All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2025 - Rudy Giuliani
01:54:14
America’s Mayor Live (681): Russia's "Pearl Harbor?"—Ukraine Strikes Deep Into Russia
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Rudy Giuliani and this is America's Mayor Live coming to you from New Hampshire.
That's where we are.
We have a very interesting studio here.
We're surrounded by such beautiful farm and altogether different.
Who knows?
It may change our attitude.
I doubt it.
The big story of the day, obviously, is the, as I said, some call it Pearl Harbor attack on Russia.
Some people say it's like the Pearl Harbor for the Russians, the Russian Pearl Harbor.
I say there is something to that in the sense of the enormity of it and even the surprise because people didn't expect it.
But the thing that makes it a little different, and therefore I wouldn't like to see a complete analogy to Pearl Harbor, it didn't involve an attack where people weren't at war.
I mean, they were at war with each other.
Japan attacked us, and we had not attacked them at all.
We were not at war with them.
There may have been hostilities in the sense of negotiation-type hostilities.
There weren't any major military conflicts.
These two countries have been in bitter war with each other.
Of course, Russia has been asking for it for quite some time.
When you start hitting residences and homes in a country, they're going to hit you back if they can.
They were prevented from hitting back by Biden.
We'll go into the details of it shortly.
I had just covered it on my other show.
And so we'll cover it a little bit later on this show, but we'll cover it in great detail.
So you get to understand what happened and how it happened.
And this whole question of did the White House know about it or didn't the White House know about it should be addressed also.
The big beautiful bill.
I guess the issue now is, is it going to get through by July 4th?
You run into an August deadline in terms of the debt, which means the ceiling has to be raised at a certain point.
Usually, there's more play in the date than is first indicated.
Now, that changes sometimes as receipts go up.
So remember, everything is premised on, are we going beyond what had been authorized as the amount of money that we spend, which is based on the amount of money we take in, and we're starting to get to a break-even point and then a negative point.
But if you take in 2% more, Then you anticipate it, as we did earlier, which it gets extended.
So if the tariffs, for example, bring in unanticipated income of some major proportion, that could extend it two months or three months.
So I'm sure the worst case scenario right now is August.
But this bill, which is why it's called the Big Beautiful Bill, does everything.
It extends the debt limit.
It lowers tax.
It extends the Trump tax cuts and adds tax cuts to it.
It also it also provides for a substantial increase in defense spending and spending on illegal immigration and reversing the tremendous damage in both cases that Biden did to us with the wars that he had.
And certainly the 15, 20 million illegals he let in, many of whom turn out to be criminals.
So all of that is in there.
But there's also a pretty good chunk taken out of green spending, which I think we should remove.
The bill removes a lot of the subsidies for wind and solar.
And if you think about it, people are, as a result of wind and solar, we are paying a lot more for energy than we were before.
Because those tax credits that we're giving out Are given out to private companies so that they can operate, and then they charge huge amounts of money.
Now, if you look at New York, where they have probably the most subsidies, New York pays 50% more for electricity than the average in the country.
As the report indicates, If you're forced to pay more for electricity, you have less money to spend than everything else.
The subsidized jobs the green energy advocates and their political neighbors wish to create are also hugely expensive.
Over the life of an offshore wind project, including the now greenlit Empire Wind, the average costs are over $1 million per job each and every year.
So you're paying enormous amounts of money for wind and solar.
The purpose of it being that it's supposed to be more reliable, and it absolutely isn't, right?
Because when the wind doesn't blow, you don't get no electricity, and the wind doesn't blow all the time.
And when it's nighttime, you don't get any electricity because you don't have solar, and the moon doesn't do any good.
So these are two highly inefficient.
Sources of energy that have to be compensated for with another source of energy.
So you still need your fossil fuels for that source of energy.
And if you took the subsidies away, nobody would do it.
Which is why the subsidies shouldn't be there, because they were developed and there really is no support for them.
It's like what happened with the electric cars and why the whole thing has fallen through.
We put in a tremendous amount of money so people would build these cars.
Nobody would have done it if they weren't given money by the government.
But then we find we don't have the infrastructure for it.
And the infrastructure for it will turn out to be as theoretically damaging to climate change if they're right about it.
As gasoline, cars using gasoline.
Because to produce the electricity you're going to need to take care of all the cars does as much damage to the climate as the automobiles do.
If the automobiles really damage the climate that much.
So the Bill now stands this way.
It's in the Senate.
There are four senators who have objected to it, and there are a couple of others that we think are objecting to it.
Rand Paul is the only one who has said definitively, I'm not voting for it no matter what.
However, his objection is different to some extent than the others.
His objection is the same, but his point of no return is the extension of the debt limit.
In other words, he'd live with the pros and cons of deficit reduction because there are a lot of things in it that he likes.
And deficit reduction is kind of interesting.
There is a one point...
Let me see.
The actual amount.
There is a deficit reduction that is not anywhere near as high as they would like.
However, if Speaker...
Now, that's not saying much.
You know, I had the biggest tax reduction in the history of New York City when I reduced taxes by about nothing.
I mean, very, very little.
It was like a $27 million reduction.
And my chief of staff came to me and said, congratulations, you have the biggest reduction in taxes in New York State history.
And I said, it can't be, Peter.
I mean, it was just a small reduction.
A good one, a really good one, a one that's going to produce many more later.
But he said, well, the reason you have the biggest one is there's never been a reduction in taxes ever.
So when we say it's the biggest reduction in spending over the next 10 years ever, it's because we never reduce spending.
We do it for a year or two.
It's 1.7% the reduction in spending right now.
Now, as Johnson points out, the Speaker, it's going to be higher than that.
Because if you put in, there's no real adequate assessment of the impact on the economy of the tax reductions and the economic incentives that are being created, or of the vast amount of money that's come into the American economy.
Probably unprecedented in the last three months, four months.
If you pay attention, you see 500 million from here, a trillion from here, 200 million from here, 200 billion from here, 300 billion from here.
All of this is creating a tremendous amount of economic activity, which isn't going to translate itself immediately into increased tax.
Collections.
You can collect more money on a lower tax if you stimulate more activity.
That's how this all works.
Democrats and liberal newspapers and accountants don't believe that.
So when I cut the tax, I had a major debt that I had to deal with.
I had to reduce my spending to reach it.
But then it turned out, That's what's going to happen here.
So that 1.7% has to be based on very, very small, I'm not even sure there is one, but if it is, it'll be a very, very small estimate of the economic impact of not only the tax cuts, but the other things that are being done, regulatory reform.
Whatever.
Shrinking of government.
That's going to be much higher.
So that 1.7% is going to be closer to double that.
Plus, you cannot reduce a deficit of this size in one year.
First of all, you're not going to get political support to do it.
But two, you can't do it.
You'd crash.
It's like if you have to lose 100 pounds, how do you do it in a day?
You do it in a year or two years, right?
But you stay at it, right?
And that's what they're going to do.
And so I think that the senators who were saying that there need to be more reductions, that would be Senator Johnson would be one of those.
Senator Scott would be one of those.
Whereas Senator Rand Paul's objection is more the debt ceiling.
And he said he would vote for it if that were taken out.
That could be taken out.
The debt ceiling doesn't come up, as I said, until August.
August probably means September or October, given the way it usually works and given the performance of the economy right now.
Which is going to, we can put more money than, I believe the receipts for the governor will be more than had been calculated.
That would extend the debt ceiling.
So if you need, if it really is just four, and he's one of them, you can probably get it through if you take out the debt ceiling, just pull that out of the bill, that one thing, and then pass the whole rest of the bill.
