S. Picks.
The Hawks are eager to install Mike Pompeo as the Defense Department and see Tom Cotton at the CIA or inside the White House.
And are supportive of Senator Bill Hagerty, the Republican from Tennessee, or Robert O'Brien, Trump's first-term national security advisor as Secretary of State.
The fiercest clash may be over Rick Grinnell, the troll-happy ambassador to Germany, and Trump's first term who is widely thought to covet the State Department or national security advisor.
Now, you see what they're saying there.
Donald Trump ran on a certain ideology in 2016 that the Republicans of his party and in the country voted for, which is why he won.
Sometimes he governed in accordance with that ideology, oftentimes he did not.
And oftentimes the reason he didn't is because Trump allowed, and Trump deserves the blame since he chose them, a huge number of neocons of the kind he said he wanted to run against to contaminate and infiltrate his administration at the highest levels.
Mike Pompeo One of the most classic, standard, banal, predictable Republican war hawks that neocons love was the CIA director and then the Secretary of State.
Trump adored him because Mike Pompeo was very smart and knew how to flatter and manipulate Trump.
Trump's ambassador to the UN was Nikki Haley, the ultimate neocon in Washington.
He was surrounded by those kind of people and the idea was, okay, let's let Trump, we can't do anything about Trump.
Let him rant and rave about his anti-war and populist policies.
We'll just put people around him who will really be running the show and will stop Trump from doing what he wants.
And that was the strategy in the first Trump term.
We'll see whether Donald Trump is authentic or not this time, and ensuring that those people who he recognizes tried to ruin his administration—he doesn't take blame, he blames the people he hired—will actually be able to contaminate and infiltrate his administration again.
The choice of J.D.
Vance indicates that the people, at least of now, who are in Trump's ear are the people who favor a rejection of neocon ideology.
That's why these wings of the Republican Party are so freaked out.
Here is Luke Ratajkowski, who I believe is at the Tim Pool Show.
I know he was.
I believe he still is.
And he has been an independent journalist for a long time.
I've known Luke for a long time.
And here's MSNBC trying to scare people about what the New Republican Party is by saying that, look at all these notable Republicans who are not attending the RNC.
All these incredibly brilliant and wonderful people like former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Republican nominee and current Senator Mitt Romney, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney who was booted out of the party by her own voters by a 36 point margin, and then
Former Vice Presidential Candidate Under Romney, former Congressman and Speaker of the House and current board member of Fox News, including when Tucker Carlson was fired, Paul Ryan.
These are the Republicans liberals now love.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, the Cheney family, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan.
Because liberals only ask one question about everybody.
Are you against Trump and do you denounce him or don't you?
And if you do, You can be Bill Kristol and David Frum.
You can be Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney.
People who supported what liberals just 20 years ago were calling the worst war crimes in the history of our country.
Torture and waterboarding and kidnapping and Guantanamo.
And everything is absolved and wiped away and as long as you denounce Trump, You're beloved and if you don't you're considered some sort of far-right fascist or whatever.
So MSNBC is trying to say to the country, oh look all these wonderful people aren't at the Republican Party and Luke said this is actually an incredibly great sign and I agree completely.
What kind of party could possibly have any good ideas or be intent on doing anything good if it is represented by the likes of George Bush, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney and Paul Ryan?
Those are the bleeding, oozing embodiments of establishment politics.
And the fact that they don't feel comfortable in the Republican Party is not a scary or bad thing.
It is a very good thing.
Now, speaking of the new Republican Party, we mentioned, in fact, In-depth, in an in-depth way, reported on the fortation between the Teamsters Union and the Republican Party.
And one of the things we showed you last night that the Teamster President said when he spoke to the Republicans is he devoted about five or seven minutes to the extremely pro-labor, pro-worker positions and acts of Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, the Republican from Missouri, who As we mentioned, Matt Stoller, who works on antitrust and battling concentrated corporate power, is also a fan of, along with J.D.
Vance, because they represent this sort of rejection of corporatist politics and, once again, defending the interests of the American worker.
And so in response to the Teamsters president going to the Republican convention and specifically naming Josh Hawley as a friend of labor and a pro-worker senator, Josh Hawley said, thank you to the Teamsters union.
It's an honor to stand with you and thank you to the Teamsters president.
It's an honor to stand with you for the working people of Missouri and America.
For as long as I've lived, there would be no greater poison to a Republican Party National Convention than labor, than a labor union.
But the Republican Party has increasingly become a working class party.
Josh Hawley has said he thinks the future of the Republican Party that will allow them to rule and dominate and win elections is a multiracial working class party.
And there are people within the Republican Party obviously sincere and authentic about that view, which is why it's not just in words, but in actions that people like Josh Hawley and J.D.
Vance are exciting and provoking the affection of people like Those who work for a living defending workers and who have been workers their entire lives, such as Sean O'Brien, and the huge corporations, on the other hand, that fund and support the Democratic Party, along with the affluent suburbanites that have formed now their primary base, in addition to Black voters, many of which they're bleeding, especially Black male working workers, Black male members of the working class.
That who is really is migrating more and more away from the Democratic Party, and there's good reasons for that.
Now, One of the favorite commentators on MSNBC and CNN over the last four years is John Bolton, who I would say indisputably is probably the most maniacal warmonger of any official who has ascended to any sort of power in American government and national government.
He was an ambassador under George Bush and Dick Cheney.
And he constantly was pushing for more and more wars against Iran and all other things to the point where he developed a reputation as kind of this like Dr. Strangelove figure.
And then Trump hired him as a White House advisor, but he left after a fairly short time because he was angered with Trump for not doing things like overthrowing the government of Venezuela, going to war with Iran.
Trump was basically using Bolton as this kind of crazed dog, drooling dog in the corner that he could threaten other countries with to gain more leverage, but he never really let John Bolton get in his way.
And so John Bolton left after a very short time and turned into a vehement hater of Donald Trump, which is of course the only reason he's welcomed on MSNBC and CNN, where he postures as some sort of foreign policy statesman.
The most deranged maniacal warmonger is now welcomed on liberal outlets because he goes on there to bash Donald Trump for not being sufficiently pro-war.
And he also hates J.D.
Vance, and so he was welcomed on MSNBC last night to respond to the prospect of another Trump presidency, especially with J.D.
Vance.
Let me just show you this interview because it too is very telling about the reshaping of our politics.
- Reporting, Andrea Mitchell's done a lot of great reporting about the hesitance that NATO allies have about a Donald Trump administration, a second term, the nervousness they have about it, whether they can rely on the United States.
Donald Trump, of course, has not been so fond of NATO, and he's not said friendly things about NATO, but during his time in office, were his policies friendly toward NATO?
I had the chairman of the Intel Committee, Congressman Turner, on today who said that yes, they were, and he believes NATO will be fine.
Well, I'd like to believe that too.
sees by what you've seen before.
I think it's really high confidence that he again will strengthen NATO.
And certainly NATO is not at risk.
I'm sorry, that kind of came in out of nowhere.
But what do you make of that?
Well, look, I respect the chairman's opinion a great deal, but he wasn't in the room with me in Brussels in 2018 at the NATO summit when Trump came within an inch of withdrawing from NATO.
He doesn't understand the alliance.
He sees it in terms of America providing defense contracting services to a bunch of ungrateful Europeans who don't pay for it.
