All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2025 - Rudy Giuliani
57:02
The Rudy Giuliani Show: Tuesday, December 9, 2025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
This is Rudy Giuliani, and this is the Rudy Giuliani show.
And we are awaiting the president speaking in the Poconos, Mount Pocono, to be exact.
And it's really interesting what he's doing.
Of course, it has two parts to it.
So let's, and the White House doesn't really announce this, but it's quite obvious, I think, what's going on.
Part one is there have been apparent some Republican loss and some Democratic gain generically on the issue of the economy, particularly having to do with prices and what the communists calls affordability.
But if we look at overall affordability, there really wouldn't be much of an issue because some prices are up, some prices are down, some things are virtually on a par with where they had been.
And it's not as if within the last year, the economy has become impossible to deal with.
That happened a while back when Biden had a 9% inflation.
This is the Fed says 2%.
This is under two, under three.
At most, it's been three.
One would consider that, well, normally one would consider that fairly modest, almost necessary inflation for growth.
But it is above the two.
And lately, it's been coming down.
So the Democrats have done a good job in really snowing people into the fact that things are much worse than they really are.
However, when things are bad, people don't care very much, right?
I mean, everybody has to deal with that.
Biden had to deal with some of that.
And although he was dealing with 9%, and Trump was dealing with less than 3%.
So you can see the difference.
And the press didn't, the press actually was denying there was inflation under Biden at 9%.
In other words, you shouldn't believe your lion eyes.
But the reality is, the political reality is that there appears to be a discontent with the progress having been made with the economy.
Exactly what it is, I think, is more complex than we realize.
But in any event, there is a cure for it, and that is for the president, number one, to figure out exactly what levers the American people want pushed.
What is it that's disturbing them most about the economy and fixing it?
Because he's capable of doing that.
And there's no better way of doing that than for him to travel to America.
It's also exhausting.
It takes away from the rest of his job as president.
But it's necessary if he wants to have the ability to have, in essence, three more years to make these incredible changes for us.
What he's done in the last year, less than a year, is to save America from the darkest age in its history.
In so many ways, the period from the beginning of Obama, when the Democrats decided to go completely criminal in their approach to everything, just about now we see Obamacare and we see Minnesota and we've got another one coming up in Maine and California.
And I mean, you're not going to find, I mean, maybe you should point out to me the Democrat states you'd like me to look at that are honest.
Or how about the big city Democratic situations that are honest?
There are a few, but I can't think of them.
Maybe you can help me.
The reality is he's going to have to have a Republican House and Senate, particularly a Republican House, because, no, a Republican Senate, too, if he wants to get anything passed.
It used to be the Senate was a little bit easier to deal with because they'd be more willing to be bipartisan.
Boy, that changed, didn't it?
Only ones who were willing to be bipartisan are like Fediman.
Otherwise, they're all lockstep, left-wing.
No matter who the communist is, they support him or they don't oppose him.
So he's got to win.
It's critical not just to politics with a small P, meaning the Republican Party survival and growth, but it's critical with a large P to his agenda, to getting his agenda done.
So who is the best vote-getter in the Republican Party?
Maybe Hefer, I don't know.
And that would be him.
I guess Reagan is the best vote-getter in the Republican Party.
Either he or Nixon won by the biggest margin that I can think of in the last century.
He had the most outstanding electoral victory when it was virtually unanimous, with the exception of Mondale's home state of Minnesota, that many people think he actually won.
If he'd asked for a recount, which he didn't do because Ronald Reagan was above everything else, an unbelievable gentleman.
He said, well, let him have his one state.
He's entitled to it.
Well, the president today, Mayor, is in Mount Poconos, Pennsylvania.
He's got a tough congressional race there, or we have a tough congressional race.
That's the seventh district.
That's Ryan McKenzie.
That's it.
Okay.
And we're working on getting some graphics up for this.
We'll show some pictures.
He won by just 1% in 2024.
And Trump probably, and Trump probably wanted by better than that.
That's the point.
I know the Poconos because my ex-wife comes from the Poconos, and I've spent a lot of Christmases and Easters and time there.
