Feb. 12, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
49:41
SUNDAY SPECIAL: THE UKRAINE AGENDA WITH JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO
On today’s Sunday Special of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec is joined by the renowned Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the Ukraine Agenda. The two will break down the true agenda behind the Ukraine War, exploring the motivations and power players behind the conflict. They also discuss the motives behind Operation Nordstream, analyzing the international political and economic factors at play. The two will then turn their attention to the role of American media coverage in popularizing Put...
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's Sunday special here on Human Events Daily.
We are very excited to bring our guest on today.
We have, you've known him, you've followed him for a very long time, certainly long career, long career out in media, appearing in both the Washington Times, in Reason.
He's been an analyst for Fox News.
He was a judge in the New Jersey Superior Court.
We are very excited to bring on the new current host of Judging Freedom, Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Thank you so much for joining us, Judge.
Oh, Jack, it's a pleasure to be with you.
It's an honor to be on your very popular platform.
Thanks for having me.
Well, I appreciate it.
And I have to say kudos to the new show.
I've been watching it very frequently.
I love when you do the the clips and the shorts of it.
Those are they always seem to catch me.
I say, I'm not going to watch this full episode.
And then I watch a short of it and I say, he sucked me in.
I've got to watch the full episode now.
Well, that's nice.
He caught me again.
That's nicely put, especially coming from one professional to another.
It's been enjoyable.
We started out with 93 viewers and were mocked by my former colleagues in New York, but we now have a million a week.
You know where that stands against other platforms, so I'm very happy with those numbers and with the following that we've developed.
Well, I've seen interview after interview.
I mean, you're racking up hundreds of thousands of views per per clip.
I hope people understand that per clip.
And it's it's been one of the fastest growing channels that I've certainly seen on YouTube.
And I think that one of the biggest reasons and obviously you cover a wide variety of issues, but I really think it's because specifically of your analysis of what I and I wanted to call today's episode as we we hurdle towards the one year anniversary.
Of the start of the Ukraine war.
And this week we saw the reporting from Seymour Hersh, which obviously is offering a lot of information that we're not getting from the mainstream media.
And I think that's exactly the same vein as what you've been doing is because you're presenting analysis information on the ground reports on the ground sourcing that is just not found anywhere else in mainstream media, particularly as relates to Ukraine and the agenda behind the Ukraine war.
You know, it is a head-scratcher to me, and thank you for the compliment, Jack, but it is a head-scratcher to me why mainstream media is not covering what we do.
Even my former colleagues, who are still my good friends at Fox, of those folks, I think only Tucker Carlson is presenting You know, he utilizes the services of Colonel Doug McGregor as frequently as I do.
Tucker appears to be the only major Fox personality that is presenting this point of view.
New York Times, Wall Street Journal.
Just owned by my former bosses, Washington Post, forget about it!
You're just not getting this view that the war is futile, that there's no way that Ukraine can win, that there is zero American moral, legal, constitutional, national security interest involved in the outcome of the war, that every penny we spend is wasted, that
further destroys innocent lives, Russian and Ukrainian, and extends a war is not going to result in Putin's ouster, is not going to result in Crimea being under the control of Kyiv again. - You know, and to be clear, is not going to result in Crimea being under the control of Kyiv again.
You have people on that are pro-Ukraine.
You have people on that are there training Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainian troops.
You have people there that are members of the CIA that completely disagree with others of your guests.
And you've presented both sides of this, which is really what you're supposed to do in a little thing that I used to call journalism, or I used to think was called journalism.
You can't seem to find that on any of the major mainstream networks anymore.
You know, as you and I were talking before we came on air, My base followers would be highly critical of me when I would put on the young man, Matt Van Dyke, who reports from Kiev, who's very pro-Ukraine, who's a military, American military veteran and runs some outfit called
Sons of Liberty International, which basically supplies technical information and know-how to the Ukrainian military.
When I have Jack Devine on, Jack is career CIA.
Jack was in charge of Russian espionage, monitoring Russian espionage in the United States and conducting American espionage in Russia.
Initially, my regular base was highly critical of me for having them on.
They love to hate these guys, I can tell that from the messages they send, but they watch in droves because they are happy to hear both sides being presented.
They are happiest, as you pointed out, when I run clips of these pro-Ukrainian people before Scott Ritter or Doug McGregor and they just explode when they hear what's being said.
You know, what is the what is the reason, though?