And if he had his druthers, I do think he would withdraw from the alliance.
I think it's a very serious risk.
Now, you'll notice there he said that Trump and his allies see NATO as this kind of military contracting service where the United States protects the Western Europeans, almost all of whom have a higher standard of living for their citizens than millions and millions of Americans enjoy.
Millions and millions.
Tens of millions.
They provide free national health care and free college and they're thriving and their economy, all kinds of benefits that most American citizens simply don't have because they're told there's no money for it.
And at the same time, the United States pays enormous amounts to protect Western Europe and to provide this kind of defense umbrella for it so that they don't have to spend nearly anything near the percentage even of their GDP that the United States spends on its military to protect Western Europe.
And Trump's attitude has always been, why should Germany and France and these very rich countries be able to spend huge amounts of money improving the lives of the citizens of their country When our citizens are suffering and we're the ones who have to pay for their defense and he said, look, if these rich countries in Europe don't start paying the same thing we're paying for, why should we continue to protect them?
It's exactly what it is.
It's a welfare program for arms manufacturers and the ones who benefit are Western Europe because it gives people like John Bolton an instrument and an arm to fight as many wars as they want.
And the same is true with the war in Ukraine.
If you really believe that Vladimir Putin is somehow destabilizing Europe or going to fight beyond Ukraine, the people with the greatest interest in preventing that, if you really believe that's what he's doing, I certainly don't, but if you really do believe that, of course the people who have the much greater interest in what's happening in Ukraine are the European countries right near there, not the United States on the other side of the ocean.
And so one of the things J.D.
Vance has said is like, look, I'm not necessarily against Having Ukraine be able to fight Russia, but why should we pay for it and not Europe?
And so you'll see John Bolton says he sees NATO as this kind of scam where the American worker is forced to buy weapons from weapons manufacturers who profit and then provide it for free to Europe, who then really doesn't pay their fair share, but he never refutes that.
And the idea that you can't question NATO's viability, as I said, given that the whole purpose of it was to stop something that no longer exists, which is Soviet communism, Is the kind of thing that I understand why John Bolton believes, but why would anybody in the Republican Party who claims to want to put America first, why would they believe that?
What about the subject of Ukraine and the pick of J.D.
Vance?
J.D.
Vance is somebody who believes that Ukraine needs to make a peace deal with Russia and to cede territory if necessary.
He doesn't believe it's good financially for the United States to keep sending money to Ukraine because he doesn't believe Ukraine has the ability to win.
What's your expectation for a posture toward Ukraine with Donald Trump back in office and now with J.D.
Vance as his running mate?
Oh no, J.D.
Vance favors a peace deal to end a two and a half year brutal war that looks to have no end in sight.
Is there anything scarier than that?
Somebody who favors a peace deal, who wants the American citizens to stop financing this war that's completely futile, that will never end in the expulsion of all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory?
The kind of peace deal that we could have had in the first or second month of this war had Boris Johnson and Joe Biden not intervened to put a stop to it, killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians.
A war that even Ukrainians are risking their lives to flee from.
That's scary that J.D.
Banz favors a peace deal.
Well, I think it's going to be very bad for Ukraine.
It's what Vance has said about it is wrong in many material respects.
I don't think he appreciates the American national security interest in protecting Ukraine against this unprovoked Russian aggression.
There seems to be this idea that we're doing this out of the goodness of our hearts.
It's an act of charity.
We're nice people, although we are.
We're doing it because there's an American national security interest in peace and security in Europe.
Huge trading partners of ours and allies in other areas around the world.
You know, it's interesting.
One of the things Vance relies on is he says we just need the Europeans to do more in Europe because we have to worry more about Chinese threats in the Pacific.
And it is the case that China is the existential threat this century, but it's forming an axis with Russia.
These conflicts are connected.
And maybe Vice President-designate Vance ought to listen to his boss's interview on Bloomberg News last night, where Trump said, you know, Taiwan's 9,000 miles away from us.
It's 100 miles away from China.
It's really not worth the effort, basically, is what he said, which is consistent with what Trump has said about Taiwan on other occasions.
I think there's a real disconnect here, but the bottom line is that these are candidates who do not fundamentally understand that a strong American presence in the world is good for us here at home.
So I mean, I guess, you know, the interesting question there is, and it's amazing how much John Bolton sounds exactly like liberals.
Not just in his support for the US funding of the Ukrainian war, but all of his rationale for it as well.
It's exactly identical.
On the topic of China and Taiwan though, assuming that China wants to actually invade and annex Taiwan, And the view of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which he has explained many times, including when he was on my show, is that he believes what is provoking China to want to invade Taiwan is how much presence the United States has immediately encircling all of China and doing all sorts of antagonistic things in that region that's causing the Chinese to be more and more feeling more and more threatened.
But let's just put that question aside.
The question becomes, Well, nobody, I guess, other than the Chinese wants to see the Taiwanese forcibly reintegrated into China and subject to its rule.
Is that something that you're willing to send your sons and daughters or yourself to go fight and die for?
To protect a small country that's very, very close to China, very, very far away from the United States.
Are you willing to go risk a war with the other greatest power on the planet in order to protect Taiwan and keep it independent?
And if you are, and we have a referendum on that, and people want to go to war over that and are willing to send their children into combat in order to fight the Chinese army, In their region, then I suppose that's something that we can have a debate about.
But the idea that it's so facially ridiculous to say, as Trump did, well, I'm not really sure we should go to war with China over Taiwan, which, by the way, has been the policy of the United States for decades until Joe Biden came into office, which is, yeah, we're not going to say whether we would go to war with China or not over Taiwan.
Joe Biden came into office and said, I would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan.
He was the first president to do it.
But again, this is Why John Bolton feels much more comfortable on liberal channels and why he sounds exactly like the modern-day liberal when he's talking not just about Ukraine but foreign policy generally and why he's rightly very uncomfortable with J.D.
Vance's foreign policy views because he rejects the sort of warmongering that John Bolton has built his career profiting off of and advocating.
of mega Republicans don't believe in candidates who do. - Now I think this question is really good by Katie Turr, the MSNBC, who is this one here.
Listen to this question and try and see if you think John Bolton answers it in any way.
- Do not fundamentally understand that a strong American presence in the world is good for us here at home. - So the new generation of mega Republicans don't believe in the old ways of the Republican Party, the hawkish foreign policy, They don't believe it worked.
They believe it's led to disaster.
And they'll point out what happened in the Middle East after 9-11.
They'll say that George Bush and the policies of that administration were a failure and got us into an even bigger mess, that the United States can't be the world's policeman.
And so when you come out and say they don't understand it, they will turn it back at you and say, well, you didn't understand it either.
You haven't put us in a safer place.
What is the response to that sort of thinking that we hear so frequently among the new generation of Republicans here at the Republican Convention?
Well, I don't think it's as widespread as perhaps some people think.
of the Trump movement's view of people like John Bolton and neocons in general is like, look, who should listen, why should anyone listen to you, let alone follow your ideology?
It's been nothing but bloodthirsty and incredibly destructive in terms of lives lost and money wasted.
You people have destroyed the world more than anybody.
Who would ever continue to follow your viewpoint and get more of the same?
It was a good question.
Basically saying, your ideology is the one that has basically destroyed the world.
