All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
29:29
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Donor Class and MIC Impairing the US.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, November 25th, 2024, Thanksgiving week here in the United States.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs will be with us in just a moment on the damage that the donor class and the military-industrial complex are doing to the United States.
But first this.
We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years.
Save your money, then live off your savings.
Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars.
The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value.
Just the cost of groceries is absurd.
Let me be brutally honest.
I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct.
Not just here, but globally.
The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold.
And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom.
We will lose our privacy.
They can track anything we do.
You need to take care of yourself and your family.
So here's what you need to do.
Immerse yourself in knowledge and information.
The writing is on the wall.
Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset.
Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals, investing for over 27 years.
They help me diversify into gold and silver.
They can help you too.
Call Lear today at 800-511-4620.
800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com.
Professor Sachs, welcome here, my dear friend.
Thank you.
Of course, I do want to spend some time with you.
You've written about this recently, talking about the damage to the United States by the donor class and by the military-industrial complex.
But before we get there, I must elicit your views.
On the latest developments in Ukraine, this Ereshnik missile that President Putin and the Kremlin fired, which goes 7,600 miles an hour and reduced a Ukrainian munitions plant to dust.
Do you think that the West now knows that Vladimir Putin is serious?
I think this was quite a wake-up call.
There were plenty of reasons to be awake even before this.
But this is, as you say, an 11 Mach, M-A-C-H that is, missile.
It seems to be quite an extraordinary technological achievement.
What it is is an intermediate range missile that targets The United States has had a bad habit during the neocon period of walking out of nuclear arms control agreements.
The two most consequential agreements that the United States unilaterally left were the 2002 anti-ballistic missile.
agreement, which was profoundly stabilizing and by leaving it profoundly destabilizing as an action by the United States and very alarming to Russia, which is again one of the deep reasons why I think, understandably, that its national security is being put at risk by the United States.
The second nuclear arms agreement that the United States walked out of this great significance was the Intermediate Nuclear Force Agreement in 2019.
This new missile is a class of intermediate-range missiles that would have been prevented by the INF.
It would have been proscribed by the INF Treaty.
The United States walked out.
Of the agreement.
And now we have this new Russian advance, which will be in mass production, according to President Putin, and which will target all of Europe.
And it's very sad and very dangerous, very risky.
And we continue in the United States to misjudge and to provoke.
I wonder if this is really a wake-up call, Professor Sachs.
Admiral Rob Bauer, B-A-U-E-R, who's the chair of the, you probably know him, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, said today NATO is discussing preemptive precision strikes within Russia.
How can they make a statement like that in light of what this missile that can't be shot down can do?
Because there are always reckless people in the military who have been trained to shoot, who lack any responsibility for and knowledge of diplomacy.
And it's why we don't put people like this in policy positions.
It's why we believe in civilian control of the military.
Generals or people like this person who is known for his utterly intemperate and inappropriate statements are a danger to humanity unless they are strictly supervised.
Right now, we do not have strict supervision.
We don't even know who is making decisions in the United States.
And so this is really part of the alarm.
A person like this should not be But least of all, about policy.
He is a military official.
He should not be setting policies that can put us on the path to nuclear war.
It's disgusting.
If we had a normal president who was in charge, in command, I think this would not happen.
This is completely out of line, statements like this.
When he makes a statement like that that purports to be in behalf of NATO, could he, would he have made it without the express authorization of Washington?
It's possible that he would, because right now Washington seems to be rudderless.
Again, I don't know personally, we don't know whether...
We see pictures that are absolutely alarming, in my view, about his physical condition.
When a major decision is taken, such as the one that was taken a few days ago, We don't hear the President of the United States speaking to the American people to explain the decision or to calm down rumors, or quite the contrary, to explain why such a momentous decision was taken.
And I believe that that is the environment in which a person like Bauer is speaking.
We don't have the kind of normal leadership that we should have.
Not inside the United States, not in NATO.
And again, it's shocking to me to hear statements by a person like this.
I don't want generals making our foreign policy or preempting diplomacy or putting us on a path to extinction.
This is not their job.
Professor Sachs, are you of the view...
Remembering that Trump said many times during the campaign, I realize he communicates hyperbolically, but he did say many times during the campaign he'll end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
Is it even conceivable that it could be ended in 24 hours?
It's conceivable that an arrangement with Russia could be discussed, which would put the United States and Russia on a path to ending this war and could give the confidence that the war is coming to an end and that further escalation has been obviated.
That's possible in even one phone call, actually, because the The underlying cause of this war has been the relentless neocon pursuit of NATO enlargement to Russia's border with Ukraine.
Again, I would say to Americans, it would be like a Russian pursuit of military bases in Mexico up to the Rio Grande.