And I know the former mayor and Congressman Lou Barletter, who probably, if he was running, he'd win by 50 points.
Right.
So, of course, he's a Lou played a big role in winning Pennsylvania for us in 2016, you know.
Right.
He was the mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for a fair number of years.
I got to know him and then campaigned for him for Congress.
He worked very heavily on the Trump campaign and is one of four or five critical people in delivering the state for the president.
But this is a good area for the president, the Polkanos.
It's a whole area that has, of course, gotten ripped apart by the Democratic Party.
These people have family memories of, you know, they're all of a sudden having a fairly good, solid middle-class life and everything being pulled out from under them as the Democrats sold out to China.
Right.
If we put that graphic up just a side by side with the mayor, there we go.
That's the 2024 election results.
This is why the president is.
Of course, that shows the election results: a one-point difference, just 4,000 votes, 50.4% to 49.4%, the Democrat Susan Wilde.
So, yeah, that explains why the president was in.
Yeah, it shouldn't be that way.
I mean, that is not a Democrat district.
I mean, that's not.
No, it's not.
I mean, it isn't a Democratic district.
Maybe the whole district, I don't know.
Maybe I don't know if it's redistricted.
I'm thinking of it as like the core of Poconos.
I think it's been redistricted.
Hazelton has been Republican for 50 years.
I think it's been redistricted since then.
And the congressman, then for the longest time after Trump won, was Lou Boletta.
And Lou retired.
And now, as we're moving along, figure out how much Trump won that by in 24.
I bet he did better.
But that's the district.
Mount Pocono is the core part of that, is the core part of that district.
And then as we're moving along, we'll pick up a little of his speech.
so the ukraine is uh at least something's moving uh putin trump one by two sorry Oh, so he won by double.
It wasn't that much of a difference, but he won by double.
And he probably won it in 20 also.
You know, it's an area, and he won it in 26 and 16.
It's an area of Pennsylvania that he does very well in.
Now, if it would go all the way, I think Trump either came very, very close or pulled out Scranton, which used to be, oh, no, I'm sure he pulled out Scranton because Camelo was on the ballot.
Biden always had a little advantage there in Pennsylvania because, number one, he claimed he came from Scranton, which was kind of not true, like most of what he said, or barely.
No, actually, it's a little better than usual.
It was barely true, but nobody there remembered him.
But also being from Delaware, which is right next to Pennsylvania, Biden had a bit of an advantage.
It's the one place where Biden might have done better than Kamala.
The one place that when Kamala replaced him and she had her surge, I was still sure we were going to take because I knew that Trump, left alone, is a great candidate in Pennsylvania, unless you get a Democrat that's perfectly situated for it.
And Biden was.
And Kamala was just the Kamala was just the opposite.
I'm surprised it was only 1% there because it was a little better than the rest of the state.
It was like four or five in the rest of the state.
Well, as I said, Ukraine is getting, I don't know what it's getting, at least people are talking about it.
Every indication is that despite the fact that we keep saying there are negotiations and talks and Russia is doing this and Russia is doing that, we haven't heard a single concession from Russia that would suggest you can make peace.
That's just a simple, straight out facts.
There are occasionally statements of a general nature after Jared meets with them or Marco does.
I guess they're even using the Secretary of the Army now.
There are occasional statements that things are getting better.
It looks good.
The president's optimistic.
But let's get down to, as I used to say, brass tacks, the actual reality of it.
Zelensky has made it clear that in the many demands that Russia has made for a complete victory, which is what the 28-point program was, that we agreed to, the United States agreed to.
And I have to suspect they disagree with a lot of those.
It would essentially be a complete, it would be just a little less than our turning over all of Ukraine to Russia.
Because what we would have done is we would have turned over to Russia what they won in war, what they weren't able to win in war that they were very, very desirous of getting.
And then we would have opened a path for them to easily take the rest of the Ukraine anytime within the next decade.
We would have done that by the following, breaking down the Donbass fortifications, which Russia has been doing throughout the entire war and hasn't been able to accomplish and are frustrated as hell.
And they know if they're going to have to do that, they don't even know how many men it will cost them.