And the new version of the Republican Party is saying, we don't want to follow people like you anymore.
We don't want to get involved in all kinds of foreign wars and squander our treasure and lose lives over wars that have nothing to do with us.
She summarized very fairly, very surprisingly, the view of what I would call the MAGA movement, Donald Trump, and certainly J.D.
Vance as well.
She puts that to John Bolton and says, what is your answer?
And he just sort of babbles.
Listen to this.
Well, I don't think it's as widespread as perhaps some people think it is.
I think the party remains very strongly committed to a Reaganite foreign policy.
That's what polls show, including aid to Ukraine.
I think it'd be extraordinarily foolish to walk away from NATO or to undercut NATO, the world's most successful political military alliance.
I think in the Middle East, it was not The overthrow of the Taliban after 9-11 that caused the problem.
It was the Trump deal that Biden implemented to withdraw from Afghanistan that's left us in real danger there.
And I think the unwillingness of both Trump and the Democratic Party to pursue effective policies with respect to Iran.
And when it comes to China, I don't think even The people like J.D.
Vance appreciate that what Trump is most likely to do with China when it comes down to it, if only Xi Jinping calls him up after the election and congratulates him, to revert immediately to the negotiation mode to produce the biggest trade deal in history, which is what Trump really sees as an achievement.
You know this is this is an important conversation because I do think that the Republican Party is at risk of the virus of isolationism.
We repeat this mistake from generation to generation and I hope we're not about to repeat it again.
So he basically ignored the question like yeah we have destroyed the world but here's why I think we should keep following people like me.
Now I just want you to note at that last point there because there's an important point he called the Trump worldview isolationist.
And he did so about six seconds after he said that what Trump really wants with China is not war, but a peaceful relationship, not where the United States is isolating itself with the world, but trading with the world.
That's always what Rand Paul's argument was.
I'm not an isolationist.
I want to be engaged with the world.
I want to be trading with the world, buying and selling, creating economic opportunity for people, lifting people out of poverty.
I just don't want to go to war with them.
And the term, the disparaging term that has been applied to people who don't want to go to war with other countries is isolationist.
When, as John Bolton just got done demonstrating, Trump doesn't want to isolate the United States or himself at all from the rest of the world.
He wants to trade with China and have a constructive, respectful, peaceful relationship with them.
But John Bolton's view of the world always is that anytime we don't go to war, anytime we let another country be unoccupied, It's somehow weakening our national security, even though following the John Boltons of the world has been what has destroyed our national security more than anything.
Now, and I think the fact that he hates J.D.
Vance is one of the best endorsements possible for J.D.
Vance, just like the fact that neocons in both parties hate J.D.
Vance is also a very high recommendation for him.
Now, just to conclude this discussion, I just want to show you Reason Magazine.
Which is a magazine that I've had very good interaction with.
There are a lot of things Reason Magazine stands for that I agree with.
They're civil libertarians.
They believe in free speech, like a genuine believer in free speech.
There are a lot of people there with whom I have a good amount of affinity.
But on economic issues, what they are is sort of hardcore libertarians in the 1980s Reaganite sense of the term, which is the federal government should not be involved in the economy.
We should allow corporations to get as rich as possible somehow that will improve the lives of everybody else.
And as I said, maybe that was true in the 1980s, but it's certainly not true now because as we see, corporate conglomerates like Amazon and Google And major airlines and Boeing grow and grow and grow, and it hurts the American worker.
It doesn't help them in any way.
And so here is Reason Magazine, who doesn't like the sort of pro-worker policies of Josh Hawley and J.D.
Vance, or even protectionism or the elimination of free trade that has gutted the country, saying, quote, the Republican vice presidential nominee, J.D.
Vance, is an enemy of free markets.
The Ohio Senator is one of the party's leading advocates of protectionism, economic planning, and immigration restrictions.
Reason loves uncontrolled, unplanned immigration because all they love is corporate power and corporate profits, and that means that workers get paid nothing and have miserable lives, while multinational conglomerates get more and more powerful and richer and richer at everybody else's expense.
And that's obviously not what the base of the Republican Party wants anymore.
Quote, Ohio Senator J.D.
Vance just became Donald Trump's running mate.
If you care about free markets and liberty generally, he's just about the worst person the Republicans could have chosen among those who got serious consideration.
Since being elected to the Senate in 2022, Vance has become one of the Republicans' leading champions of protectionism, economic regulation, and planning through, quote, industrial policy, restrictions on foreign investment, and of course, immigration restrictions.
As Alec Norsworth and I explained in our article, quote, The Case Against Nationalism, these right-wing forms of central planning have most of the same weaknesses as their socialist counterparts.
These policies create terrible incentives and predictably make the nation poorer and less innovative.
Vance is also one of the Republicans' leading opponents of USA to Ukraine.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
In the eyes of reason, it is.
hard to block the deal on aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, reached by the White House and Republican Speaker Mike Johnson in April.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
In the eyes of reason, it is.
And this is the reason why the working class and unions and labor are migrating to the Republican Party, because nobody believes anymore in this sort of blind servitude to gigantic corporations that somehow continuing to do their bidding will result in a better In fact, what we have now is corporate welfare.
Lobbyists and these gigantic corporations who come into Washington into what are supposed to be our democratic institutions.
They write the laws.
They influence regulators to hand them out huge benefits.
Look at how rich they got during COVID.
A massive transfer of wealth to the biggest corporations.
Now, I'm sure Reason would say they oppose that.
That's crony capitalism.
But that's what capitalism in the United States has been over the last 20 years and people like J.D.
Vance obviously believe that it has gutted our country, gutted the homeland, destroyed the working class and the middle class, and that just like following John Bolton's ideology that led to so much destruction, following that ideology will just continue to empower multinational corporations at the expense of everybody else.
Maybe you don't agree with that at the moment or all of that at the moment, but I think the important thing is to realize that this realignment is very real and very reflective of both the realities of the Democratic and the Republican Party, and it explains why there's so much anger within the Republican Party to Donald Trump's selection of J.D.
There's a good reason for that, and I assume when you hear a speech tonight at the convention, you will see more of the reason why.
Bench.
Thank you.
They are one of the very few internet platforms that exist that genuinely provide full free speech protections to every voice across the political spectrum without picking and choosing who's over some imaginary line.
As a result, they have been attacked in all sorts of ways, including having corporations and sponsors being the target of campaigns to drive them away by the corporate media.
And so one of the ways that you can fortify Rumble's free speech mission, and that's really what it is, it's a mission, is if you are open to patronizing some of the products that Rumble itself is now putting on the market, one of which is their very own 1775 coffee.
I wouldn't ask you to buy that coffee just because it supports a cause that I think all of you support, but also because it really is very high quality, good tasting coffee.
It's ethically sourced from a family farm in the high altitude mountains of Bolivia.
There are several roasts to choose from.
I've always said that dark, the dark roast is my favorite, but I've actually been experimenting a lot more with the medium roast and I'm really starting to like that as well.
The flavors are Actually, all quite good.
The coffee is just genuinely good.
You can pick whichever one you like best.
And if you do so, it really helps with Rumble's mission of defending free speech, but also helps improve the quality of your morning as well.
You can go to 1775coffee.com right now and pick up your first bag if you use the promo code Glenn.