And you you obviously have a huge career in mainstream media.
What is the reason that mainstream media has been reduced to this sort of almost propaganda narrative that promotes the death of these innocent people?
And I look, we took the program.
We went to Ukraine.
We broadcasted from there last summer.
We did the night train to Odessa.
We went all the way down to Mykolaiv, almost all the way to Kherson.
We saw the Kherson Highway as we were there.
And The people who are caught in the middle of this, refugees, women and children going back and forth.
Why is it that it seems like we're promoting this?
I don't know the answer.
I suspect that CIA and MI6 have so ingratiated themselves with mainstream media by leaking and slipping, not necessarily secrets, but their version of events And journalists feel empowered, emboldened, and privileged to be able to reveal this in their journalism, but they're just becoming tools.
I mean, I know that there are CIA and MI6 agents who are telling the truth to their bosses, but I don't know that that is making its way to the British Prime Minister and to the Oval Office.
Somewhere up the food chain, the real data, the raw data of what's happening on the ground gets translated into the version That Joe Biden and the British Prime Minister, and I don't mean to be picking on him, but they do operate hand in glove, they're two intelligence agencies, want to hear
And somewhere along the line, that is furthered by, getting back to a long-winded answer to your question, mainstream media.
I am surprised at some of my former colleagues for mouthing the so-called party line rather than taking a look at things, particularly now as it becomes so obvious, so obvious, that Ukraine cannot win this war.
How Joe Biden gets out of this without boots on the ground Which of course would be catastrophic and immensely unpopular and profoundly unconstitutional.
How he gets out of this without boots on the ground, I don't know.
Well, and of course we keep hearing at SLIP that there are trainers, observers, auditors, recorders, advisors that are already there.
They're there.
Matt Van Dyke, who again is...
Military veteran and pro-Ukraine and on the ground says they're there.
And Jack, they're not wearing uniforms.
What does that mean?
Well, that allows plausible deniability by Secretary of State Blinken, Secretary of Defense Austin, and the President.
But, but it is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
It also allows American military out of uniform to be shot on sight legally.
By the Russians as spies.
They have no protection of the Geneva Convention when they're out of uniform.
I don't know that Putin would do that.
I think he's a lot smarter than we give him credit for, even though we've already started the war against them.
I know we're going to get to this by attacking the Nord Stream pipeline.
That was an act of war.
But American troops are on the ground out of uniform.
I'm also told, this is also crazy, that they're unarmed.
Troops in a battle zone, unarmed, out of uniform.
How crazy can you get?
Well, it's almost like and to your point, you know, whether or not the Russian command once that would go for that or would order that, that's also doesn't necessarily, you know, account for any possible interaction that could happen on the ground, shelling, artillery, indirect fire, mortar fire, or a, you know, a checkpoint that doesn't go wrong.
I mean, you can think of all the permutations, mine warfare, etc.
Let me let me let me add another country being killed.
Let me add another permutation, Jack, because you and I believe that this already happened.
A false flag.
Do you remember when a missile killed two Polish villagers?
Oh, that's right.
And in fact, I got a lot of criticism for my comments about that.
Oh, well, I was 100% with you and still him.
Fired from Russian, captured Russian equipment, fired by Ukrainians from Ukraine at the Poles.
Because the President of Poland has a hair-trigger temper.
The President of Poland is of the belief that somehow, by some act of God, Crimea is going to be returned to control of Kiev.
And he has 90,000 troops training with 40,000 American troops at the Polish-Ukrainian border.
And all he needs is some little hair-trigger excuse To send those troops over the border and I think President Zelensky's people, I don't know if Zelensky himself could have ordered this, but President Zelensky's people thought that by making it look like the Russians had attacked two poor Polish villagers and killed them, that this would be the hair trigger that the President of Poland needed.
Fortunately, it wasn't.
Unfortunately, something else will probably come.
Well, and indeed, you know, one of the things that I've been very public about is why is it that President Zelensky has never once, and I can go back, but for weeks I was checking this and I hadn't seen it, I've never seen him once express any condolences to the country of poland to the citizens to the families for this happening even just admitted saying it's a terrible act i'm so sorry that it's happened we never intended for this just a simple act of condolence
even after poland has done so much to take in the people of ukraine in their time of need obviously done so much to prop up his government and yet he won't express a simple act of uh again condolence that something like this happened and he will still go learning claim that it was somehow orchestrated by Russia when we obviously know that's not true.