I mean, obviously they have enough military, if they wanted to conscription and whatever, they could eventually get it open, but it would take them a year, the estimates are.
And someone estimated a loss of a million soldiers.
Doubt it.
Doubt it.
200,000 to 300,000?
Don't doubt it.
But it would have been a heavy price that could jeopardize their goal.
You take that Donbass thing down, it's like opening the gate to your house.
They can flow in without any loss.
There'd be no battle with the Bulgar, and they'd be on their way to Kyiv.
Not just with bombers, but with an entire military and infantry.
That's why they want it.
So please understand, this isn't, we just, we want it because they're Russians.
Like hell, they're Russians.
They don't want to be part of them.
And they want, and in fact, from what I can tell, their big demand is they want all that extra territory they didn't get in the they took over four new regions, four new Oblasts.
One of them they've taken over completely.
The other three, they've taken over all but about 18 to 24 percent.
So being pigs, they asked for all of that, even though they didn't win it.
But one thing has been made clear, that they probably would give up the demands on the other two, and even on the rest of Donetsk, if they got the Donbass fortifications.
That's the territory they want.
The rest of it, they can have in five years.
They know that, particularly if they get the rest of what they are demanding and haven't backed off yet.
One is no joining NATO, so nobody to defend them.
Or just to make it clear, nobody to defend, no foreign troops in Ukraine.
Ukraine army cut in half.
It's rumored they've agreed to cut it by a quarter and very heavy restrictions on if you can how and when you can increase it.
Rumor is that they've reduced those restrictions somewhat.
And no U.S. troops under any set of circumstances.
That's Russia.
You agree to all of that or two-thirds of that and Ukraine is gone.
You've just given it over to the barbarian pigs who kill civilians for fun and who kill their own soldiers as if they're animals of some kind or other, not even important ones.
Europe is nervous.
Europe is nervous because they see the handwriting on the wall.
So they've been having meetings furiously and they're trying hard to get Trump to toughen up the position.
And they met yesterday at the prime minister's office in London and they came away with, well, Zielinski came away with several statements that are important to clarify.
One is that he will not give up territory.
Now, when I say clarify, honestly, I listened to it and I listened to it and I listened to it.
And there is no further information about it.
When he says that, and this is good for diplomacy, it's unclear whether he means I'm not giving up any territory or I'm not giving up the Donbass fortifications.
Like Putin, I feel that he, Putin doesn't want the rest of that stuff.
He'd love to have it, but he's not critical.
You could probably give him like one of the rest of one of the other, like Kuhanski.
You could give him the rest of it.
And he'd take, and if he would take that in lieu of the Donbass fortifications.
So Ukraine would remain safe and Putin would say face.
That's a possibility, but that all depends on whether Putin really wants to make peace.
If he wants to make peace, he knows he has to give in on a couple of those things.
He couldn't achieve those things through three and a half years of a horrible war.
There are many people who feel he does not want to make peace, and he is just playing Trump and all of the very earnest and very good Washington negotiators.
And they have the misfortune of being honest and straight.
Zelensky has also said, and this is absolutely true, a security guarantee without the United States being part of it isn't a security guarantee.
Now, what does that mean?
Does that mean that those other countries are not capable of defending Ukraine?
I believe they want to.
I think England and France, for example, have shown a lot in terms of trying to come up with troops.
But no matter what they do, no matter how much they improve, they're not in reality or appearance or in ad terrorum effect going to be like the United States Army.
They're not going to hold Russia back for very long.
They want no troops there.
But if they accept a couple of French and English troops, they'd rather have that than American troops.
I'm not saying the French and English aren't in the process of changing to become a much stronger military.
I'm not saying that they can't do that.
I'm also not saying I'm sure of it.
Nor is Ukraine.
Nor is Russia.
So Ukraine says the only way we're really secure is if we've got the sure thing, if we've got the United States military, because Russia is damn scared of the United States military.
Russia should also be damn scared if the EU ever got together.
If the EU ever got together, it's much bigger than Russia.
It's financially a giant compared to not a dwarf, but a sinking ship economically.
And it could field a military that is larger than Russia.
Its disadvantage is atomic weapons.
And of course, he plays that for all that it's worth and uses it as a cudgel to beat people over the head.