To save 10% off your first order, you can know that your hard-earned dollars are going toward supporting Rumble and its mission for free speech.
and wake up every day and choose great coffee at 1775coffee.com slash Glenn.
All right, so I just wanted to cover an issue that I've been seeing arise more and more, and I haven't really commented on it much except in the context of Israel, but I think it warrants comment and I haven't really commented on it much except in the
I've certainly commented on this disturbing trend on the part of sectors of fanatical pro-Israel sites and accounts, not to target politicians or powerful people with whom they disagree, but to target just ordinary citizens.
And drag them out into the spotlight and demand they be shamed and fired for doing things like putting Palestinian flags on their lapel or on their laptop or expressing criticism of Israel in some other way.
They dox people, they drag them out into the light, they send hate mobs after them, and they often get them fired.
And we're seeing that more and more on other issues that that sector of the right is doing as well.
Here is Libs of TikTok, an account that I think did some good work and I've actually praised in the past.
But I think it often does, as I told the person who runs it, some things that I vehemently disagree with, one of which is this.
After the Trump assassination attempt, there were obviously people who said extremely stupid and grotesque things, including like, oh, I wish that bullet had just been aimed a little bit better.
I wish that bullet had hit Donald Trump.
I wish he had died.
That's obviously repulsive and disgusting.
And as I said, if somebody with power expresses that view in some public setting, obviously they ought to be held accountable and attacked and punished in some way, even if by loss of reputation or job.
That's not what's going on here.
They are targeting and not just this account but others as well, the most powerless people in our society, just the most ordinary working class Americans who work at hourly low wage jobs They stand on their feet all day doing manual labor for very little pay, very few benefits, if any, for these giant corporate conglomerates.
And they're somehow demanding for some reason that these people be fired, even though they have no influence or power in the world.
And I actually think that when a movement starts doing that, Aiming itself not at the powerful people that it wants to take down but can't, but instead the most powerless people who obviously are easy pickings.
Anyone can get a Home Depot cashier fired.
Home Depot will throw away anyone that's a low-level worker the minute there's even a slight amount of controversy, let alone something of this magnitude.
They don't care about their workers.
And that's exactly what's happening here.
So here was a tweet from that account on July 14th.
High Home Depot, obviously marked with the Home Depot account.
Are you aware that you employ people who call for political violence and the assassination of presidents?
Any comments?
And here's a video of somebody going to... They found this woman with a tiny little account who did say something stupid like, oh, I wish the bullet had hit Donald Trump.
And they found out where she works.
She's a cashier at some department store, at some retailer.
And they went there and they filmed her and they yelled at her.
And then they demanded that Home Depot fire her.
And when they got her fired, they celebrated it as though they had achieved something noble or important or politically significant.
They're not fighting the CIA, they're not fighting the Pentagon, they're not fighting people who want to take away your rights, who are imposing, they're battling against ordinary Americans who say something just ill-advised in the heat of the moment to 20 Facebook friends.
Here's the video of someone being dispatched to, after tracking down this woman and finding out where she works and then going there with a video camera.
Are you Darcy Waldron?
Yeah.
Okay, from Cayuga?
And you think that the shooter should have been a better shot?
Is that what you posted on Facebook?
I am at work.
You think that the shooter should have been a shooter, huh?
I am at work.
Yeah, I think that's pretty messed up.
Pretty anti-American if you ask me.
As a veteran, I'm disgusted.
What have you provided to this country?
Huh?
I'm sorry.
This is ridiculous.
You are ridiculous.
Alright, now, I have to say, I understand the anger at the left when they try and get people fired for the things they say, are genuinely angry about the opinions being expressed.
They believe that it's repugnant, that it puts people in danger, they believe all those things.
When they get people censored, when they get people fired.
So I understand.
I mean, obviously it is a reprehensible thing to say, but she's not a news anchor or a senator or a CEO.
She's a woman who's just standing there 12 hours a day working at the cashier, like the lowest level person you can find.
The most powerless, the most vulnerable, the easiest to bully and get fired.
She's just a woman.
She has like a tiny little Facebook account.
She probably got home from a long, miserable day of work of standing on her feet all day at that age, at that fitness level.
I'm sure that's not easy.
It's not a good job.
It's not a fun job.
It's quite miserable.
And when he says, what have you ever given to this country?
People who work every day in those kinds of jobs are actually helping this economy run.
She gets up every day and she works.
It's not like she just sits at home collecting free payments, free money.
She's actually working.
That's contributing to society.
So again, I get the anger of what she said, but to elevate this to a multi-million person mob demanding that she be fired?
It's just bullying and purposeless and cruel and I think kind of cowardly.
Here is a second tweet.
This is what she posted on Facebook.
And then again, Mark's Home Depot.
Dolly Waldron Pickney.
Make this woman famous.
Home Depot, Auburn.
So she works in Auburn at the Home Depot.
And here's a comment, the comment that she wrote.
When I tell you Butler, Pennsylvania is corrupt and nobody wants to listen after today's events, maybe people will start listening.
And she added, too bad they weren't a better shooter.
And.
Nine people replied to the original post, which is just somebody that she followed on Facebook, some Facebook friend with no reach or platform.
And then her comment was up for 10 hours.
It didn't get a single like or reply.
This is like in the smallest, tiniest, most uninfluential corners of the internet that they're trolling for these kind of comments to bring these people out into light.
For what?
And then Home Depot, of course, responded.
Because as I said, Home Depot doesn't want any controversy.
And for a low-wage cashier, they'll throw that person away for the slightest controversy.
I don't want a major one.
And says, hi, this individual's comments don't reflect the Home Depot or our values.
We can confirm that she no longer works at the Home Depot.
And there was a bunch of celebration online as though something had been, some power center had finally been pierced and this gigantic tyrant had been taken down.
This like 55 year old woman who has to work at that age at a low hourly wage job for a gigantic mega corporation.
Now, I actually appreciate the people who are honest about this and who say, you know what?
I don't mind censorship.
I'm in favor of censorship.
My problem with the left is not that they center, it's that they center the wrong views.
Because obviously that's a lot of people's views on the right.
They were pretending for 10 years to believe in free speech, but in reality they wanted views censored.
They were just angry when the views that they liked got censored, but for people criticizing Israel in a way that they found offensive or excessive or whatever, they were happy to get those people censored.
And a lot of them got censored or fired.
And here's Nate Hockman, who definitely is on the right.
And this is what he posted in response to this.
Quote, every single society in human history has a form of, quote, cancel culture.
Stigmas and social consequences for violating them are the basis of civilization itself.
The debate isn't over whether, quote, cancel culture should exist.
It should.
It's over which things should be canceled and then presumably which things should not.
And if people on the right had just said that all along, instead of pretending that they were against cancel culture, against censorship as a principle, and just said, look, what we're angry at the left for is that they're censoring and canceling the wrong people and the wrong ideas, I would oppose that, but at least I wouldn't find the stench of their hypocrisy so nauseating as I do.
That's being honest and candid about what they really think, and I wish so much more many people on the right would think that, would admit that that's what they think, since they so obviously do.
The tweet to which he was responding, by the way, is from Colin Wright, who said, quote, being against, quote, cancel cultures matters most when you have the power to cancel.
As the political right gains more cultural and political power, it's important to remain principled.