He's learned from his American masters who would never, ever, ever admit to something like this.
Even though the evidence is inescapable and overwhelming that this was fired from Ukraine by Ukrainians using captured Russian equipment and was murder, was an attempt to murder two poor unfortunate of Polish villagers who happen to be in the sites.
And you're right about what the Poles have done to alleviate Ukraine's suffering.
It's over the top.
Well, and so let's let's move on to the next question, then, because, as you said, never admit that was something that they learned from the Americans.
And there's there's an old phrase.
We even we even knew this when I was an intelligence officer for the United States Navy.
They say never believe something until it's been officially denied.
And at the very start of Seymour Hersh's bombshell article this this week that came out that You could actually argue whether or not it's a bombshell, and I have a take on that.
But you have these official denials from the CIA, from the State Department, from the Biden administration.
This did not happen.
The Biden administration was absolutely not behind the bombing of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2.
But the reason that I say that the Seymour Hersh article isn't necessarily a bombshell, it's because I look at it and say, is there anyone with a right-thinking mind that actually thought that something else happened here other than No, no knowledgeable person would believe that.
There are, of course, those who fall prey to the propaganda put out by your former colleagues, put out by the CIA, put out by a dozen American intelligence sources and picked up by the mainstream media.
But those who have followed this with clarity and with an understanding of the engineering Your field, as to how this could have happened, are consistent with the Dutch investigation which concluded this could only have been done by a government.
And what government could have done this?
Seymour Hersh's article, whatever you think of of Si Hersh's politics, this article is filled with such detail and substantiation.
It is.
It is profoundly credible, not because I want to believe it.
I wish it weren't true, but it is profoundly credible.
Again, how Biden and company get out of this is beyond me.
But, Jack, you don't see it in mainstream media this morning.
You see it on websites.
You don't see it on Fox.
You don't see it in The New York Times.
You don't see it in The Washington Post.
I don't even know if anybody is going to ask that lunatic that is Joe Biden's Press spokesperson, I guess they don't call them press secretary anymore, Corinne Jean-Pierre.
I don't know if anybody's even going to ask her.
But it is clear the American involvement.
And where is this as a matter of law?
It's an act of war.
And it's an act of war against Russia and against Germany.
Germany owned the pipeline.
So whoever ordered this, and it could only have come from the president of the United States.
Caused tens of millions of Germans to suffer through a cold winter in order to inconvenience the Russian treasury.
Now, they have done minimal damage to the Russian economy, but in the way have caused catastrophic injury like the destruction of this pipeline.
What Joe Biden says to the Chancellor of Germany, I don't know.
What he'll say to Vladimir Putin when they get back on speaking terms, I don't know.
But it's an act of war, not declared by the Congress, totally immoral, utterly unconstitutional, and probably criminal.
Do you judge view this in the light of, so there's a phrase that I've noticed from even my own comment section in getting into this where they call it Newland's private war, a Victorian, you know, sort of a take on Charlie Wilson's war, Newland's private war, Victoria Newland's war.
This idea that she was out publicly prior to the invasion saying that Nord Stream would be taken down.
Then President Biden comes out and says that this pipeline will be ended.
This project will be ended.
How are you going to do that?
And he says, we have the ability to do it.
Don't worry.
This, of course, happens before, again, before any Russian troops have crossed into Ukraine or the Donbas.
And There is a theory out there, I guess, or I should say some speculation, that this was always the plan.
That this has been, to an extent, all about energy.
It's about, not necessarily the specifics of the energy, but also the petrodollar.
and the dominance of America over Europe and Western Europe writ large in order to keep the European economy down to hurt German manufacturing base, which of course is a boon to China, it's a boon to so many other properties out there.
But is this and has this always been a power play of not only because you're right that the Russians certainly are losing money on this, but I think we really do overlook the financial and political implications of the suffering that this has done to Germany and to Germans economy but I think we really do overlook the financial and political implications Well,
Man, you have described this about as accurately and eloquently as I've ever heard it described, Jack, and there's little that I can add to amplify it, except to say that the NATO treaty never contemplated one NATO member attacking another.
It's the opposite of that.
It's that All NATO members will come to the aid of one that is attacked.
By the way, this brings us back to the Polish president.
Just permit me a little aside here.