And nobody wants to take a risk as to whether or not he's buffing or not.
It's a tough one.
It's a tough one to take a risk with, right?
So Ukraine is now in the process, they say, of fighting for their land, not wanting to give up anymore and wanting their land back.
They're willing to talk.
They're not willing to surrender land.
Again, with a caveat, do they mean Donbass region or do they mean everything?
But they are willing to talk about funding and security guarantees, but they can't be all Russian.
And finally, Zelensky did mention the one thing that really is something we have as Americans not focused on because it's inconvenient.
And that is, he said, and to Americans, this might not mean anything, but it sure should because it means something to your conscience as an American.
He doesn't want another 1994 Budapest Agreement.
Now, who knows what a 1994 Budapest Agreement is?
I don't see a lot of putting up their hands.
Well, you know, by the date it was Bill Clinton.
You know, it isn't good, right?
You know, it's a sort of chamberlain-like agreement, like a cave-in of some kind, right?
No, no, it's a dishonest agreement.
The United States and Russia promised Ukraine, Russia promised it would never invade because they were getting the nuclear weapons from Ukraine.
The United States promised to defend them.
Pledge the U.S. would protect Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear weapons.
Well, we should have broke that promise, right?
I mean, we don't even mention this.
Budapest.
I never heard of that.
Budapest Agreement.
Oh, gosh, somebody must have been drunk.
So Zelensky has said, you know, we don't need another Budapest agreement.
So, and don't you have to, despite the fact that there's nobody around that knows Zelensky probably as well as I do in America, and all the bad parts of Zelensky, really bad.
I am able to make the distinction between really bad and evil.
And that's the gap between Zelensky and Putin.
And then the gap between the two countries is even greater.
Ukraine is a wonderful country, wonderful people, and people who have been victimized for centuries by the country that is focusing on killing their civilians.
And the European countries have asked for a much bigger role in this.
And I would recommend it.
It's always good to be able to play off against, you know, the bad cop.
And I think this is one in which very, very rarely are they willing to do this.
This is one in which, particularly, MERS, I think Macrone and Stearmer not have the personalities to play bad cop.
Certainly not Macron.
Maybe he brought his wife in.
That might work.
But Stearmer does, and he represents a country that Putin takes seriously.
Germany is in the back of the Russian mind.
I mean, they did defeat Germany, but they almost didn't.
And when they say they won the war because they engaged Germany, you can just as easily say they wouldn't have won the war if America hadn't engaged.
The Japanese strike on the United States was critical to their winning the war because they almost lost.
And it would have been far different all throughout, but right down to the end when the troops were switched from the Russian front to the French-German border at the Battle of the Bulgar, that was critical to eventually the Soviets getting a breakthrough.
That breakthrough might never have come.
And by the end of the war, they were devastated.
And we took, of course, no advantage of that.
If anything, we gave them Eastern Europe.
So forever it's worth, and it's worth something.
The New York Post editorial today says that they are certain that Putin still wants war.
Trump's sincere desire for peace can't end the carnage in Ukraine until Putin feels he has to end the war he started.
Until he's forced to that decision, fiddling with the details of any peace plan is pointless.
That's a legitimate view.
I don't know.
I mean, this is one where it's hard to know what the right strategy is because you've got a very, very tricky situation and a very tricky player in Putin and one who, though you know in your bones, he's a big bully and he's bluffing.
And then again, it's a hell of a risk to take, isn't it?
Because the risk isn't the same as it was with Iran or the risk here is maybe not the end of the world, but you could cost millions of lives if you make the wrong decision here.
Here's a rather discouraging thing.
For all of the pressure on China, their trade surplus is going to end in 2025 as the highest ever.
They're going to go over the trillion dollar mark for the first time ever.
And that's with all the tariffs placed on us and all the readjustments they had to make.
They lost about a quarter of the trade with us with the tariffs going on, the tariffs going off, the amount of the tariffs going to the net.
However, what they did very, very smartly, Chinese exports to Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America surged by 26%, 14%, and 7.1%.
And Chinese exports to the U.S. plunged by 29%.