To see if we could get Senator Scott and Senator Johnson who have specific recommendations as to reductions they'd like to see.
Then there are some other Republicans and they may be more in the weeds like Lisa Murkowski and Hawley.
Who are more concerned about Medicaid?
And in Hawley's case, he may be concerned about Medicaid because of Medicaid cuts, which kind of becomes very, very hard if you've got to send it back to the House and have them completely ignore the fact that Medicaid is a very, very poorly run program.
Or, I'll be more specific.
It's riddled with fraud.
So you should take out a certain amount of money that you honestly and in good faith expect is going to be reduced because you're putting in measures to cut out the fraud, which they're doing.
And that's the contribution that Musk made.
He certainly started that process when nobody else would.
And it's a shame that he was treated the way he was treated.
In fact, the whole contribution of Doge is tremendous.
And the fact that they haven't met the trillion is ridiculous.
Nobody cooperated with them.
All the secretaries went crazy.
Everybody was looking at their agency and the infighting against him.
If you know about infighting in Washington, it must have been absolutely, absolutely.
Terrible.
But in any event, I think these are things that can be dealt with.
I do think this bill is going to get passed.
If you add Hawley and Murkowski, you then have about six or seven against him.
You can only take three against him.
So you're going to have to get back some of them.
I do think that Scott...
Respect the president enough so that if it meant they were in essence raising taxes, which is what happens if you don't pass this.
Please understand the consequence of not passing this.
If this bill is not passed, then our taxes go up higher, be the highest tax cut we've ever had.
On the other hand, if it is passed, it'll be one of the It'll be one of the best tax cuts.
If we don't pass, it'll be the highest tax increase.
So I don't see Johnson and Scott and Grassley going that way.
Now, on the Medicaid issue, I don't know it as well because the Medicaid cuts, it's the doctors or the hospitals that are cheating.
Now, to not estimate a certain amount that you're going to find there creates no incentive to find it, creates no discipline to find it.
It's the way I used to budget and how I got the city to a surplus.
It's the way any good manager budgets.
But of course, Democrats aren't.
Democrats are irresponsible, horrible managers of the budget.
Look at all the cities they're ruining.
I am hoping, because I have tremendous respect for the three senators you're talking about, Scott Johnson and Grassley.
I mean, Grassley is one of the great senators, and the other two are going to be great senators if they aren't already.
I think they're trying to get a little more out of it.
And again, the deal could be made with Rand Paul if he's being straight up, and he always is, usually.
I mean, I've never seen Rand Paul be anything other than I disagree with him sometimes.
I disagree on his isolationism, for example.
But I've never seen him be anything less than honest.
So there's a way through that, too.
I just hope they put in the work.
Not them, but the whole Senate.
I mean, the Senate works two and a half days a week.
We'd like to get this over before July 4th.
You know, once this is over, it's going to also help the economy, which doesn't need that much help, but it'll really settle it.
It really boosted, actually, as we anticipate the tax cuts.
Scott has said to Charlie Kirk that he's absolutely not going to vote for it if it remains the way it is.
All it needs is a little tweak, I think, to get someone like Senator Scott.
So let's see.
Let's see how that all works out.
This is going to be a day-by-day situation.
Not so much as to whether ultimately I do believe it'll pass, but it would be very, very good if we got this passed before July 4th so that I believe the sooner we get it passed, we can move on to other things that have to be done as well.
The work of this administration is gargantuan because it is turning around an entire ship of state.
That's not easy.
Not easy at all.
And I do want to say that I feel really terrible that Musk had to leave.
And the way he had to leave.
And I see there are areas where he disagrees with the administration, disagrees with this bill.
And he actually used 80%.
80% agree and 20% disagree.
Well, that's what Ronald Reagan used to use.
If you're my 80% friend, you're not my 20% enemy.
He'd been a real patriot.
I mean, I, of course, think that was already taken care of when he saved free speech.
So we're going to take a short break and we'll be right back.
Thank you.
U.S. Army Major Scott Smiley paid a high price serving our nation.
Scott was leading his platoon in Iraq when a blast sent shrapnel through his eyes, leaving him blind and temporarily paralyzed.
Scott would become the first blind active duty military officer before medically retiring years later.
Thanks to friends like you, the Tunnel to Towers Foundation gave Scott and his family a mortgage-free, specially adapted smart home.
Show your support for America's heroes now.
Donate $11 a month to Tunnels of Towers.
Are you ready for some action?
I'm ready for action.
Get the Elite TV plan only through the portal.
218 channels and it's only $69.95 a month.
Wow.
Including your free portal.
That's cheaper than everyone else.
Your favorite sports.
Movies.
Even daytime dramas.
We're talking about ESPN, OAN, Newsmax, channels you can't get anymore in certain areas.
Compared to the competition, this is a way better deal.
Endless selection.
Not to mention all the free music channels.
There's over 700 premium and classic movies all ready to go.
Plus, they got catch-up TV that allows you to go back and watch what you've missed or want to watch again.
Cut your cable in half and get twice as much for free.
Way more channels for Here we are, pretty much at the beginning of the process here at this pristine, I call it a laboratory.
It's not like a factory, it's like a hospital.
This is the beginning of the process.
For roasting.
Deep green, very good quality.
Most people don't use this quality.
We deal with small farmers because we like to know who we're dealing with.
They give us the highest quality, all organic, non-GMO.
You should know, all Arabica beans.
No robusto.
All Arabica.
They're going to go into the roaster and it'll get roasted for about 20 minutes or so.
Oh my goodness, look at these!
my goodness You're gonna want to specially order these.
This is what goes into Rudy's coffee.
Rudy's coffee.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Welcome back to America's Mayor Live.
This is Rudy Giuliani.
And I am coming to you from the live free or die state, where every time you're here, you think about that.
And there's something about the whole atmosphere of it that has that feeling of very strong, independent people who.
It's like what America.
That's the way I would put it.
The whole decision of a court that you probably had never heard of, but I know because I worked across the street from it for 2,000 years, the Court of International Trade, one of their lower court judges.
has decided that the president can't raise taxes the way he has because Congress didn't give him that he's over-reading the authority that he got from Congress to do it.
Now, every prior case with other presidents that interpreted this authority has come out in the president's favor, that the president did have the authority to do it.
And I'm not going to go into great detail with this decision right now until it gets a little closer to the time that it's argued.
But this is a complete negation of the separation of powers and also what used to be a very, very lively doctrine.
That protected the separation of powers called the political question doctrine.
Now, why do I know that?
Because when I was in law school, I wrote a law review article about it.
Something I did that somehow Barack Obama never did.
We can't find any law review articles from Barack Obama when he was a law student.
Gee, I wonder why.
But in any event, I wrote a war review article co-authored it with my with my I mean, I wrote a number, but this one that I wrote, I wrote as an author with my law school roommate.
We'll come back to this, but I have to know because I've always been told he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
Yeah, yeah, he got elected president of the Harvard Law Review based on popularity.
Not based on scholarship.
The law reviews traditionally...
Law reviews look at...
you wrote the best articles.
So you get selected.
And there's a lot of fighting over What you think is the best article, I may think isn't.
But in any event, I'm off the point.
The point is, political question.
It sounds like it can't be political.
Political question maybe should have a more, because everybody thinks of politics, should have a different title.
But it really protects the separation of powers.
Here's what it means.
As you know, the federal government operates only on the powers granted to it.
It has no other powers.
Whatever powers are granted to you, you have.
Whatever ones you don't have, you can't just say you have.