One of his former cabinet ministers revealed just last week a harebrained scheme whereby Poland would annex the western part of Ukraine as a Polish protectorate.
And as soon as a shot was fired there, they would argue that this would trigger Article 5.
Of course, such an annexation would itself be an act of aggression, and an act of aggression does not trigger Article 5.
I don't know where this is under the NATO treaty.
NATO... I've been very critical of Donald Trump, as you know.
It's probably why I'm no longer at Fox.
But on this, Trump, in my view, was 100% correct.
NATO is just an American plaything used by the American globalists and nationalists to suppress Europe and to control Europe and to pay Europe's bills for defense.
There shouldn't be a NATO.
We shouldn't be spending a nickel on it.
We shouldn't have all those troops there, but we do.
And Joe Biden, for all of his perception being an old man that's out of it, is really using American power to suppress NATO and advance American imperialism as condemnable as that is, going back to George Washington and John Adams, far more effectively than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton ever did.
So the use of American imperialism, the idea that we are the only country that is moral and we can spread Americanism around the world, doesn't spread liberty and doesn't spread democracy.
Ask George W. Bush about that in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It spreads violence, murder, torture, death, theft and lying.
These are arts that the American government is expert in.
Yeah, there's there's that old there's that old quote from the original.
I'm trying to pull it up right now.
The original commander of NATO about Secretary General Ismay.
He said the original he was the original commander of NATO and they asked him what the purpose of it was and he responded.
The purpose of NATO is back in the 50s.
The purpose of NATO is to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down.
And when you look at this through that lens, it actually is very interesting that what you're seeing essentially is just an extension of the Cold War thinking that we saw from the 1950s.
And maybe that made sense in the 1950s when the insane Bolsheviks were running the Kremlin and were running Moscow.
But at the same time, and this is something to your point that President Trump used to talk about, that after the Soviet Union fell, that NATO found itself in this place where it didn't necessarily have A reason to exist.
And there are many people, I think, at one point that were saying perhaps NATO could be turned into sort of an international counterterrorism organization.
I would put myself in that camp, certainly.
This was during the rise of ISIS.
This was during the rise of these various groups in the Middle East that were getting into Europe, essentially through migrants and everything else that was going on there, that certainly NATO could find itself to pivot to focus on the new emerging threats And that possibly there there would be some some reason for working with Russian security services who obviously have a keen eye into those areas of Dagestan and the caucuses where you find this.
The Boston bombers come to mind where we were warned of the Boston bombers by the Russian FSB.
And then, of course, James Comey and Mueller never did anything about it.
So but but it seems, though, NATO and you kind of see this now with A lot of folks who are sort of in this next generation of intel officers and military officers that they've just adopted the Cold War thinking and that there has been no update whatsoever to looking at geopolitics as they are today.
It's just a continuation of that Lord Ismay's maxim that we must always do this and nobody ever sits down and explains why.
Well, you understand the mentality of naval intelligence and military intelligence and of intelligence officers in general far better than I do.
I would say that they are mental.
I agree with you there.
I mean, but what you're saying is that they assume the cultural and geopolitical attitudes of the people who trained them, which is usually the generation before.
The same thing, you mentioned Comey, the same thing is the case with the FBI.
Since 9-11 and the Patriot Act, one of the worst pieces, most liberty-assaulting pieces of legislation ever enacted, maybe the worst since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, a generation of FBI agents has come of age learning how to spy on Americans without using the Fourth Amendment, without getting a search warrant, Uh, from judges.
It's now de rigueur.
Getting a search warrant is the exception rather than the norm.
The problem comes about when they have to use whatever evidence they got in federal court, then they have to find some way to claim how they obtained the evidence lawfully.
The same thing, I gather, is the case with the mentality of intelligence agents who still are operating with the Cold War mentality, who still mistrust anything Russian.
Scott Ritter, who is on with me once a week, you know, is expert in this area, arguing that the Russians are no different than we are and want to live peacefully and want to live prosperously, and they're afraid of us.
Why?
We have weapons at their border.
They don't have weapons at our border.
The last time I looked and I monitored this stuff the way you do, Putin never threatened Joe Biden.
Senator Lindsey Graham publicly asked Joe Biden to have Putin assassinated.
So tell me who's crazy and who's rational.
All right.
And you also have the recent comments in the interview from former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, where he depicts a conversation with Putin that he said, would you sit down with Zelensky?