And the net of what they lost from the U.S. and what they gained elsewhere was putting them in the best position they've ever been in.
And they are poised to be roughly in that same position next year.
Now, that all sounds like very, very good news.
And it is.
But some of it's been done by trickery.
Some of it's been done by not being able to get the same price they would get, not being able to have the same solid trade they would have, not making the same margin of profit they were making.
And also, what China really has to do, whereas we have to cut down on our imports because we have a deficit, we don't have to cut them out.
We've got to cut down on them so it doesn't out of balance.
They are much more balanced on the other side.
They don't consume anything.
And the great lure of going to China always was that great big Russian market, our Chinese market.
Well, it isn't a great big Chinese market.
It's one where the consumer economy is suffering tremendously.
And as they get a better surplus, the consumer economy is suffering even more because they're focusing for them on the wrong side of the economy.
And they are in something, they always come up with a new thing for this.
I wonder who originally invented inflation, Adam Smith.
Well, they're going through a phenomenon called involution.
I never learned involution in economics.
So I had to learn it today.
Involution is defined by the Wall Street Journal as a cutthroat competition and ballooning industrial capacity are pushing down prices, profits, and income.
Meaning you're producing at such a high rate and reducing prices in order to stay in the market by so much that your domestic prices are going down, which says almost like no inflation.
But no inflation then means no profits and no incomes or drastically reduced profits and incomes.
So they're not a mirror image of us.
That would be very unfair.
And it would really be a terrible mistake to think that you can compare their economy to ours.
We are in different spheres.
We're not comparable economies.
In terms of numbers, we're twice theirs.
In terms of per capita, we're way beyond that.
But in terms of complexity and mature economy, we are way beyond them.
Something to always be remembered when people talk about China, which they don't remember, and then they see it in results, and some of them get it and some don't.
Like right now, all of this should be very good news for China, except the Chinese economy is terrible right now, internally.
China, the United States is 340, 360, with 360 million people.
We have people in poverty.
We predict, what, about 30 million people in poverty, something like that.
Our people in poverty would be lower middle class for China.
Possibly a little better than that.
They have one-third of their people.
One-third of their people.
we're talking now three we're talking we're talking 300 400 billion people starving And not only that, they have no plan for them.
There's no five-year or 10-year plan for them.
There's no grand plan that says they're out of poverty.
I haven't seen it.
The plan for them is tough luck.
And let's see if we can switch them.
Let's see if we can get the ones we want to do genocide on into that category and bring the Chinese into them.
Isn't working well.
So when you see their things in their, when you see these things in their economy, yes, they have to be careful.
And yes, we have to remain cautious because even if they're a lopsided economy, they have the capacity by inflicting horrible pain on their people of being able to take a certain area and then challenge or outdo us, which like in military spending, if they just want to devote 50% of their budget to that.
Because they don't really care if they starve most of their people.
And they feel pretty secure in terms of their regime.
I don't know if Xi Jinping is secure, but I think the CCP feels secure.
So I'd look at this performance and I'd say, yeah, there's a real positive to it.
But in terms of what China has to do, this accomplishes nothing.
In fact, internally, it warps their economy even more.
What Z really tried to do is internally reform.
And for three years, he finds it impossible to internally reform because he's doing what is doing fundamentally what is wrong with socialism and communism.
And he keeps repeating it.
And eventually it's going to be his demise, like it is for all the jackasses in America.
He's trying to solve it from the top down.
He's trying to solve it by telling people what to do and how to do it.
He's not letting them come up with the solutions that work best in their particular society, their particular economy.
And China is too big a country to be top-down.
Too big, too different, too diverse, too geographically spread out.
But we found over the years, right?
Many, many years and centuries, the only way a big country or even a big empire works is if it is enormously flexible.
Roman Empire lasted that long because it was enormously flexible.
Caesar did not impose on them all being Rome.
And he shared with them Roman citizenship, first to do that.
So it fell, but it took a long time to fall and probably existed as a world empire, a coherent world empire for the longest of any.
And a lot of that was done because, yes, it was a dictatorship of various kinds, but it wasn't, it was not a rigid top-down communist form of government.