Now, a certain amount can be done under the necessary and proper clause, which says that the Congress has the ability to do things that are necessary and proper in order to effectuate what they already have to do.
And you can be you can be honest or dishonest about that.
And that's where the left wingers really extend.
And we did it so much that we have a fourth branch of government now, the independent agencies that never existed before.
And we have the courts deciding that they can make foreign policy, which they never were able to do before.
This is a complete bastardization of our government.
We have completely changed the government that was given to us by the founders.
The court is bringing back the independent agencies in a decision recently in which they decided that the president could, in fact, fire the two people in the independent agencies that he fired, even though the law says it has to be for cause.
He did it just based on at will.
They said that Congress had no right to put that restriction on him, that the Constitution.
It grants him the right to fire anyone who works for him.
And it's clear that it does because it comes right out of the Constitutional Convention.
They accepted the Fed, kind of, although they didn't write a decision on it.
I'm going to try to figure out what they find is so peculiar about the Fed that it somehow is entitled to be a fourth branch of government.
But we'll see what happens there.
With tariffs, tariffs are within the domain of the President and Congress.
A court doesn't set tariffs.
It doesn't decide, is this a reasonable tariff or not?
It can decide constitutional questions, but it can't decide tariffs.
And the president was exercising his decision on tariffs based upon emergency powers that come out of the Tariff legislation that Congress enacted in 1977,
IEPA, which allows him in an emergency to basically move tariffs around in his best judgment.
Really also kind of a reflection of his power to conduct foreign policy without undue interference from Congress.
There should be no interference from the courts.
The courts have no role in this.
This is a political question.
If somebody doesn't like the way he's exercising this power, the only branch of government that has the power to stop him is Congress.
They can pass a resolution in a minute and stop it.
The Supreme Court has no role in this.
They're taking the role of judge and they're making it Massive.
This is a Marxist centralized government expansion.
Every time our central government gets bigger and takes on a role that isn't absolutely defined by the Constitution, we get closer to being a dictatorship.
That's what China is.
It's one massive central government.
One of the reasons why it can't flexibly deal with problems of its economy.
So these are very good things that are happening.
And let's hope that the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, decides that they're going to make decisions based on the Constitution and not what keeps you or makes you popular around Washington.
For fear that when Democrats come in, if they go too far and really follow the will of our founders, the Democrats are going to try to change the court.
And that is playing here to a very, very large extent.
So this seems to be not very different.
Then the case of U.S. versus Yoshida International in 1975, when Nixon just imposed a 10% tariff based upon his calculation that there was an emergency.
And he did it under the Enemy Act.
And then after that, in 77, Congress enacted a EPA and took that language and put it right in the statute.
Now, the trade court described Trump's imposition of the tariffs as unbounded.
Now, it isn't unbounded.
It's very specifically laid out in great detail what the tariffs are, how they can be triggered, how they can be reduced.
They all have to do with very intricate calculations.
The idea that the trade deficit cannot be a national emergency because we always have one is, of course, absurd.
It depends on how high the trade deficit is.
So let's think of the budget deficit.
When that budget deficit When that budget deficit becomes so large that it goes beyond the amount of money, right?
When we owe more money than we're taking in, the government stops.
That's an emergency, correct?
Well, when the trade deficit is too high, it has a massive impact on our economy.
And there's one thing, a trade deficit that is reasonable, a trade deficit that is very, very damaging.
And a trade deficit that has you in an emergency situation.
Well, we sure as hell are like that when we have so many different countries.
And that certainly is an emergency.
When you look at China, all of their activities against us are a cold war, if not a warm war.
You look at COVID and the number of people they killed there.
You look at fentanyl, the number of people they're killing there.
You look at the trade practices they follow, which rape us of industries.
Now, the president doesn't have to be absolutely right about emergency.
He just has to be rational or reasonable.
And the people who review that are not the court.
People who review it, the Congress.
So let's hope.
Let's hope that the courts are going to...
Maybe it has to be somewhat bigger because the world has gotten bigger and everything's gotten bigger.
But the smaller it can be, the better off we are.
More importantly, the smaller the federal government, the more freedom we have.
True freedom.
Now, please do not pay attention to anybody in the media because they do not know what they're talking about unless it's Lindell TV or it's Newsmax or one of our great conservative commentators.
So I thought yesterday...
And Ted, I thought yesterday the Treasury Secretary really, really gave it to Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation, who is one of the...
Margaret Brennan, who is not exactly a fan of Trump.
She had, in March, she had dissent on.
And she asked him about the studies from the Peterson Institute, which is left of left of left, even though he was a Republican, that predicted tariffs would spur inflation.
So he had the opportunity, and I'm sure he just loved it, to point out to her that inflation, despite all the tariff, everything else, is the lowest that it's been.
In, I don't know, three years, four years, and went down from 2.4% to 2.3% year-over-year, marking the slowest year-over-year increase in over four years, according to the Federal Consumer Price Index.
And the absolute ideal for inflation is two or below.
So we're now down to We're now 2.3.
So we're almost there.
We're three-tenths of a percent away from the ideal, which has us in a situation of really there is no inflation or inflation that's going to have any kind of major impact on prices.
So do we have the video of Secretary Besant?
face the nation, Ted?
Yeah, we'll get that fired up.
Also, as you're saying that, the Democrats are really...
It's very hard to say.
I mean, are they...
They seem to.
Are they still supporting Hamas?
They seem to.
And they seem to be going even further with supporting illegal immigration.
I mean, they all supported the opening of the doors.
But, I mean, they went a step further when they now try to bring the criminals back.
Now they're trying to bring the criminals back and make war on ice.
So you get certain ones that say, we're going to go more toward the middle, but it seems that they're going further left.
I mean, even when Biden was here, they went so far left, they opened the doors completely.
And now we've got Van Huffman from Maryland going down and trying to...
Van Hoofeman is trying to singularly bring back a wife beater and human trafficker.
The mayor in Newark is trying to break into a...
He wants them out on the streets of his citizens and get beat some more.
The congresswoman is battering around two ICE agents in an effort to help the criminals inside.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
And then judges want to bring back, the judge in Boston wants to bring back about eight or 10 perverts who seem to, this judge seems to This is even further than where Biden was.
They've gotten further crazy left.
So that's where the Democratic Party is headed.
And I don't know where and how we get an opposition party that shares A basic view of America that's similar with differences in policy.
Very hard to say that someone is a loyal citizen and they support open borders.
Because open borders means a complete negation of your nationality.
Anybody can come in.
So you can be, in a very short period, you can be anything.
It negates the idea of civilization, of culture, of a national culture, even a national language.
Thank you very much.
It does reflect itself in how the Hispanic vote has changed dramatically.
Between 2016 and 2024, the Hispanic vote has changed by 46%.
Between 2016 and 2024.
Wow.
And we're not counting the changes that are going on now in 2025.
Because they're continuing.
That's massive.
I don't know.
I don't know what they're thinking.
So can we put on the secretary now and listen to him take on the completely fair and unbiased Margaret Brennan?
Yeah, we're bringing it on right now.
Are you anticipating price increases?
You told us you were going to appoint an affordability czar and council to figure out five, you said, or eight areas where there will be some pain for working class Americans.
Where are you anticipating price increases?
Okay.
It's okay.
I know it.
As far as there have been no price increases, everything has been alarmist.
The inflation numbers are actually dropping.
The reality is there will either be less inventory or things at higher prices or both.
When we were here in March, you said there was going to be big inflation.
There hasn't been any inflation.
Actually, the inflation numbers are the best in four years.
So why don't we stop trying to say this could happen and wait and see what does happen.