In other words, he's saying, like, canceling is a thing that powerless people do.
Oh, wow, we got this, like, construction worker fired because we think he flashed an OK sign at a stoplight.
We don't want to know the context, what he really believes, if he's actually a bad person.
We just want him fired.
And when we get him fired, we're going to cheer.
Because it's the only way a weak movement can get power is by aiming at powerless people and destroying them.
Anyone can do that.
That's so easy, and it's so purposeless.
And so what Colin Wright was saying is like, look, if you're against cancel culture, it matters the most, not when you're powerless, but when you have, not when you're the target of cancellation, but when you gain power, that's when it matters to say, I'm still against censorship and still against cancellation, even though I'm now the one who can do it because I'm the one with power.
And then you have Nate Hoffman saying, no, I don't believe, I don't agree with that.
I think when we get power, we should use it to censor and cancel people.
Because the problem with cancellation isn't in and of itself, it's just that the wrong people are being canceled.
Now, here is this account called Stop Anti-Semitism that has grown massively in popularity among the pro-Israel right since October 7th, because what they've been doing almost on an everyday basis is identifying just ordinary citizens, totally powerless people, workers, students, community colleges, wherever.
Just people send them pictures of ordinary people on the street, and they post pictures of them for the crime of having a sticker that's pro-Palestinian or putting something on their social media that's anti-Israel.
And they post their picture with the specific intention of urging people to tell them the names of those people and find out everything that they can.
And then they do.
And they post the person's name and where they work.
And then they encourage people to go and get them fired.
And they have gotten them fired many, many times.
Again, we're talking about totally ordinary people whose only crime is just existing in the United States.
And the cowardice of this account makes me particularly sick, since the whole account exists to do nothing but drag ordinary people into the spotlight, dox them, post their name where they work, all while the coward who's behind this account remains anonymous, hiding under the name StopAntiSemitism.
So just to give you an example of the kind of thing they've been doing here in January of this year, quote, Miami, a woman with a Palestine sticker on her laptop was spotted at MoTak.
One of the most popular Israeli eateries in South Florida.
Some patrons were extremely bothered by her and the Palestinian sticker.
Would you be?
And then they posted a picture of just a woman sitting there.
Now, they say, oh, this is a cafe that a lot of Israelis go to, and I'm sorry to say that because it's in Florida, it's not an Israeli cafe.
It's an American cafe.
All the free speech rights apply to cafes inside the United States, regardless of whether a lot of people who love Israel go there or not.
You're still allowed to express your views.
And what she was guilty of is she has a bunch of political stickers on her laptop.
She has the rainbow flag.
You can pretty much tell who she is and what she's like.
Not a person I probably would like or have any political affinity with, although, except in this one area.
But her big crime is she just has a Palestinian flag on her laptop.
And for that, this account dragged her into the spotlight, got her name all over the place, and she was just, she wasn't doing anything, just sitting there working on her laptop.
You're allowed to be an American citizen and put whatever sticker you want on a laptop, whatever flag of any foreign country.
You can have an Israeli flag, you can have a Peruvian flag, a South Korean flag, a Palestinian flag, whatever you want, that's your right as an American.
Another thing they recently did is that they Had someone who took a picture of this flight attendant on a Delta flight.
And his crime was that he had a tiny little Palestinian flag.
You can barely see it.
It's right there.
And the policy of Delta was that flight attendants could put on whatever flags they wanted.
Because obviously when you work with an airline, part of the idea is you connect the world.
A lot of people who work for Delta come from other countries, they have Italian flags, or Irish flags, or Indian flags, or Israeli flags, and no one ever minded.
Until this account, Dox, this flight attendant, who committed the crime of wearing a Palestinian flag, which might offend people who are pro-Israel.
It might scare them.
And this account said, hey Delta, did you add Palestine as a new summer route?
Your customers on a Boston to West Palm Beach flight yesterday were perplexed to see your flight attendant adorning a flag of Palestine pin.
And then they, of course, doxed him.
They found out his name.
They said, it appears this is the flight attendant.
They found his Instagram account.
Just to say his Instagram account was instantly... You're talking about a flight attendant.
Who was doing nothing wrong, even according to his own company's rules, which allowed a flag to be used for any country.
And they flooded it with all kinds of hate messages, and then Delta changed their entire policy.
Simply because certain people who love Israel inside the United States didn't like their policy, quote, update effective July 15, 2024.
Delta flight attendants will only be permitted to wear U.S.
flag pins on their uniforms.
Stop anti-Semitism welcomes the policy change and encourages other U.S.
based airlines to follow suit.
Just constricting more and more of the ability of workers to express themselves in accordance with their company's rules.
Here's another example.
In this account, this perspective, Vanderbilt U students and parents were shocked to see undergraduate admissions counselor Brianna Grimes supported CAIFA during an information session yesterday.
Grimes oversees admission for numerous states, including New York for Vanderbilt.
How can someone like Grimes be trusted to make fair and equitable decisions when reviewing the applications of Jewish students?
And there you see her.
So obviously they would not, even though it's exactly the same thing, take a picture of an admissions person wearing a gigantic Star of David or Israeli-American flags on their label and say, how could this admissions counselor possibly be fair to Muslim or Arab students applying?
This is an account existing solely to prevent American citizens, ordinary ones with no power, from expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli views.
To destroy the free speech and rights of free expression of ordinary citizens to protect this foreign country.
And they've been cheered by it by so many people on the right who have been screaming for years about cancel culture, about people being fired for their views.
And we could spend all night showing you these kind of examples.
And there's been so many others with people who said those sorts of things about President Trump, who people are on a witch hunt after.
Now, again, I'm not obviously defending anyone who said those sorts of things about Donald Trump.
In fact, I'm saying specifically that those things are repugnant.
But the idea that any kind of political movement would devote itself to destroying the life of some random worker, when you have no idea why they said it, maybe they were angry, they used the internet to blow off steam, like a lot of people do.
They're speaking to 15, 20 people.
And I think that is a very dark turn for a movement to take, to start trying to destroy ordinary citizens for even expressing offensive views.
Confine yourself to people with power.
Go confront, courageously, actual institutions of authority that influence other people.
Stay out of the lives of hourly wage workers.
And stop sending gigantic hate mobs to them, to their house, to their workplace, to their email, to their inbox and trying to get them fired.
It's pathetic.
It's pathetic bullying designed to make weak people feel strong and it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
All right, glory, glory, hallelujah.
Here we are back.
Alright, Michael Chasey, as you just got a tiny little glimpse of, has been at the Republican Convention for the entire week.
He's there with a great member of our team, Megan O'Rourke, who is our social media manager and does producing for us as well.
He, as we showed you last night, has been conducting all sorts of interesting interviews, asking the kinds of questions that not very many people would be asking of Republican members of Congress, of Republican Party officials and activists.
I thought the interview he conducted with Congressman Mike Lawler of New York, who was the main sponsor of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that destroyed or severely restricted free speech in the name of protecting Israel through law, was excellent.
Tonight he speaks with people like Senator Ted Cruz, the Senator of Texas, as well as various members of Congress as well, including Brian Mast, who was the member of Congress who wore an Israeli military uniform to Congress.
He got dressed up in a costume of the Israeli Defense Forces and went to the United States Congress and spoke with this foreign country's uniform on.