People had different economies and different languages and different ways of looking at things and different systems of justice.
So it had flexibility in it, much like we do.
The other thing going on in China is there appears to be reports that China is gearing up for a potential strike on Taiwan.
What that means.
Five miles off the coast, Ztd05 amphibious vehicles are rolling out, ships practicing, and they zip over the water in a hail of artillery fire to practice, and they're, and they're.
The idea is to get to the beach so fast that they're not going to be eliminated.
Also, they're building.
They're building 21st century piers, battle piers.
These are mobile piers that could be used to make the landing on the beach multifaceted.
Some people land on the beach, some people land on the pier.
The pier goes way out into the water, 2,700 foot, like a 2,700 foot causeway.
So to present a complexity of targets if they're going to do an amphibious landing.
The thought about how they would do it was, first, they would bomb as best they could Taiwan.
And second, they would do an amphibious landing.
And third, an occupation in order to take over.
And the first, of course, depends a little on how much we give them in terms of aerial defense.
If they can achieve anything close to what Israel achieved, the bombing is not going to be anywhere near as damaging enough to make the occupation of the country easy.
Amphibious landings are always tough and difficult.
And the fact that D-Day succeeded was after unbelievable planning, enormously well-disciplined and well-trained armies, brilliant generals, and even that was massive losses.
And we almost didn't make it.
They don't have the army that we had in 1944.
They don't have the dedication.
They don't have the skill.
They don't have even with their new equipment.
They don't have the expertise that we have.
And that we also had with the help of particularly the English and the Canadians and the Australians and even the French who had come over and helped us and the Polish.
These are people who had been at war for a long, long time.
China hasn't been at war for a long, long time.
And Taiwan will give them more difficulties than Ukraine did.
So it's very interesting.
Now, Trump has said that Xi Jinming has told him, this is a strange thing.
I'm not going to take Taiwan while you're president.
Well, first of all, you can't believe it, right?
And number two, you wonder how, what does that mean for us long term?
As soon as Trump is gone, you're going to go take Taiwan?
I'm having a little trouble.
Rudy is having a little trouble with the whole way in which Taiwan and the whole way in which Russia and China is being handled, including in the new national security strategy, where it appears as our biggest problem is in South America.
There's nobody that believes more strongly than I do that we need a South American strategy and that we have to keep ourselves safe closest to home, most importantly, and that we have grossly failed to do that.
We had a Monroe Doctrine and it ended with Monroe.
And a couple of times we've reasserted it.
We did it under Kennedy and we came very close to destroying the world when we did it.
That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but a lot of people believe it's the closest we got to nuclear war.
And I can't say yes.
I can't say no.
I do know it was a gamble that Kennedy was willing to take and it worked out right.
But thank God.
There is no doubt that we have a massive advantage by treating our part of the world very differently than we used to treat theirs.
Remember that?
Think of the hypocrisy in this, but you know, we're the good guys.
We've got bases all over the world.
We've got missiles pointed at them, or we used to.
And we used to have Begram 400 miles from them until an American trader gave it up.
We don't have that Begram airbase right now.
Trump wants to get it back.
That would be a heck of a thing to get back.
They don't have that, or as far as we know, they don't have it.
Now, there is some talk that maybe they were able to infiltrate a few of these left-leaning and communist governments in South America.
I don't know.
I think we would know that if they did with anything really major.
But as long as they remain that way, they're a tremendous risk to us, which is why what he's doing with Maduro and getting the hell out of Venezuela is so important.
And it's important for many reasons, and the drugs are front and center.
But the security of the United States from Chinese or Russian infiltration is right behind it and has been there from the time that we let Castro stay there for as long as we did.
So we don't want to see that expand beyond that and should have taken Castro out.
You know, after the Bay of Pigs, we shouldn't have mounted a whole new way of getting him the hell out of there because it has not done us any good since the day he was there.
I mean, it created the whole Nicaragua problem, the Sandinista problem, many others.
And it created Chavez and Maduro.
Communists, like Islamic terrorists, want to spread.
That's part of their mission.
Mohammed told them to go take the world.
Marx told them to go take the world, and the ones who believe do.
But we're going to take a short break, and we'll be right back.