Would you hammer out some deal?
This is, I think, one month, the time frame that he's talking about into This whole thing.
And both Putin and Zelensky seem to have agreed to at least, you know, a premise or pretext for having a conversation about putting this thing back on the shelf and turning this thing off, turning the troops back.
And there's this story that Bennett tells saying that, you know, do you plan to kill Zelensky?
Putin says, no, we're actually not interested in that.
And then, of course, that's when Zelensky starts making these these videos outside on the street.
And then Bennett points out that it wasn't until he told Zelensky that Putin said that, that he started making all of these videos out on the streets and said, no, we're not we're not targeting this guy.
I'd be happy to sit down with him.
And, you know, to go back to the start of all of this, because I do think that people have they're missing a lot of the context here because they do.
It's sort of like when you go back to if you ask the typical mainstream media viewer about, you know, what happened in 2014 in Ukraine, and they'll talk about the invasion of Crimea, they'll consider it an annexation.
They'll say it was illegal.
There was a referendum, et cetera, et cetera.
But they will never talk about Maidan.
And we had Rahim Kassam on here last week, and we were talking all about the Maidan revolution, how that was, as the founder of Stratfor said, a textbook coup, a textbook political coup done by the United States.
Clearly a color revolution, if there ever was one.
And Rahim was actually there in Kiev in 2013-2014 when this was happening.
And some of the same names, Judge, that you have just mentioned were actually there fanning the flames of this.
Victoria Nuland, Senator Lindsey Graham, at the time Senator John McCain, Marco Rubio played a role in some of this as well as in Libya and Syria.
And so it does seem to be that they're missing a lot of the context of, and again, you know, I'm sitting here as an American saying, look, I, you know, I don't have skin in this game one way or the other, but I also don't understand what the strategic national interest for americans and american national security is but we also look at the fact that it is it true judge that you that you've seen
and in your reporting that there were peace terms that were actually offered even before the invasion that were completely denied by not only uh nato but the biden administration as well as far as i know uh it is true and from my uh reporting and from my education actually the the people that talk to me off air and on air
it would be very much like president putin to have wanted to have done that but Look, Putin is not in the business of depleting his army.
And his army and military has been depleted, not nearly to the extent that the Ukraine Defense Ministry Some sort of a Baghdad Bob-like character claims, but he's suffered seriously.
He didn't want to do that.
He would prefer to have returned Russian-speaking citizens and territory that has been Russia's since before the American Revolution back to Russia without firing a shot.
What's mystifying to me, maybe it's not because Tony Blinken For all of his skills is really just focused on let's get Putin out of office.
Why there's not back channel negotiations going on as we speak.
I mean, there should be some American, some Ukrainian, some Russian diplomats, maybe in Geneva or Zurich, speaking on a regular basis.
And I'd be surprised if that's happening because we haven't heard a peep about it.
Right, and yes, we hear again and again that these talks, originally there were some talks that were going on in Turkey, that Erdogan was brokering some of this.
Turkey, of course, has that dual relationship there.
That there were talks that are currently going on in the UAE, at least for prisoner transfers that have gone on a little bit.
But that these deals, Naftali Bennett talks about a deal that was scuttled.
Boris Johnson, we have reporting that he went over and personally told Zelensky not to take any peace deals in terms of this.
And then you go to the Americans, and I hear this so much from the Biden administration, that they barely actually talk about Ukraine.
They'll talk about these.
We'll see these also, by the way, these very strange sort of prisoner swaps like Brittany Greiner for Viktor Vout.
It's just, you know, It seems ridiculous if you accept it on its face, but if you look at it from another level, they don't talk about Ukraine.
They don't talk about how this benefits Ukraine.
They say, we're doing this to punish Russia.
We're doing this to deplete Russia.
We're doing this to diminish Russia.
And certainly you can see the results of that.
Nord Stream 2 is gone.
Their economic relationship with Europe is in tatters.
Any hope of Russia entering a An economic deal with the EU or a Schengen agreement for citizen travel, et cetera, et cetera.
I mean, I think that's been scuttled for something like the next 20 years.
And obviously NATO has a new lease on life because of all of this.
And so if you, if you ask, if you ask to Antony Blinken to take a lie detector test and said, you know, what, what is, what is the goal of American involvement in Ukraine?
Is it to expel the Russian military and Russian citizens from Crimea?
Or is it to expel President Vladimir Putin from office?