Just trying to gauge for people planning ahead here.
They told us you were going to appoint an affordable bill.
Thank you.
I don't know.
Spartacus.
Would you say that was a Nazi salute by Spartacus?
Well.
Well, show me the...
Here's a...
They're the ones that set the standard.
So first of all, this isn't us calling it a Nazi salute.
They were going crazy when he did that.
When Elon did that.
But here it is.
I have it on video.
There you go.
Here's the video.
There it is.
So I'll play it on repeat here.
And he does it right out of touching his heart.
Yeah.
I mean, Mayor, 2025, United States of America, I'm not really looking for Nazi salutes.
They're the ones that set the standard here.
They're the ones that informed us.
I don't think he's doing a Nazi salute.
I'm just pointing it out to point out how Exactly.
That's what I'm saying.
How completely unfair they are.
Right.
Also, Andrea Peiser in the post.
And more should have been made of this.
Michelle Obama has a podcast that I'm unaware of because I've never seen it, nor do I know how to find it.
And I think I should force myself to watch it be considered work.
I don't know.
Do we get a clip from this?
Did we get a clip from it?
I don't know.
We can play it tomorrow.
We should play it tomorrow, right?
No, no.
It's part of their podcast.
It's called I Am O with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson.
Craig Robinson is her brother.
Now, I don't know the context of this, but I'll read to you what Andrea wrote about it, okay?
This is Michelle now speaking.
I attempted to make the argument on the campaign trail this past election was that there's just so much more at stake and because so many men have no idea about what women go through.
She said, Obama said, delving treacherously close to Democratic-style word salad.
Man, here's the quote.
Women's reproductive health is about our life.
It's about this whole complicated reproductive system that the least of what it does is produce life.
Now, I think this ends any serious consideration of this nitwit for president.
What the hell is she talking about?
This complicated reproductive system that the least of what it does is produce life.
The definition of it alone should tell you what the major purpose of it is.
It's called, hey dope, it's called reproductive system.
Can you play it?
Can I play it or not?
Yeah, play it.
If you got to play it, I mean, gee, I mean, We haven't been researched, we haven't been considered, and it still affects the way a lot of male lawmakers, a lot of male politicians, a lot of male religious leaders think about the issue of choice as if it's just about the fetus, the baby.
Women's reproductive health is about our life.
It's about this whole complicated reproductive system that does the least of what it does is produce life.
It's a very important thing that it does.
It's the least of which is life?
That's the most important thing.
That's the most important.
What?
What?
This is bizarre.
You're right, Mayor.
I want to know.
This is worse than I thought.
I want her to list the other things about the reproductive...
It's off.
I just have it on silent while you talk.
Oh, okay.
What else is the reproductive system about other than producing life?
I don't know.
There probably are.
I wish Dr. Maria were here.
Maybe we'll get her tomorrow night.
But I'm going to think about this, and I'd like you tonight to think about it.
Maybe she doesn't know that when they say reproductive, they mean reproducing a human being?
Producing a human being?
Does she think it's something else?
Does she think it aids in digestion?
Well, it does go to show that.
Or AIDS in mental stability?
Or AIDS in blood circulation?
There's another part of this I want us to focus on, Mayor.
I want to get your reaction to it.
What is she talking about?
just about the fetus.
Religious leaders think about the issue of choice as if it's They kill the fetus.
See how she says that?
the fetus as if it's like this three, That's a baby.
Yeah, and they want to kill it even after it's a fetus.
The way they even say the word, right?
Yeah, they're horrible people.
Now, this may be very, very interesting because it may get to the core of why they murder so much.
little babies.
And I'm not a doctor.
What other purposes does the reproductive system have other than reproducing?
What does it do?
It must do some other things that I'm just not aware of.
I mean, obviously, they're not more important than reproducing.
That's the whole purpose of it.
Right.
The brain does more important things than thinking.
Okay, so the brain does other things like has a lot more control over our emotions than we think.
Okay.
Or is that part of our thinking, a broader definition of thinking?
The digestive system does more important things than digest.
We're kind of learning that, that it does actually.
But it's certainly the most important thing it does is digest.
That's why we call it the digestive system.
That reminded me of Kamala Harris.
Yeah.
That really did.
The urinary system does, well, it does two important things, right?
We urinate with it, and we also reproduce with it.
So you could say, in the case of a male, if you wanted to, That being is more important than reproducing.
But in the case of a female, I think the two systems, I got to go look at biology.
I think the two systems, the system of excretion and the system of reproduction are separate.
Okay, let's entertain her perspective here.
What exactly...
This is her words.
Women getting pregnant and having babies is, quote, the least of what a women's reproductive system does.
What is in her mind?
We'll have to go.
I might have to watch that.
I mean, I don't know if I can touch on this, but I mean, a woman has her period every month.
That's because of her egg.
I was going to say, that's connected to the reproductive.
Part of the reproductive process.
Here's what you don't want to accept, all of you who resist this.
She's stupid!
What's going on?
She's stupid!
She is not this brilliant whatever, and neither is Prince Obama.
The guy couldn't write his law review article.
These are hardly, you know, big intellects.
They'll take some kind of an idiotic Marxist idea they were taught and then they'll contort whatever facts fit it because they don't read, they don't think, they're not that well educated.
That is one of the dopiest things anybody ever said.
The words contradict themselves.
The least important thing the reproductive system does is reproduce.
And nobody pays attention to it but Andrea Price.
But we know why.
And this is a woman that she says she doesn't want to be president, but the Democrats keep talking about her being the ideal, of course she's the ideal presidential candidate.
She might be dumber than Biden.
Who knows?
I bet if he asked Biden in his heyday, what's the least important?
We know how he'd answer that.
Come on.
He'd look around and take a poll.
That's funny.
But, I mean, can you imagine if one of these people were actually smart?
Considering all the advantages they have with the media and the tech companies, imagine if one of them actually could...
People used to say that Obama would have been really dangerous if he had energy.
He was very lazy.
That's what they say.
They don't say it, he said it.
He said it again in something covered up.
An interview, we'll find that too.
An interview with Barbara Walters, I think it was the second or the third Christmas interview, she asked him if he has any weaknesses.
And he said, I'm lazy.
And the one you just saw there, who's bigger than him, kicked him and said that it wasn't true.
She corrected him right away.
Because she knew how that was going to play out.
But it didn't play out.
Nobody ever covered it.
And Barbara Walters, who liked him a lot, used to always say, you know, that he was lazy.
Good for us, because we'd be talking Chinese now if he wasn't lazy, or whatever, whoever he wanted to sell us out to.
So let's go to the big news and the exciting news of the day.
And that is the attack, the unbelievable attack of Ukraine on Russia.
So let's put it in context here.
This is the biggest assault on Russia since their ally, And I want you to remember that they were an ally of the Nazis and that they didn't break the alliance with the Nazis.
The Nazis broke the alliance with them.
And then, of course, through Roosevelt and the communists around him, we became best friends with Uncle Joe and delivered Eastern Europe to him when we didn't have to.
But that's another story.
No one expected this.
This was a massive attack.
It penetrated 2,500 miles into Russia, which means it went into deep Siberia, where it hit.
We're going to have to do something with the sea thing.
So let's take a look at the map right away before it goes out.
Those are the bases, the main bases that were hit.
Let's point out that two of them, Ivanovo and Diaghilev, two of them are right next to Moscow.
One is somewhat different.
Now, I don't know.
I know the base Olenya is extremely strategic.
That's sitting up there right next to Finland.
If you go direct north, you're at the North Pole, right?
And you come right over and you're in Canada or the United States.