It's equivalent from Russia's point of view, how America would feel.
If Russia or China were putting military bases on our border, we would say and did say, by the way, back in 1823 in the Monroe Doctrine, and it's been repeated many times since then, to all of Europe, and that includes Russia as well, stay out of our neighborhood.
And we can't seem to get it through our heads.
That other countries feel the same way, including a nuclear superpower, which wants us to stay out of their neighborhood with our military bases and our missile systems.
Now, what is this administration in its last weeks doing, making such a remarkably provocative and dangerous action?
such as basically attacking Russia with US This is something also to understand.
President Putin's correct point is that this is not the United States authorizing Ukraine to use attack of missiles.
This is the United States shooting attack of missiles at Russia.
That distinction, as I hope everybody understands, the point that President Putin has been making for quite a long time is Ukraine cannot use those missiles without the U.S. being actively engaged in the programming, the targeting, the operation of that missile system.
This is a U.S. action.
We would not like it in the United States.
If Russia were sending missiles to explode inside the United States, we would not take that lightly.
Again, why our policymakers cannot for one moment think from the perspective of the other side is some kind of amazing incapacity, some fundamental dishonesty or some fundamental The incapacity of these people that is so shocking, it puts us all at risk.
The first point of diplomacy, at least, is to understand the position of the other side.
And we refuse to acknowledge that position.
Yet the position makes a lot of sense when you listen to it and hear it because these are real concerns by a country.
That feels that it is directly under threat by us, a nuclear superpower.
And it has been saying for 30 years now, keep some space between us so that we feel safe.
Just what we would say to them.
It's a basic golden rule of diplomacy that we should not do to Russia what we would not have Russia do to us.
It's the most basic.
Point of all for staying alive in the nuclear age.
I'm going to play two clips for you, which might give you a little bit of aggravation, my dear friend.
One is Michael.
I'm pretty aggravated these days, so you'll add to it.
Forgive me for taking liberty.
I guess I will owe you dinner when you come back to the United States soon.
I'm going to claim it, too.
When you're back in New York.
The first is Congressman Michael Waltz, who is to be President Donald Trump's national security advisor.
And the second is Sebastian Gorka, who is to be President Trump's senior staff advisor on security matters.
I'm not sure who's the superior of whom, but they're both making unique statements.
Waltz is saying...
And Professor Gorka is sounding about as bellicose as you've ever heard somebody in the government sound.
Chris, first cut five and then Sebastian Gorka.
Back to back.
President Trump has been very clear about the need to end And so what we need to be discussing is who's at that table, whether it's an agreement, an armistice, how to get both sides to the table, and then what's the framework of a deal.
That's what we'll be working with this administration until January and then beyond.
And I also want to be clear on one thing, Julian.
Jake and I, Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions.
We've met.
For our adversaries out there that think this is a time of opportunity, that they can play one administration off the other, they're wrong.
And we are hand in glove.
We are one team with the United States in this transition.
I'll give one tip away that the President has mentioned.
You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.
That's how he will force those gentlemen to come to an arrangement that stops the bloodshed.
Is this what we're in for?
Professor Sachs, I never heard Tony Blinken speak as bellicose as that.
Yeah, a lot of people are shooting off right now because it's a very strange time.
These people are purporting to speak for an administration that is not in office.
There is a lot of contrary talk.
a lot of contradictory talk, a lot of posturing for whatever reason.
I think the first statement we heard about being hand in glove with Jake Sullivan is not perhaps so...
Okay, this is a kind of standard statement in this context between the election and January 20th of next year.
Don't take advantage.
By the way, I hope everybody understands in these waning, dangerous days of the Biden administration, it would not make sense for anyone to try to take advantage because we're rudderless right now.
It's a very strange and dangerous time.
and who knows what kind of response would come.
When it comes to the other states, Yes, he could have.
And it would be absolutely irresponsible, regrettable.
But believe me, there's a lot of irresponsibility.
So right now, I'm going to take a deep breath and hope that the president elect gets his house in order.
I don't think you would hear from Vice President-elect Vance such language.
I know there are many other people in the administration that you would not hear such crude language.
And I hope that what we're seeing is the...
But could he have said that without approval?
Absolutely.
People are speaking right now without any approval at all.
People are freelancing.
They're showing how tough they are.
They're positioning for jobs.
They're auditioning for Senate review and so forth.
So there's a lot of extremely dangerous, reckless, irresponsible language.
Is there anything to be gained by referring to President Putin as a thug and a former KGB colonel?
Absolutely nothing in the world under any circumstances.
That kind of vulgarity, that kind of irresponsibility.
Can absolutely get us all killed.
The idea is not that this is taunting on a playground or that it's some jocular talk at a poker table.