You would learn that the true goal is to expel President Vladimir Putin from office.
And the same thing from Victoria Nuland, and I would imagine Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense as well.
And if you read between the lines what old Joe is saying, sometimes just mouthing the words that his speechwriters have written, sometimes off the cuff, rationally speaking, that is their goal.
Their goal is to drive him from office.
But, like much of what government does, When the Pope suppressed the Latin Mass, there were more people attending the Latin Mass worldwide than there were before he suppressed it.
God bless.
With these people trying to drive Putin from office, his popularity has gone up.
It's so typical of government's heavy hand of meddling in areas where it shouldn't meddle.
It has the opposite effect from the stated purpose.
Even if the poor guy that's in a prison camp, who I love in Russia, even if he were out and campaigning against him, Putin would win by overwhelming numbers now, just because the American government has demonized himself.
Well, plus, too, I mean, if anyone's studied any history of the region, just because you get rid of one Russian ruler or one Russian leader, that doesn't necessarily mean that the forces you unleash are going to be better.
I mean, the last time that happened was 1917, when the Germans decided to send a train car packed with communists and Bolsheviks over to Moscow and St.
Petersburg.
We saw that led to the Bolshevik Revolution, that led to the Soviet Union in charge, that led to this lunatic regime that was at that point hell-bent on taking over the world and certainly dominating all of Europe.
This was completely insane.
So the idea that they would depose the current leader and you'd get some regime or, you know, go look at the Shah in Iran for another example.
Right.
Which set in motion the dominoes that led to the creation of the Ayatollah and the Mullahs.
This idea that we are going to just, and this is, by the way, the one spot where I always joke, I say, I don't always agree with the libertarians, but on foreign policy, I think we're very simpatico that, you know, this idea that we are going to simply walk around the world and knock over all these people that we don't like or who don't want to go along with this, that, you know, that it's going to make everything better.
There's no track record of it.
Correct.
But I do want to ask you about the finance side of this and the fact that there is clearly not only an element of certainly the US being able to backfill the energy sales to Europe, as we're seeing with American LNG going through the roof for Western Europe, but also the idea of the petrodollar and sort of this rise of the new multipolar world as a potential
I'll say competitor to the American-backed system, American hegemony.
We said earlier on the show this week that you'll never know what type of trouble the regime is willing to start when the petrodollar is on the line.
Can you walk people through that?
Can you explain that?
Well, I'm of the view, and of course you know I'm What libertarians call a true north libertarian, which means usually the most libertarian person in the room.
I'm of the view that competition improves the product.
I'm of the view that the dollar would actually be stronger if we were competing with a petrodollar or a yuan dollar, whatever you want to call it, for world dominance.
I'm of the view that a rising tide lifts all boats.
And when American industry and the American dollar is competing for the use by the rest of the world against another standard yardstick of measuring financial activity, that both sides will benefit from it.
I'm also of the view, and this goes back to John Adams, that we can't go around the world looking for monsters to slay because there will be no end to our search.
We have, you know this better than I do, you've probably been to many of them, 903, 903 military installations outside the United States around the world.
Where your former colleagues live and work, and the American taxpayer, because we borrow so much of our money, taxpayers as yet unborn, are financing it.
No human being can name or pretend to be familiar with all of that, but we do pay for it.
We don't export democracy when we go around the world looking for monsters to slay.
Now I'm thinking of Barack Obama using a drone to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, not a nice guy, but an American, and never even charged with a crime, while he was sitting in a cafe with his son and the son's friend, and the three of them were just evaporated.
When we go around the world doing that, we don't export democracy, we don't export liberty, we don't export truth, we export violence, and that breeds more violence.
So maybe I'm not the right person to give a full Economics 101 explanation on the petrodollar versus the U.S.
dollar, but competition always improves the product, and American imperialism will bring about the end of American liberty as we know it.
Well, I think that's, I think that's right, you know, and I've actually spoken to, I don't know that I've said this publicly yet, but I've actually spoken to members of the Trump administration who were lobbying very hard against Nord Stream 2.
You certainly know, we all know Rick Grinnell had made it a huge part of his policy portfolio when he was the ambassador to Germany, when he was there, was constantly railing against this.
President Trump, of course, railed against it at the United Nations.
This was a very well known policy.
In fact, when I was at the Helsinki summit with President Trump and President Putin, that this was a huge point of contention between them when it came up was more extreme, too.