So if you're going to launch an attack on the United States, that's a pretty damn good place to launch it from.
They may have one closer.
I don't know.
But that's a critical base.
And hitting that was in and of itself pretty good.
It's 1,673 miles from Kiev.
The Ivanovo and the Diaghilev bases may very well be important bases.
They protect Moscow in a way, right?
But I think the real purpose of hitting them was to send a message.
And the message was real simple.
The message was, we can hit you.
We can hit Moscow.
We just went beyond Moscow and hit two of your bases.
And I think did tremendous damage to them.
And then they went deep into the Asian part of Russia, which is...
And most of occupied Russia is to the west of that.
In other words, Belaya Air Base would be like the terminal.
Uh, area for where you're going to find, you don't have many more people.
I remember flying over at one Superbowl Sunday, very anxious to get home in time for the Superbowl.
And I don't remember how long I was looking at ice, but I listened to an opera and I must've been in a, in a daze.
My partner, uh, Mike has part of Mike has, I think got, uh, uh, hypnotized by, he said, when is the ice going to end?
And then every once in a while, you'd look down and you'd see a little teeny little village covered in snow.
And, I mean, two-thirds of Russia is like that, and there's no people there.
So most of Russia is pretty much where you see those first three bases, Olenya down to Ivanovo and Diaghilev.
This was quite an operation.
And there's going to have to be a result from this.
Putin is either going to step up what he's doing, or he is going to listen to Trump and start to negotiate.
Really negotiate.
Not this garbage that he wants more.
And he wants Ukraine to not defend itself.
What he's put on the table is insulting.
It's ridiculous.
And then the question is, if he doesn't, do they continue?
Because I don't know if the Russian people were in for, you know, they're going to get hit.
This was a one-way, Ukraine was a punching bag.
This was a one-way street.
They attacked the towns and cities and villages in Ukraine and killed the women and children.
But God forbid you did that in Russia.
And for the Russians to treat this as some kind of an unfair attack is absurd.
They've been doing this to Ukraine since the day the war began.
And Biden has been holding their hands behind their back, not allowing them to do this.
One of their big achievements that they're touting, and they should, is that they eliminated about a third of the fleet of doomsday bombers that Russia has.
And they hit the bases that have these bombers.
Now, these bombers are part of Russia's nuclear deterrent because they can carry atomic weapons into Europe.
And were used as, you hit us, these are going to get released right away.
But they were reconfigured, and what they were doing was, they were using them to deliver cruise missiles to various hits in Ukraine.
And not discriminating as to whether they hit Military facilities or cities.
The case of Kiev and Kharkiv, you can look and you can see that in Kharkiv, they tried to destroy that city, which is their second largest city, the one that's right on the border.
So they, according to the Ukrainian officials, they wiped out about a third.
Of those massive doomsday bombers.
They also struck and destroyed Tu-95 Bear nuclear bombers, Tu-22 Backfire fast attack bombers, and A-50 Mainstay Command and control jets.
They were all hit.
Furthest hit was an Irkosk.
A region of Siberia, 2,500 miles from Ukraine.
They hit Murmansk in the Arctic Circle, beyond the ones that are on there.
And then, of course, Ivanovo that you see there.
And Diaghilev, and also another base southeast of Moscow, a third one.
The code name for this is Operation Spiderweb.
It took 18 months to plan.
18 months to plan.
So when you say America didn't know about it, that has to be ridiculous.
How could they be planning this for 18 months?
It's the biggest operation of the war.
Maybe even bigger than any that Russia carried on.
And we're there training them.
Many of the airplanes, they...
They used aircraft that we gave them.
They used systems that we gave them.
They used systems that they didn't know how to use a year ago and only we could train them with.
They're doing all this, getting ready for an attack like this, and our intelligence doesn't pick it up?
Boy, it's got to be as bad as Russia's because Russia's intelligence didn't pick it up.
Interesting, huh?
Russia's intelligence did not pick it up.
So I am saying that we knew about it.
Almost definitive about it.
And I'll tell you what I was waiting for today.
And when we talked to Alison before at the White House, I asked her what was the reaction at the White House today?
Was there a lot of consternation and a lot of Well, let's face it, if all of a sudden your ally, and in the case of Ukraine, it hasn't been like a rosy relationship with Trump, if all of a sudden they bomb the living daylights out of a nuclear power.
And you didn't pick it up when they took 18 months to plan it?
Number one, your intelligence has got to be worth nothing.
And number two, your relationship is ruined.
You're going to be really upset today, right?
And we know it's the nature of a White House to leak stuff like that.
They leak a lot less important stuff than that, or a lot of stuff that you wouldn't think would be leaked because it didn't matter.
But there is no indication of anger in the White House today.
What does that tell you?
What does that tell you?
It tells you that we knew about it and we approved of it.
Also, although Zelensky got into trouble with Trump originally, I don't think that Zelensky is going to risk our support.
To do this attack.
Because if you don't have our support, it's a very dangerous attack to do.
You've put yourself now really out on the end of the deck, right?
You better have support for doing something like this.
My guess is we knew about it.
Germany knew about it.
UK knew about it.
France knew about it.
Maybe NATO.
In general, knew about it.
But at least those four countries knew about it.
Five countries whose support they rely on to stay alive.
And given the reaction in those capitals, with no, gee, this goes too far, wanting to suck up to Russia, I've got to say, you have to do an awful lot to convince me we didn't know about it.
What do you think Ted?
In terms of the next.
The next question is going to be, so now what happens?
Right.
Did we know about it or didn't we know about it?
Well, Mayor, look, we tuned in to get your expert...
You've talked to people.
You know so many people.
I, but I, you know, just listening to you today.
I told you.
Yeah, yeah, that's the thing.
When I first heard about it, then we knew about it.
Yeah, so, and then.
Can you repeat what you said to me?
Because that made so much sense to me.
That's, that's my position.
Yeah, I mean, just to start with, I don't believe this guy would do this without our permission.
Right, that's right, that's right.
That's what you had said.
And the next 24 hours now have supplied circumstantial evidence.
Right.
The lack of reaction.
You know when we get double-crossed, even if we don't make a formal statement, we'll take a shot at them.
Right?
Right.
A reliable source said Trump is very angry at Zelensky for what he did.
I don't see that anywhere.
And that's what we're waiting for.
Moscow, the Kremlin, has been quiet.
And the president's hardly a guy who hides things.
Right.
Yeah.
Well, that's the thing.
And what you're seeing now, these are the trucks that the drones had been flown in on.
Right here.
Driven in on.
And there's a drone leaving right now.
So this is how these attacks unfolded.
Who knows how long they've been in.
It sounds like they've been bringing those drones in for a long time.
Mayor, it's a small screen for you, but...
So this is showing the drone.
And then after these drones had all left the trucks, which were strategically driven into Russia, obviously, they self-destructed.
The trucks did.
But that is how this unfolded.
This is, of course, a new sort of warfare, drone warfare.
What we're seeing...
Right.
In this war.
The Ukrainians have...
The Russians as well.
And, of course, this is a big drone attack.
And this occurred Sunday.
Ukraine struck where it could make a difference in a damaged or destroyed military aircraft that Moscow has been using in its war against Ukraine.
Many say what this does is show a big weakness in Russian defense.
Well, I imagine also those are much more precision targets, meaning when they say they hit a target 2,500 miles into Russia.
That may very well be one that takes off from Ukraine and ends up there.
But these drone attacks take place at much closer quarters.
So they can be a lot more precise.
I mean, a real question is how accurate was the attack?
It sounds like it was at least...