And when you see statements like this, it shows a measure of irresponsibility that is absolutely stark.
And I'd like to quote President John F. Kennedy, who made a statement that I regard as absolutely crucial for our survival.
It's a statement in his famous peace speech.
I like to refer to it because it was obviously for President Kennedy perhaps the most important message he was trying to convey to the American people.
This is what he said about the relationship with the Soviet Union.
Is this the American University speech in June of 1963?
That's exactly right.
June 10, 1963.
And in that speech, he says the following, above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.
To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age.
Would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy or of a collective death wish for the world.
Now, my point is, President Kennedy, I've studied this speech for years.
When he says, above all, what he's saying is, please listen.
This is my core message to you and to posterity.
Do not put our adversary into a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.
To do so would be evidence of bankruptcy of our policy or of a collective impact.
death wish.
We are not out to humiliate the other side.
We are not out to force the other side into a humiliating retreat or a We're out for survival, mutual survival.
So trash talk, like we heard on that tape, has no place in our world.
None whatsoever.
Nobody in a position of responsibility should be trash talking in such a vulgar way in the midst of a war with a nuclear superpower.
Switching gears, Professor Sachs, can Donald Trump say no to Benjamin Netanyahu or do the donor class and the military-industrial complex have an iron grip on the Pentagon and on Trump?
In general, our government is for sale, and this is how the American system works.
It's a rather ingenious system because it might seem like it's pretty costly to buy off 535 members of Congress, but the way that our system works is each committee gets its prerogatives over the rest of the Congress, so you only have to buy off the committee of interest.
You only have to buy off, say, the Armed Services Committee in order to have the military-industrial complex.
Get its way.
If it's Wall Street, you only have to buy off the Finance Committee.
If it's Health and Human Services, you only have to buy off the oversight committees for help in the House and the Senate.
But our government is for sale to vested interests, and one of those powerful vested interests is the military-industrial complex.
And another of those vested interests, related but distinct, is the Israel lobby, which AIPAC and others are agents for spending hundreds of millions of dollars for congressional campaigns and targeting congressmen that dare to speak against the Israel lobby.
And this has been a very successful venture.
Not for the United States of America, not even for Israel, but for extremists in Israel that have been running this lobby, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been Prime Minister for 17 years during the period since 1996.
Now, because of the power of the Israel lobby, the United States has engaged in wars.
On Israel's behalf that have cost the United States trillions of dollars.
Netanyahu has done more damage to the United States than anybody else that I can think of because he's been the biggest proponent of the war in Iraq, for example, in 2003, basically talked the United States into it.
He was the biggest proponent of the United States engaging in a war with Syria.
That one's a covert war.
That was Operation Timber Sycamore launched by President Obama.
Netanyahu has basically been for These 17 years as Prime Minister,
talking the United States into spending trillions of dollars that have broken our budget, put the U.S. into hock, led to disasters all through the Middle East.
And all for what purpose?
Not to defend Israel.
This isn't about defending Israel.
This is about having Israel not have to deal with its real
And since Netanyahu and his political cronies have wanted to reject that, what they have done is to favor ongoing wars all over the Middle East to try to bring down any governments that are in opposition to Israel's control over occupied Palestine.
Now, the United States has played into this for basically the whole 21st century, since 2003 at a minimum, when Netanyahu basically led with Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and others the U.S. reckless, illegal, phony pretext war against Iraq.
We've been doing Netanyahu's bidding.
I hope that President Trump, when he says he's going to make America great again, the first thing he should do is make America sovereign again.
That it is not an instrument of Netanyahu's foreign policy, that American foreign policy is for America's interest.
This is something that President Trump absolutely can and should do.
Now, President Trump, like all U.S. major candidates, has funding from strong pro-Israel donors.
And that was true of Harris the same way.
And that's been true of Biden.
And it's been true of all of our candidates.
But the fact of the matter is a president of the United States should look after American interests.
And that is not to go to war.
For Israel's extremist policies, but actually to make peace so that the United States isn't drawn into these wars.
And making peace in the Middle East is really straightforward, actually.
It's that there should be two states living side by side on the borders of the 4th of June 1967, according to international law.
That's what Israel...
Come on, let's have peace now.
So I'm hoping that President Trump will reestablish American sovereignty over U.S. policy in the Middle East, not have it simply run by the Israeli lobby or the Israeli government.
Professor Sachs, thank you very much.
We could talk about this on and on and on.
I have to jump off to another interview.
But much appreciated.
I deeply appreciate your time.
I don't know where you'll be on Thanksgiving in the U.S. or not, but happy Thanksgiving.
At home.
Thank you.
And to you, too.
To you and your family.
And I hope we can see you again next week.
Wonderful.
We will.
Thanks a lot.
All the best.
▲
Export Selection