I guess it's outrageous for a flight attendant to don a flag, but it's totally fine for a member of the United States Congress to get dressed up in a foreign country's military uniform, or for huge members of the American Congress to wave Ukrainian flags as they've done.
If that's the sort of thing that bothers you, go after those people.
Who are much harder to take down and confront, not some cashier who stands on her feet for 12 hours a day for $2,000 a month or whatever she earns.
In any event, these are a lot of the interviews that we, that Michael Tracy conducted.
We're about to show you those and that will conclude our show for this evening.
We're about to show you that.
So we will obviously be back tomorrow night.
There will be, we'll probably review J.D.
Vento's convention speech.
Donald Trump will be speaking tomorrow night.
I'm sure there's a lot to cover as well with the ongoing Secret Service controversy the growing attempt and again to push Joe Biden out of the presidential race.
There's a lot going on We will certainly cover that tomorrow night.
But for now, here is Michael Tracy's interviews and then we'll be back tomorrow night.
Have a great evening All right, glory, glory, hallelujah.
Here we are back once again, night two, Republican National Convention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
And behold, bask in the glory of the Republican Convention.
I've never had a better time in my entire life.
Can't you see my glee and joy just radiating?
I know the camerawoman can see it, but can you at home see it?
See, I'm breaking the fourth wall.
So what we're going to do again is just meander around, see who we bump into, you know the routine.
I usually can identify lots of obscure people who 99.9% of America would have no reason to ever be able to identify, but that's my burden.
Oh, so here's Sheriff Joe Arpaio, so we'll try him.
You know, it's a newfangled title that they gave to journalists for whatever reason in it's a newfangled title that they gave to journalists for whatever reason in this day and age. - Change. - Are You are Sheriff Joe.
I thought you were Sheriff Joe.
How are you doing, sir?
I'm Michael Tracy.
Sheriff Joe, so you were one of the very original endorsers of Donald Trump in the 2016 cycle, is that right?
Day one.
The day he came down the escalator?
Next day.
Next day.
First rally.
Yeah, so that was June 15th, something like that, right?
2015.
Went on the stage, nobody would do it.
I did.
I said three things.
There's a solid majority out there and everybody started screaming.
Then I said, we're born on the same day, which we are.
June 14th?
Yeah, then I said, you're gonna be the next president.
I was right, but I've been with him forever.
So, what went through your mind when the terrible incident happened over on Saturday?
What was your first reaction?
Very sad.
Because the month before I was at his rally here, he called me on his stage.
The only one he called.
So I walked over and we hugged and kissed.
And then a month later, they're trying to kill him?
Bad.
We've spoken to a few people who believe there was divine intervention at play that spared him the worst of the bullet.
Do you think there was something metaphysical going on?
I've escaped a lot of bad situations.
So someone upstairs is looking out for me.
Are you going to be running for office again?
You've run for office a few times recently.
I'm running for my hometown mayor.
But you didn't win, right?
Recently.
No, okay, so I lost.
No, I'm just clarifying factually.
People, the federal judge, George Soros, everybody ganged up on me.
You could have won.
Anybody could.
What they did to me.
Are you going to run again?
I'm running for mayor.
Oh, you're running now?
I'm sorry.
All right, well good luck.
I have more people in jail than in my town.
What's the population of the town?
The town is about 28,000.
I'm assuming you could secure Trump's endorsement if you sought it?
I don't ask for endorsement.
I don't ask for endorsement.
Would you accept it if offered?
He doesn't have to endorse me.
We all know our connection.
How about Attorney General in the second Trump administration?
Are you interested?
Attorney General?
You're Attorney General of the United States.
First of all, I'm not a lawyer, thank God.
You're a sheriff.
Huh?
You were a sheriff for many years, right?
I got to be a lawyer.
So I don't know my future.
I do know I never asked for a job.
Alright Sheriff Joe, thank you.
Hello Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Well-known figure in Arizona.
Controversial at times, fair to say.
I threw him some softball questions because I think he's about 90 years old now.
And he's still running for office.
But maybe that's my bias.
Congressman Bark, we have one second for a rumble stream.
So, what is your view on the, I wish I had the congressional roll call in front of me, on the 24 billion dollar Israel supplemental from April.
Were you a yes or a no?
I was a yes.
You were a yes.
Why?
And is there any, do you view there as being any biblical or religious justification for US support for Israel?
Well look, a strong Israel that is able to defend itself is not just in the interest of our greatest ally in democracy in the Middle East, Israel, it is in the interest of the United States.
A strong Israel is a bulwark against terrorism in a very dangerous and difficult part of the world.
And they are a forward operating base for our fight against radical Islamic terrorism.
Do you see there being any tension between the America First point of view and also so stalwartly supporting Israel?
It seems like there might be some tension there.
At least some conservatives have complaints about that.
If anyone is confused about that, let me set the record straight.
Being pro-Israel is America First.
Plain and simple.
And aside from the strategic imperatives around Israel being a bulwark for U.S.
interests, do you believe there to be any religious underpinning for the rationale there?
Explain.
Of course.
Look, as a Christian, I've been to Israel, the Holy Land, four times.
And in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we do have a Jewish population that is, of course, instinctively pro-Israel.
But the Christians of Kentucky understand that Israel is the biblical homeland of the Jewish people.
And it is our heritage as Christians as well.
And so it is extremely meaningful for the people of our country to hearken back to our Judeo-Christian heritage.
And remember that those who bless Israel are blessed by God.
And do you anticipate that Donald Trump will more faithfully execute your vision of the correct U.S.
policy vis-a-vis Israel?
Well, of course, and as Nikki Haley said, you know, a former rival to President Trump, it's pretty clear whose side Joe Biden's on.
Joe Biden is the one pushing back on our friends in Israel instead of pushing back on the enemy in Hamas.
Last thing I'll let you go, I saw you, there was an issue where you're trying to get some regulation, or I can't give you the full details, but involving Tennessee whiskey, or sorry, Kentucky whiskey, is that right?
Yeah, Tucky bourbon, that's right.
What's this update on, explain what you're advocating and what progress there's been legislatively on that.
Well, it's a multi-billion dollar industry for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
I'm the co-chairman of the Congressional Bourbon Caucus.
And let me just say this about Kentucky bourbon whiskey.
It is the drink of freedom.
That I agree with.
There's bipartisan agreement there.
Thank you very much.
God bless Israel.
God bless the United States.
There you go.
There's Congressman Andy Barr, Kentucky.
See, sometimes there's so many generic-looking Republicans that I don't instantly recall their names, but I have to have somebody jog my memory, but I would have recalled.
Eventually, that's Andy Barr.
Similarly with... So there's Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, definitely ozempic-pilled.
Which, again, I don't judge.
I probably should take it myself.
I know, somebody's tapping me on the shoulder to do what, I don't know.
All of the kids who were attending that day gathered in the Rose Garden, getting ready to meet him.
And we were walking out onto that beautiful, perfect colony.
And I saw out of the fingers-- Yeah, so, got to keep the wisecracks going, got to keep the self-deprecating narration going.
...the president of the United States. Congressman Mast, how are you?
Good, how about you?
You have two minutes for Rumble?
Thank you.
You caused a stir after October 7th.
You came to the Capitol wearing your Israeli fatigues.