But I asked the question to to to this guy.
I said, did you ever consider kinetic action to take it out?
Did you ever consider sending in Navy divers to just blow the thing up?
And he said, well, no, because that's World War III thinking.
That's the type of stuff that gets you into situations where you might think it's a good idea if you forget the fact that Russia has the ability to respond.
Well, I mean, depending upon exactly who did this, if they were Navy divers, your buddies, and I say that with deference and respect to your career in the military, even though I've been very critical of the way it's been deployed.
I don't criticize the guys and girls who actually put their lives on the line.
I criticize management, so to speak.
If Joe Biden used the military Without notifying Congress under the War Powers Resolution, which I think is unconstitutional, but it is the law, he's committed a very, very serious violation of federal law.
If, on the other hand, he used intelligence agents, Cy Hirst says he used both, but if he used just intelligence agents, As Barack Obama did when he was getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, then there's no reporting requirement under American law.
But under the Constitution, a way from which the Congress deviates more than it conforms, it is absolutely unconstitutional for Joe Biden or any president to instigate an act of war.
Only the Congress Can declare war.
You wanna declare war on Russia so you can blow that thing up?
Go ahead and declare it.
You wanna declare war on an ally and live with the diplomatic and geopolitical fallout of that so you can destroy the ally's ability to keep their citizens and inhabitants warm in the winter?
Go ahead and declare it.
But to blow this up in secret is profoundly unconstitutional and unlawful.
and as this person to whom you spoke four or five or six years ago, beginning of World War III.
Maybe the beginning of World War III is this proxy war we're fighting in Ukraine, I don't know.
But this overt destruction of the property of foreign countries that wish us no ill and do not harm us at all is an act of war.
To me, it looks like a move of desperation that's done by, and I've said this many times, and we have Darren Beatty on who created this phrase, the globalist American empire.
And I do think that even though, I say this to my followers, I say this to the subscribers, the viewers, that Yes, America was founded as a republic.
That's absolutely correct.
But along the way, America has certainly transformed and our government has certainly transformed to something that is far more imperial.
And the phrase that BD came up with, this globalist American empire, when you look at America's actions through that lens, when you look at the government action through that lens, it feels like an empire That is reaching out its tentacles to claw in more territories, to keep more territories under its dominance, to make sure that there's no deals that are being made at the expense of the empire.
And it certainly seems to fit with a lot of what you're saying about how these acts are completely unconstitutional, in many cases unlawful, and yet there doesn't seem to ever be any accountability for it.
My column called Freedom's Extinction, and it makes that a very argument.
You know, the government that James Madison gave us was a pure republic with a lot of checks and balances.
Uh, and which basically required a consensus among the electorate.
Now, the electorate was, you know, adult white landowning males at the time, but a consensus among the electorate before any significant movement in one direction or another was taken.
We no longer, as well as the protection under the Fifth Amendment of life, liberty, and property from interference by the government requiring due process, a jury trial at which the government must prove fault.
We are so far from that model that Madison gave us.
So far from it to the point where unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies, like the Federal Reserve, can weaken the value of everything that we own.
And a popularly elected president, but without the consensus of Congress, Can engage in a war.
These are very, very, very dangerous times.
What was everybody talking about a week ago today?
A balloon, a balloon in the skies that the government knew about for months and months and months that the government knows about.
And we send our balloons over there and they send their balloons over here.
Why did we demonize China for doing something we knew it was doing?
Because old Joe wants to demonize China.
To build up a consensus for American imperialism in Taiwan.
Another island!
Well, what I've said so many times is, I don't know if you follow the work of Dr. John Mearsheimer, but Mearsheimer released a warning a few months ago talking about exactly what you just said there, this danger of, do we understand the Chinese Communist Party?
Do we trust them?
Certainly no.
But at the same time, are we really trying to escalate a two-front global conflict where on one hand we are We're currently in a hot proxy war with Russia.
I don't even know if you can call it a proxy war because nobody's trying to hide the fact that we're in it.
It's just openly in it.
And then at the same time trying to escalate things with China to the point where that Taiwan Island situation kicks off into another proxy war that the U.S.
will find themselves in.
I don't know how to define that other than the start of World War III.
I don't know how else to explain it.
We just can't get enough military equipment by land or sea against the will of the Chinese government onto Taiwan.