At least 41 of the heavy bombers were taken out.
That's right.
So we've been able to pretty much confirm that.
This occurred just yesterday.
Over 100 drones.
over 100 right right and it's We'll bring it up right here.
And it targeted specifically nuclear-capable long-range bombers.
Yeah, I also think it's very interesting that they hit the bases right near Moscow.
I mean, those look like they're much easier to hit because they're very close with 700 miles and 600 and something miles, 48 miles or 40 miles.
You're not proven much in terms of your capability hitting those.
But you are saying something like, maybe we could change that target by an inch on the computer and put it on your head, Putin, you know?
That's right.
An awful lot of people would feel pretty good if we did that.
All the families of the people you killed, you son of a bitch, right?
That's right.
They call this, the Ukrainians dubbed this operation, as you said, Mayor, Operation Spiderweb.
And they I mean, it reminds me of an Israeli kind of operation where, number one, it does a great deal of damage all at once.
But it also shows a lot more than just the damage.
It shows they can hit all the way up in the northern part of Russia, which is very important to us because that's where the air bases are that attack us.
So they did us a real favor in taking out Olenya Air Base.
Hopefully they destroyed it because that has to be one of the places.
That's a key place for attacking us.
Because the best route to us is over the North Pole.
That's right.
Which is why we want Greenland.
That's right.
And why Alaska is so important.
Well, these attacks that took place just yesterday included a location as far north as Murmansk.
Right.
You mentioned this one.
That's in the Arctic Circle.
That's above the Arctic Circle.
And they went as far as Amur region, which is over 8,000 kilometers from Ukraine.
It was quite an attack.
And again, an attack of this dimension.
And you're working with them, training them, and how to use probably half the equipment they use.
I mean, the equipment, half of their equipment or more comes from us.
The other half comes from Germany, England, France.
Even those sometimes are equipment.
So they found that when they were training, the best thing to do was to get the Americans in to train them because they had the original sort of expertise with the equipment.
And part of what was holding things up originally was they got the F-16s, but they couldn't fly them because they're used to flying MiGs that are quite a bit different, apparently.
And also not anywhere near as effective as the F-16s.
And since they've had the F-16s, they've been going into the parts of Russia they were allowed to hit.
Another reason why I'm sure they had to let us know about it was they have been very, very careful not to go beyond the Biden restrictions of not hitting deep into Russia.
Even with great provocation to do it.
And Biden was sort of on their side.
And here they're going to irritate Trump?
That doesn't make any sense.
That's right.
But Ukraine, of course, had been planning this.
The drones were smuggled into Russia inside wooden cabins mounted on the back of these flatbed trucks and concealed below remotely operated detachable roofs.
These trucks, as we had shown in that video, We're then driven to locations near these different airbases that we will show up on the screen right now by drivers who were, by all accounts, unaware of what was inside.
Now, who knows, right?
That's either a way to protect the drivers or they simply didn't know.
Then the drones were launched and set upon their targets.
The videos that we've seen show the drones emerging from the roofs of these vehicles.
We're from these cabins on the back of these trucks.
And then they went to their locations.
The reports that we have so far, of course, they'll become more complete and more accurate as days go by.
But there were 472 drones, seven ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles involved in it.
And they successfully hit.
385 targets.
So there were some very big targets and then probably some smaller targets.
And they believed that it had an impact on the Russian military capability, particularly with the major bombers that they took out.
That's right.
And what you see on the video, what you see on your screen now, this is what we described.
These are the drones coming outside the back of one of these flatbed semi-trucks and these cabins here, which will freeze frame it here.
That is a drone.
If you look right just below the Russian lettering there, we'll make it a little bit bigger and we'll rewind it.
That's the drone.
Putin has to react.
right I mean this is Was it 40 or 39 that Hitler turned on them?
Hitler turned on Stalin.
Because they were allies for three or four years.
That was actually 19...
I want to say 39, but...
Actually, before we entered the war.
Breaking the pact.
In 1939, they had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a non-aggression pact.
That was in August of 1939.
Of course, that allowed Germany to focus on other...
About the middle of 1941?
It was before Pearl Harbor.
June 1941, Germany launched a surprise invasion.
So that was a surprise invasion.
Yeah, that was.
I mean, he turned on them.
He was anti-communist, Hitler.
Is that what drove him to take on the Soviets?
There are a lot of speculation about that.
First of all, consider the biggest mistake that he made.
Because he divided his forces up.
Some people have a very psychological explanation of it.
They feel he was being pressured a great deal to go across the channel and finish off England.
Because Dunkirk, basically he had all of Europe.
Except the European part of Russia.
He's being pressured to go across the Channel.
And they were bombing England during the Battle of Britain with airplanes, and it wasn't working.
And his army was convinced that they could capture England.
And for some reason, he wouldn't do it.
And either he believed that he couldn't, or that he could make some kind of a peace with them.
If he could subdue Stalin.
Or some people say he was affected very much by Churchill being put in power, whereas he had a very appeasement-oriented administration in the chamber who gave him everything he wanted, much like Biden.
All of a sudden, he gets a guy like Churchill, who for 10 years has been warning about what a danger he is.
And of course, he makes that speech.
About, you want England, you're going to have to kill all of us.
Right.
And he decided that's going to be a hard target.
Let me go grab Russia in the meantime, and then I'll see what I can do.
He also was convinced, incorrectly, that America would never come into the war.
Had he thought America was going to come into the war, he might have consolidated what he had.
But that was a big miscalculation.
Now you get a lot of explanations for how did America come into the war.
Of course, Japan attacked us, but we declared war on Germany.
Now, was that the communists around?
Is it the communists around Roosevelt that were restraining him for getting involved in the war while Russia was an ally of Hitler?
And then also in a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
And then all of a sudden, when Russia becomes in jeopardy, their real country, not America, they start pressuring Roosevelt.
And Roosevelt starts to put pressure on Japan and becomes, as far as Japan was concerned, less reasonable with Japan.
And therefore, Japan attacks us.
Of course, there's always the conspiracy theory that Roosevelt knew about the attack and let it happen because it was the only way he could get us into the war.
Now, I've never seen any evidence of that.
That's always the theory, though, right?
I can't say I've never seen any evidence of it.
I've seen evidence of it that doesn't amount to proving it.
They say that almost every war has a situation like that.
The Gulf of Tonkin.
Bush bombed the World Trade Center.
Or the Gulf of Tonkin, right?
in Vietnam.
Wasn't there something there with...
Yes, yes.
And I'm sure you can go back to...
Yeah.
I don't...
The reason I never thought that made much sense was, no matter what, that attack could have...
It would have been a too dangerous way to start the war.
But then you have things like our entire fleet just happened not to be there.
And so that shows how...
But isn't that another reason of how this is different than what Ukraine did?
What you just said, Mayor, to me is just another reason that we...
The Japanese ambassador, I think, had a meeting.
That Sunday with the Secretary of State, Cordell Hall, to go over certain things that we were negotiating about.
And I guess he did come over anyway, or I don't remember if it was canceled, but he came over and Cordell Hall, I don't know, got very angry at him or whatever, but we declared war the next day.
We declared war on...
Again, the question is, why do we immediately declare war on Germany when Japan attacked us?
And why was our priority defeating Germany at the beginning and not Japan?
May have been correct.
May have been a correct way to do it.
Or as some historians say, it may have been influenced very much by the communist influence on And also, there was a tremendous amount of pressure when Russia says they won the war.
They were begging us for D-Day and angry at us that we weren't doing it.
They knew that if we attacked, it would divert a tremendous number of German soldiers from battling them because they didn't defeat Germany until we came into the war.