There was maybe a segment of people on the right, not a majority, but a segment who thought maybe that was inappropriate or maybe it showed that you were placing maybe loyalty to one country over another.
Did you hear that criticism?
What did you make of it?
Do you think any of it had any legitimacy?
I don't think I've ever done anything where I haven't heard a criticism in life.
But, uh, I have two uniforms that I've worn.
I've worn the uniform of the United States military.
Obviously injured in Afghanistan in the uniform of the IDF.
And, uh, you know, I say both of those things proudly.
That's it.
Do you think there's any conflict or tension between those?
Absolutely.
I gave my legs for this country.
I love this country.
I'd give my left and right arm for this country.
There's nothing I love more than the United States of America.
And that's it.
You think Israel recently has codified into law the fact that it is a Jewish state, meaning it's a Jewish state homeland for all Jews.
Now, of course, that had customarily been the purpose of Israel, but it was only in the past couple years that they formally codified that through the Knesset.
What do you make of that?
Do you think that there's anything... The United States could never say that we're the homeland for any particular ethnic group, right?
Israel is the place to make sure that never again happens, alright?
That that happens, that never again is the truth of the land, right?
And I think it was John Kerry that tried during the Iran nuclear deal to say, well, you know, Israel can be a democratic state or a Jewish state, but they can't get both.
Anybody that have that John Kerry attitude, F them.
So what do you think would be the main difference in a second Trump administration regarding Israel versus how the Biden administration has conducted policy?
Would there be fewer constraints on Israel, for example, you know, getting all the weaponry it needs to continue?
Donald Trump doesn't do things that don't make sense, right?
Joe Biden does.
Joe Biden says, okay, listen, let's assist Israel militarily, who is our ally, but let's also assist our non-ally, who is at war with our ally.
Let's build them a pier for $300 million and then dismantle it.
Let's make sure that we put pressure on Israel to not finish the job of destroying the people that still currently hold Americans hostage.
There's a major difference between Trump foreign policy and Biden foreign policy, and it's making sure that your yes is yes, your no is no, and that you back the people that have the back of the United States of America.
Now, do you think there's any tension between being America first, but also having such a stalwart support for Israel?
I mean, are you therefore not putting America first, or kind of one in the same?
Israel is America's largest aircraft carrier in the Middle East, hands down.
It's our biggest aircraft carrier.
I know you voted for the $26 billion in the national security supplemental for Israel in April.
Did you vote for the Ukraine portion?
No.
You did not.
And what was your thinking there?
I think one easy thing to point out is, you know, let's look at the makeup of the GDP of Europe versus the Middle East, right?
In Europe, you have the EU largely 20 plus trillion in GDP, America 25 trillion, and Ukraine maybe half a trillion dollars, Russia maybe two trillion dollars.
You have all of that GDP in Europe.
That should have the back of the Ukraine to a greater extent than the United States of America.
In the Middle East, you have Israel, with every other part of the GDP of the Middle East, standing against them instead of standing behind them.
If you ask me, instead of Democrats pushing for a two-state solution, you should be looking for a 24-state solution, where the 24 Arab states take in the individuals from Gaza instead of asking Israel to give up land.
So it wasn't that you objected on principle to the U.S.
funding or arming Ukraine.
You were objecting to the proportionality vis-a-vis Europe.
That's certainly one part of it.
The other part of it is absolutely no plan for victory there whatsoever.
Absolutely no plan for what America gets out of it to say, hey, Putin will be out of power.
Or there'll be Russian nuclear demilitarization because they've elevated their nuclear threat posture.
Or there'll be demilitarized zones along NATO and Russia borders.
Or, you know, take your pick of things.
There's absolutely no objective.
We are supporting Ukraine to survive and not to win.
And that can't be the way that our... So your critique, mainly, of the Biden administration has not been its...
provided too much support to Ukraine.
- There's no plan of attack. - But similar to Israel, it's imposed limitations on its ability to wage the war as it sees fit.
- There's no plan of attack whatsoever when it comes to Ukraine, and there hasn't been for 900 days.
- Where is Ukraine currently permitted to strike within territorial Russia?
They never give us the parameters of that policy.
At first they said it was Kharkiv.
- That's another major problem If you want to fight, you fight to win.
And one of the ways that you fight to win is you move the battle off of your neighborhood and into their neighborhood.
And the fact that we're arming them, but saying those weapons that we arm you with, you can't use them offensively into Russia proper, that's another major problem of not supporting somebody that we're supposedly supporting to win.
You should make that comparison.
So Trump has been ridiculously attacked of being a pawn of Putin and all this sort of nonsense, but as he often points out himself, The Trump administration was very aggressive on Russia, sanctions, you know, abrogating certain treaties and things.
Do you anticipate that in a second Trump administration there will be more of that resolved to support Ukraine or to take aggressive steps against Russia?
What do you think?
There is a distinct benefit.
What would Trump actually do?
Putin, just like there's distinct disadvantage of Vladimir Putin knowing Joe Biden.
What he knows about Donald Trump is that, again, his yes is yes, his no is no.
If he says he'll do it, he will do it, and Vladimir Putin will back up.
What he knows about Joe Biden is that he's affable.
There are no absolutes, and he can run right over them.
But what would Trump actually do?
I mean, he says he'll solve the war in 24 hours, but would that require giving territorial concessions to Russia?
All he has to do is tell Vladimir Putin what will be the consequences of whatever he decides will be the right.
Whatever Donald Trump decides will be the red lines.
These will be the consequences for that.
But don't voters deserve to know a little more detail?
Putin will know that he is serious about this.
Right, but don't voters, I mean journalists, whomever, deserve to know a little bit more detail as to what those red lines would be?
Or should it just be kept a secret until he's in power?
No, I don't think you deserve to know what those red lines will be.
Alright, I'll take that.
I'll accept that.
I thought we had until 10 o'clock.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I just I just got my tax.
I gotta go.
Okay.
Sorry Okay, thank you.
Okay, so that was Congressman Brian Mast, Florida I'm pretty sure that I hope that was Brian.
That's the world.
- Well, also I flubbed his name.
- Ladies and gentlemen, you're not told to stand still in the face of great danger. - That's another congressman whose name escapes me, but we're gonna keep going.
We're going to make our way through here.
Let's see if we spot anybody else. - We know damn sure who holds the future in his hands.
Let's see.
See, I feel like yesterday we had more wiggle room with our timing, but perhaps not.
Pravy, I'm looking at yesterday through rose-colored glasses.
We're going to make our way slowly, see if we spot anybody else.
God, who the hell was the... I should have studied the congressional Directory.
To make sure that... We will show the world that if we are against the place where freedom reigns and liberty will never die.
THE FAMILY.
Good old USA from the floor of the Republican Convention 2024 in Milwaukee.
If you're watching at home, why not stand up and bellow a few USAs?
Maybe it'll give you some emotional release, maybe some pent-up frustrations that you're letting out.
I'll join you.
Okay, so, uh, here we are, being, uh, thrown out.
But, hey, I did what I could.
that we protect our freedom and we have the ability to pass it on to the next generation because America is the greatest country that the world has ever known.
Okay, so here we are being thrown out.
But hey, I did what I could.
I did more than you deserve, viewer.
All right, so we'll leave it there for now and we'll be back, hopefully, God willing, tomorrow.