We can't Expose American military in boots and uniform on the ground in Ukraine.
We simply cannot.
We are not strong enough and we don't have the will.
We don't have the moral argument behind us to fight either of those wars.
It would be insane.
It would be impeachable.
It would be beyond imagining to try and do that at the same time, both instigated by us.
You know, this is not stopping Hitler in Europe or stopping Hirohito in Japan.
This is Joe Biden.
It could be anybody, fill in the blank.
This is American imperialism trying to spread in Eastern Europe and in the Far East at the cost of American blood and treasure.
The public simply won't stand for it.
You think LBJ was driven from office?
The Democrats will be driven from office for a generation.
Well, you know, it won't be just the Democrats, because you got Lindsey Graham and a bunch of Kevin McCarthy-controlled Republicans in the House in favor of all of this as well.
Judge, we're coming up on our last couple of minutes.
Before I ask people what your coordinates are, can you let us know what should the American at home do that's listening to us, that's hearing our diagnosis of the situation?
What would the prognosis be then?
What would be your plan for treatment of these issues?
Well, my plan for treatment of these issues is to bring the troops home.
I would close nearly all Foreign military bases.
Our defense budget is bloated because the money is wasted.
The money should be spent on building defensive military equipment, not spending money on these foreign bases.
I would bring all the troops And bring all the troops home and close down the foreign bases.
You know this number.
Our military budget is greater than the budgets of the next 12 countries combined, which of course includes Russia and China, because they don't waste it on all this imperialistic activity around the world.
In terms of what can be done at home, it's very, very difficult.
You know the intelligence community far better than I. There are parts of the government that are insidious and have their claws into the Congress, whereby the Congress always votes to increase their budgets and to increase their authorities.
And those who spy on us domestically and waste our money in the military have a lot more clout with the Congress than the average voter does.
But talk about this, expose it, and if you're Catholic, say a lot of Hail Marys.
I've already got my rosary in for today, and we'll probably be doing another Latin rosary again later with my boys.
But, Judge, congratulations again on the success of the show on Judging Freedom.
And I really think, by the way, that the success of your show in such a short time does absolutely show that there is an appetite for this type of commentary, for this type of analysis.
Where can people go to find it?
When can they go find it?
I mean, it seems like you're just putting out content like crazy these days.
Well, I put out a lot of content, so I do a one-on-one interview like you and I are doing now, five days a week, Monday through Friday.
And I do solos where I just sit right where I am now and I just talk about whatever the issue may be.
The FBI at Mar-a-Lago.
Joe Biden declaring war on his own.
I forget what he did last week.
I came up here.
I was angry.
It was about six o'clock at night.
I called up my producer who lives in Florida.
I said, you know, get me the link.
I want to go on air.
What are you going to do?
I'm just going to attack Biden.
I did it for 10 minutes.
450,000 views and 90,000 comments.
99.9999%.
Those are the best ones!
Over the top positive.
I love because you'll sit there, and I'll do this too I'm sure, and you'll plan something out and you'll have this architecture, this great argument, and you're making notes and you're reading.
I've got all my articles set up and that does, you know, it does okay.
And then you'll just pop off something that comes right from the gut and that one goes hyper viral.
Correct.
Correct.
So it's Judging Freedom.
You can get it at Judgenapp.com.
You can get it at Judging Freedom's channel on YouTube.
You can get it at Twitter.
You can get it at Facebook.
I used to be very popular with TikTok, but those people over there got wise to me when I referred to abortion as homicide.
And when I argued that the federal government should not prosecute people for a conspiracy Five people to overtake the government of the United States by violence.
That is impossible to carry out.
A valid legal argument made in every conspiracy case every time one is tried in every courthouse in the United States.
TikTok got furious at me, so now they use an algorithm to suppress me.
But Facebook, YouTube, JudgeNap.com and JudgingFreedom's own site have brought all of my wonderful followers to look at my face and hear my voice.
Well, I appreciate it, Judge Napolitano.
Make sure you guys are checking that out after you watch Human Events Daily every day.
Keep in mind.
But yeah, Judging Freedom, it's a fantastic show.
Congratulations again.
And thank you for joining us.
Thank you, Jack.
I hope I hope you'll come on.
I hope you'll visit with us and you and I can have a conversation like this and I can explore your fertile brain and your experiences in naval intelligence.
Well, I just want to say thanks again so much for joining us here, Judge Napolitano.