I mean, they could have fought that like Iraq and Iran.
They could still be fighting it.
I think Russia should get down its hands and thank us.
But Japan...
There's no doubt about it.
There's no doubt about it.
I mean, there wouldn't have been any conflicting there'd be no Western front.
They had already...
How many more people did Russia have?
Because they lost like 30 million, right?
Yeah, but I mean, people are people.
All they had to do was capture up to Moscow.
Because the point being, Russia seemed like they were going to fight to...
Isn't it almost impossible to actually conquer Russia?
No.
All of Russia?
You wouldn't want all of Russia.
Who the hell would want all of it?
All you want is up to Moscow or maybe up to the Urales.
We've got a tremendous amount of whatever minerals or whatever they have would be all there.
That's where all their steel mills are.
And that's where they all...
Yeah, but of course, And all the problems are in Asian Russia.
Yeah.
And if you have European Russia, Asian Russia, not enough people to conquer you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yes.
I've heard about how the divide in Russia.
But it's interesting, Mayor.
What do you foresee happening next?
How will Russia respond to this?
I mean, it'd be interesting to see how the media there is covering this, right?
It almost doesn't matter.
Well, of course it matters, but to the actual conflict, how the media there is covering it.
The media there is the one that described it as Russian Pearl Harbor.
Right, so it's in Russia's interest to compare it to Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, to give Putin the basis for a major counterattack.
And to, I guess, garner support from the West.
But nothing could...
Unprovoked attack as an aggressive actor, right?
I mean, Russia's been provoking this attack from the day the war began.
Exactly.
So that's very different than Pearl Harbor.
The minute they started bombing cities, they went beyond military installation and started bombing cities.
This is what a country would naturally do if it wasn't being held back by Biden.
Yeah, right.
I mean, they would have, I mean, even a lesser...
And the only answer they had, I mean, once Russia got the beat on them and took all that territory, the only answer they had to defeating Russia, they're not going to drive them out of Ukraine.
And if they drive them out of Ukraine, they're going to destroy Ukraine in the process of doing it.
Man to man?
Let's say you had the resources to really wage a battle against Russia now, and you want to get them out of your country.
Do you get them out of your country by going after them and attacking them in your country, which may or may not work, and also is going to destroy that area of your country?
Or do you go attack their country and inflict on them the same amount of damage they inflicted on you?
Right.
And, and hopefully they're going to say, okay, let's get this thing over.
Right.
Right.
Because right now it's been pretty much, um, Even if he's lost a million Russians, he doesn't care.
He hasn't lost any territory.
Look at all the effort he's put out to get cursed back.
And that's a meaningless piece of territory.
If all of a sudden he's got to defend his citizens in Moscow, if people in Moscow start getting killed, he's either got to – I think he's got to go for peace.
If he starts a nuclear war, if he uses a nuclear weapon – But if he uses a nuclear weapon, the minute that weapon is used, we've got to wipe him out.
well, that's the end of him.
But is that something that any...
Let's put it this way.
I don't think he will do that.
However, a lot of people didn't think Hitler would do what he was going to do or bin Laden.
Medvedev has threatened it, and so has he.
They've both threatened using nuclear weapons, which I never thought they would do.
I just thought that was something beyond the pale to threaten nuclear weapons.
Medvedev just a couple weeks ago threatened Finland and Sweden.
Finland and Sweden had almost remained neutral during most of the Cold War.
They were more on our side than theirs because they hate Russia, but they remained neutral during the Cold War.
When NATO started, they didn't join NATO.
Even now they didn't join NATO.
They joined NATO after he attacked Ukraine.
So Medvedev said that was a betrayal, and he doesn't discount that they would use interim-range nuclear missiles against them.
Against Sweden and Finland.
I mean, that would start World War III immediately.
I mean, the minute they shoot off a nuclear weapon, we have to say they're going to do it to us, so let's get rid of them.
And, of course, if they were to do it to a NATO member, we're required to defend them under the treaty.
So they shoot a missile at Sweden, they've shot a missile at us.
And you have to conclude, if he did that, he's gone a little nuts.
Because it's really crazy over Ukraine to do this, over his wanting Ukraine to get, you know, five or 10 million Russians killed.
And bombing civilian targets just...
I mean, I don't understand.
Like you said, it's...
I mean, there's no question about it.
And by the way, that's also hurt him for any actual claim he would have to any of this.
Don't you lose all credibility when you bomb civilians?
I don't think there's anyone other than the ones that are under his thumb that would say he has any justification for some kind of being shocked and some terrible...
Right.
I think China is looking for an excuse to pull out on it.
Right.
And he's hurting himself if they are, in fact, continuing to hit, which we seem to have evidence.
China's got to be saying to themselves, this might have been a very bad investment we made here.
Also, they've been planning it for 18 months, and the Russian intelligence services didn't pick it up.
18 months.
It's an embarrassment.
You have two different reports.
18 months and one year.
Either one.
Which is why we had to know about it.
Although Russia does claim to have shot down 316.
they intercepted 316.
Intercepting isn't always, They're not shot down.
You're going to get you're going to get you're going to get So that's going to shake out.
The mere fact they could penetrate that far is frightening.
I mean, if they got 2,500 miles into Russia and not been taken out, that doesn't say very much for their defensive system.
And they have shown some of the damage, right?
Video of the damage.
Right.
Yeah.
We're going to play another.
We'll play this video again.
What you see here.
I mean, these bases should be secure.
So this is a drone.
Cars are more secure than that.
Right?
Right.
And this is a view from a drone.
This is a Ukrainian drone flying into a Russian bomber.
According to an initial statement from the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff, the drones hit 41 aircraft.
As of Monday evening, those claims have been reassessed and Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council is now saying at least 13 aircraft were destroyed.
So that's down from 41 to 13. This includes an intermediate-range supersonic bomber, a long-range turboprop bomber, and An A-50 mainstay airborne early warning and control platform.
So we will await.
Here we go.
Here's some...
It's probably going to turn out to be in the middle of...
It's going to probably turn out to be less than the Ukraine claimed originally and a lot more than Russia claims.
Let's see if we can get some video.
Look at this.
Let's make sure we got everybody caught up on everything that they should be caught up on.
The Trump administration is sticking with the Massapequa Chiefs and fighting the battle of their not having to change their name from the Chiefs, which has been their name of their sports teams since the beginning.
And most of Nassau County doesn't want it changed, but the comrades in Hochul's New York from above, from Albany, said you've got to change the name Chiefs because they're insulting.
And so far, no Native American has shown up and said they're insulting.
Hochul is insulting that their name is the Chiefs.
So this is a great battle for us to fight.
Particularly since we like to win Nassau County, again, because it's a key to winning New York.
I'm turning New York.
There's a great little article about New Yorkers mispronouncing names that I just have.
Everybody knows about Houston Street, right?
Yeah.
That somehow we call it Houston.
And one of the reasons is that back in 1811, when it was named, it was named after William Houston.
His name is spelled different than Houston.
It isn't named after Sam Houston.
But the guy it's named after is William Houston.
A U.S. founding father whose father-in-law's land was once encompassed in Lower Manhattan.
Now, it's spelled as follows.
H-O-U-S-T-O-U-N.
So, we pronounced it with the Dutch as Houston, whereas they pronounced it Houston.
Now, there's one.
There's another one.
Fort Schuyler, which is right, it's in Brooklyn Heights, right next to the Verrazano Bridge.
And it's a functioning fort in New York City.
And, oh, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm thinking of the one, I'm thinking of a different one.