And yadda, yadda, yadda.
God bless America.
Obviously we had that traumatic incident on Saturday.
People are still processing it.
I know I am.
What do you make of the theory that it seems to be gaining some currency that there was a divine intervention?
I mean, it was just a millimeter away that it could have potentially been a fatal hit on Trump, which obviously would have been devastating, even if you don't support Trump.
Even if you're just an American citizen, nobody wants to see that.
What do you make of that theory that there was something divine at play?
Well, there was something that went on.
It could have been catastrophic just by a turn of President Trump's head on that.
Thank God he's alive.
Thank God it wasn't worse.
Somebody was looking over him on that day.
But I would just back up and say, I serve on the House Intelligence Committee.
I'm a former federal prosecutor.
We have to figure out what went wrong there.
Facts and evidence that we need to get to the bottom of.
Speaker Johnson convened a call on Sunday that I was on with him.
We need to make sure we follow the facts and evidence.
We need to put together an independent task force to find out who made mistakes there, what went wrong, why was the assassin on that roof, Do you have a working hypothesis?
this event and get to the bottom.
We have to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
Thank God it wasn't worse.
Obviously we had the tragedy of the man dying in the crowd there and somebody that was severely injured, but it could have been a lot worse. - Do you have a working hypothesis?
Obviously you don't want to get in front of the facts, but there's so many conspiracy theories going around in many directions.
I don't even want to describe them 'cause some of them seem a bit loony, But, you know, who knows?
I mean, you have to reserve judgment.
But do you have like a working hypothesis just if only to maybe help to acquire facts and process them in real time?
What's your current hypothesis?
Yeah, I mean, I've seen a lot of those conspiracy theories.
I don't want to necessarily go down that path.
But I think we can't rule anything out.
And you got to follow the facts and evidence.
And we have an obligation and responsibility to issue subpoenas, to have people come before our committee, to be put under oath.
to hold the Secret Service and others accountable.
It seems to me the Secret Service screwed up, didn't do what they were supposed to do.
They left that unchecked for whatever reason.
Now, what's the genesis behind that?
I think we have to get to the bottom of that.
But I don't want to jump to conclusions before we do our job, which is to follow the facts and evidence and do it quickly and then hold people accountable.
So you voted yes in April on the components of the National Security Supplemental, They're broken down into three parts.
So the Israel funding portion, also the Ukraine funding portion, and the Indo-Pacific, right?
What is current U.S.
policy in Ukraine?
The Biden administration They'll issue these ad hoc authorizations for Ukraine to be able to use U.S.
weaponry to strike inside territorial Russia.
Initially, it was just supposed to be in the Kharkiv area, but then Jake Sullivan seemed to expand the geographic region where those strikes were permissible.
But it's never clear.
What is U.S.
policy in Ukraine right now under the Biden administration, and how would it differ under the Trump administration if he comes back into power for a second time?
Well, I think obviously the Trump administration has not been shy about having an end to the conflict in Ukraine.
But I would just say this, Putin is a thug.
He is a dictator.
He's an international criminal.
No one wants to see the U.S.
lose more in Ukraine than Xi Jinping in China.
That's why they're supporting Putin.
I know President Trump and his national security team is well aware of that.
I have a lot of confidence in Mike Pompeo, Robert O'Brien, John Radcliffe, Devin Nunes, Kash Patel, these people around President Trump.
So I know they'll use their best judgment when they win in November to take on this issue.
But we can't be in endless wars.
I think that's been kind of the mantra of the Trump administration.
And so we'll figure that out after November 5th.
But, again, the Ukrainians are the ones that are running the war.
We've been supplying them weaponry and other things, along with lots of other NATO countries, but I think there'll be a much different approach after November.
Well, it's not just supply of weapons, right?
There's also operational coordination, satellite targeting, so the U.S.
has a very robust operational role in that war.
Is that not right?
Well, I would say Great Britain does, France does, Germany does.
Germany just gave them a whole supply of Leopard tanks, which is their top tanks.
I think the U.S.
has too.
So I think it's a combination of those NATO countries, our allies in the region, that are giving strategic advice to the Ukrainians.
But it's obviously up to them to execute the war.
Yep.
One last question.
Do you see any tension?
Obviously, America First is one of the big Trump-era slogans.
Is there any tension, conceptually, between being a stalwart advocate of funding Ukraine, funding Israel, and also, you know, waving the banner of America First?
Are they in any way in tension with one another?
How do you reconcile that?
Maybe within other elements of the party who are, like, they're called isolationists.
That's kind of a derogatory term.
But do you see, like, that tension or that conflict ideologically within the party?
How do you reconcile it?
Well, I don't.
You mentioned Israel.
We had broad Republican support, conservative support for Israel.
J.D.
Vance has been one of the most biggest supporters of Israel over the years.
I think you'll continue to see that.
So was President Trump.
And you look at what he did with the Abraham Accords and supporting our ally Israel in the Middle East.
Ukraine, I think, is a different story.
And there's been mixed opinion on that.
Well, Trump was the first one to start arming Ukraine or sending lethal weapons, correct?
No, you're absolutely correct.
And there's many in his administration that have supported that.
But I think, as we look at how do we get out of these endless wars, I mean, the debacle in Afghanistan is a stain on the Biden administration.
We got to make sure that we don't go too far in these conflicts, where we lose sight of what's in the best national interest of the United States.
All right, thanks Congressman.
Appreciate it.
Senator, I was talking to many of your Democratic colleagues in Washington, and many of them were coming out of their campaign meeting with Biden, campaign officials looking like they had just seen a ghost.
Shell-shocked.
It was a sight to behold.
The question I've been asking them is, do you believe that Joe Biden has the capacity at age 86?
To have sole authority over the nuclear arsenal, which is an awesome power.
He doesn't have the capacity today.
Joe Biden is plainly not competent to serve as president.
Everyone who turned on the debates and watched them saw that.
It is frightening.
It is dangerous.
And it is the reason why the Democrats are in civil war right now, where half the Democrats want to throw Biden off the ticket.
That's a sharp contrast to our convention.
One of the things striking about the Republican convention is the unity right now.
We're all united behind Donald Trump.
We're united behind winning the Senate, winning the House, victory in November, and I think the Democrats have complete division and chaos.
Speaking of unifying the Republican Party, you had Senator Cotton speak tonight, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo will be speaking, but you also have people who are maybe slightly less interventionist in the party, who are equally, if not more, fervid for Donald Trump.
How will Trump manage those rival tendencies within the Republican coalition as it relates to foreign policy, and where do you come down in terms of your preference?
So listen, I think it's healthy to have real and vigorous debates on substance and policy, and that will continue.
But any way you look at it, what Biden has done is wrong and backwards.
You know, we spent three and a half years under Joe Biden with him showing Weakness and appeasement to our enemies and him undermining our friends and allies.
That's exactly backwards.
And so I think America is ready for a commander-in-chief who is strong.
Right now, our enemies are not afraid of Joe Biden, and that makes the world more dangerous.
Our enemies were afraid of Donald Trump, and they will be again.
And at the same time, we've seen Joe Biden and the Democrats abandon our friends and allies, most notably the people of Israel and the government of Israel.
And so I think We're going to win in November.
When we win, we're going to see peace and prosperity once again.