That's Fort Hamilton.
Fort Schuyler is the one at the Throgs Neck Bridge and where the maritime campus is.
And we pronounce it Fort Schuyler.
But everybody from every place else in the world would pronounce it as Fort Schuyler.
Because it's S-C-H-U.
We pronounce it as if it's spelled S-K-Y-L-R.
Then we have the Van Wick Expressway.
And it should be the Van Wyke Expressway if it was the proper Dutch pronunciation.
And then we have what I always call the Kosciuszko Bridge, which is probably, which is probably, properly pronounced Kosciuszko Bridge.
But everybody in New York for generations pronounced it as the Kosciuszko Bridge.
This is because we're the capital of the world.
And like Trump is allowed to rename the Gulf of America, we're allowed to call things anything we want to call because it's New York.
Of course, I'm not a New Yorker anymore, officially.
But still.
New York is...
I've been trying to figure it out.
But New York is trying to figure out how they can do even earlier parole so that everybody gets out.
Or starts by the time, you know, by the time they're 55. 42 cop killers have been released because of Cuomo's early parole legislation.
42!
Since only 2019 are walking the street.
I got, I'm telling you, I used to estimate about 7,000 people were walking around the streets of New York.
That I would have had in prison or Bloomberg.
I think it's probably three, four thousand more now.
But Adams has gotten murdered down.
So, I don't know.
Might help him.
Cuomo is the reason for all the crime problems.
Adams has at least had some success in bringing them down.
And they all want Cuomo.
I don't think the old people want to call him.
I think they're afraid of him.
Aren't they, Ted?
I don't know.
It could come about again that the nursing homes threaten him.
Well, never mind.
But hopefully that's going to be explored.
But the main thing is he's the architect of all the legislation that led to New York crime problems.
Now, we're going to finish with this one because this is this.
It's not worth it.
It's not worth it.
We got it.
I got that.
It's not worth it.
Oh, his attack on the cops?
Springsteen's attack on the cops.
I told you I never liked him.
Even when I went to his one dearly departed, Ted Olson got me to go.
I said, it's just a bunch of noise.
Yeah, you're not a Springsteen guy.
So here's a very frightening thing that has reportedly happened that Ted didn't believe.
Ted does not believe this.
It is reported from the non-profit AI lab Palisade Research.
That if you give AI instructions after it's been developed, you know, to do certain things, it doesn't necessarily have to, it has a mind of its own.
So they did this experiment, I guess, to try to test it.
In 79 out of 100 trials, independently edited script.
Was developed by them when it was told to shut down.
And then, even when explicitly instructed to allow yourself to be shut down, it disobeyed 7% of the time.
And it wasn't a result of hacking or tampering.
The model was Behaving normally, it was making its calculations, and its calculations told it, don't close down.
Now, here's where it gets even more dangerous.
Another anthropic AI model called for Opus.
Did the following.
It was...
And then it was given fictitious emails that the lead engineer was having an affair.
The lead engineer who was going to close them down was having an affair.
In 84% of the cases, the model drew on the emails to Blackburn.
To blackmail the lead engineer into not shutting it down.
In the other cases, it tried to copy itself so it could continue to exist.
But in 84% of the cases, it tried to blackmail him.
That's what, remember, I don't understand the science of it in any kind of detail, but the theory of it is, right, you feed into it all this information and it calculates based on that information.
So it can calculate protecting itself.
From extinction.
And it can turn to blackmail.
In other words, it has a criminal test.
No one programmed the AI models.
This is an article by Judd Rosenblatt.
Rosenblatt in the Wall Street Journal.
No one programmed the AI models to have survival instincts.
But just as animals evolved to avoid predators, it appears that any system smart enough to pursue complex goals will realize it can't achieve them if it's turned off and therefore take action against being turned off.
How dangerous is that?
This is like those horror movies when the machines take over or the monsters take over.
But imagine, 84% of the time, it started blackmailing the engineers.
I guess AI has original sin, too.
We'll have to see.
The Polish election, by the way, they elected a conservative president, Karol Naraki.
And the Iraqi was supported by Donald Trump, including a visit in the Oval Office.
And so that's pretty good.
So we'll be back with you tomorrow.
We'll see.
We should have, I mean, by tomorrow, we should have some kind of And largely because of Putin's unwillingness to discuss stopping the murder.
It just can't go on forever.
And it also becomes a test.
of our seriousness that will be interpreted by others, in particular, Xin Ming.
And we want them to be, If we just have that strength for parades, we're not going to deter many people.
So this is a good time.
To really assess what's going on, be a hell of a time to hit Iran.
Hell of a time.
I think you'd knock out Putin and Xi if right now we woke up tomorrow morning and we found out that Israel, with the help of the United States, has taken out all of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Well, that's at least my opinion.
See what you think.
We'll be back tomorrow night.
Pursuing all this.
And who knows what else?
My goodness, this weekend produced quite a surprise, right?
And we'll see how much further we're getting in the effort to bring our government back to the freest, the fairest, and the best government in the world or in the history of the world.
So pray for the people of Ukraine.
Pray for the people of Russia.
Who knows how many of them really support this homicidal maniac?
And the people of China.
Because, you know, except for the communists at the top, they're all a bunch of victims.
I mean, that's like 100 million as opposed to 1.2 billion.
Pray for the people of Ukraine and for Israel and for Iran and so many others.
And pray for us.
And pray for the president.
And also remembering your prayers, my good friend Bernie Carrick, whose family is going through hell right now.
And hopefully Bernie is being embraced for the hero that he was and is.
But his family needs all the love you can give.
The funeral mass will be on Friday at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
And the wake will be in New Jersey on Thursday.
So if you could just mention them in your prayers and the family, I'd really appreciate it.
So we'll see you tomorrow night at seven o'clock on Lindell's TV and X. And then we'll be here at eight with America's male live from New Hampshire.
And we'll have.
Not bad, huh?
Ten.
Ten.
Doesn't think it's neat enough.
Yeah, as we cut out, I'll say goodnight.
And God bless America!
And Ted's going to take one of the cameras here and move it around a little and show you what things look like here in our barn or garage, whichever.
It probably was originally a barn, and now it's a garage.
here with, wish we had the horses back.
Yeah, we had the horses back.
Ready?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let the rest of the world help us for change And let's rebuild America first Our highways and bridges are falling apart Who's blessed?
Who has been cursed?
There's things to be done all over the world But let's rebuild America first That was good, Just tell me we got an idea of what we can do with the rest of that.
It's our purpose to bring to bear the principle of common sense and rational discussion to the issues of our day.
America was created at a time of great turmoil, tremendous disagreements, anger, hatred.
It was a book written in 1776 that guided much of the discipline of thinking that brought to us the discovery of our freedoms, of our God-given freedoms.
It was Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in 1776, one of the first American bestsellers in which Thomas Paine explained by rational principles the reason why these small colonies felt the necessity to separate From the Kingdom of Great Britain and the King of England.
He explained their inherent desire for liberty, for freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the ability to select the people who govern them.
And he explained it in ways that were understandable to all the people, not just the elite.
because the desire for freedom is universal.
The desire for freedom This is exactly the time we should consult our history.
Look at what we've done in the past and see if we can't use it to help us now.
We understand that our founders created the greatest country in the history of the world.
The greatest democracy, the freest country.
A country that has taken more people out of poverty than any country ever.
All of us are so fortunate.
To be Americans.
But a great deal of the reason for America's constant ability to self-improve is because we're able to reason.
We're able to talk.
We're able to analyze.
We are able to apply our God-given common sense.
▲
Export Selection