If you want to drop extra pounds, boost energy levels, and reduce swelling in your legs and feet, then this message is for you.
Pure Health Research is on a mission to make America healthy again.
And two of their best-selling health supplements are leading the way.
First is liver health formula.
Over 100 million Americans have a sluggish liver that's riddled with fatty deposits.
This can kill your metabolism, pile on the pounds, and make you feel tired.
Liver Health Formula takes care of that.
It supports thriving liver health with special nutrients like artichoke extract and milk thistle.
This is one of the easiest ways to slim down and revitalize your energy levels.
Next is limb system support.
If you struggle with fluid buildup or swelling in your legs, ankles, and feet, this is for you.
The natural ingredients and lymph system support help gently flush away extra fluid and toxins out of your body.
And right now, for a limited time, you get 35% off liver health formula and lymph system support, along with 50 plus other health supplements that Peer Health Research has to offer.
So head over to PureHealthResearch.com and use promo code Lindel at checkout.
That's PureHealthResearch.com.
Promo code Lindel to save 35% on your order today.
Too many pharmacies and insurance companies are blocking the medications that actually work.
That's why I recommend All Family Pharmacy.
They give you access to treatments like ibermectin now starting at just $2 a capsule.
They also have methylene blue, hydroxychloroquine, and so much more.
They're helping you stay prepared and they've dropped their prices by 25%.
Also, use promo code Lindel10 to save even more.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.com forward slash Lindel.
Use promo code Lindel10 and get the medicine you need.
I'm excited to announce that we're having our biggest Made in America sale ever.
We just put huge discounts on products made right here in the USA.
My pillow bed pillows, body pillows, go anywhere pillows, bolster pillows, all made with my patented adjustable fill.
Mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress pads, adjustable bed frames, mattress foundations, and so much more, all made right here in the USA.
And now we're expanding our USA products beyond just quality sleep.
Like the cross I wear every day, now available in both men's and women's.
We even have USA-made socks.
And are you tired of being tired?
Try our new health beverage, Rev7.
Or how about my coffee, the greatest coffee ever.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use this promo code to get deep discounts on all these products.
Plus, for a limited time, your order ships absolutely free.
Welcome to Vocal, the free speech social app that gives you a platform to amplify your voice, speak freely, connect boldly, and be part of a growing movement for truth, faith, and freedom.
Want to know what's happening right now?
The now playing feature shows you exactly who's live and what's streaming in real time.
Check out the show's feed, a non-stop lineup including Lindell TV News 24-7, shows and on-demand programming all in one place.
Connect with your favorite host and never miss a show.
Explore the featured page for quick access to Lindel TV's top shows.
Follow your favorites and watch their newest content flow right into your feed.
And when they go live on Vocal, you can join the live chat and be part of the action.
Ask questions, share your thoughts, even help shape future shows.
Stay informed on issues around securing our elections by following your state's Cause of America account.
Join a group and connect on a deeper level from faith and freedom to the future of our nation.
Go to vocal.com or download the app today and be a part of the mission to save our country.
This is Rudy Giuliani back with you on Lindell TV on the Rudy Giuliani Show.
You know, I do not purport as the mayor of New York City to be much of an expert on farming.
They do not do a lot of farming in Central Park or Van Clotland Park.
They used to.
Did you know the upper west side of Manhattan was all farms?
Well, and that's about 150 years ago.
And New York State at one time was one of the big farming states.
It's still not a bad farming state, but that's not New York City.
However, I do think what the president's doing with our farmers is very, very important.
What we've allowed to happen in selling out America, which is what the Democrats and some go-along and soft-minded Republicans have done in the effort to have a one-world economy, is give away a lot of the basics that we have to maintain.
The idea that if the idea of trade is terrific, but any idea that's taken too far is always very bad.
So you have to, in a world like the world we're in, with a China and a Russia, North Korea, you have to always think about having a survival kit.
What's a survival kit for a country?
We have to be independent.
We have to be self-sufficient in certain areas where if the evil part of the world turned on us, we don't have to depend on them.
Or maybe even better, given the wealth of our country and the size of it, we don't have to depend on anybody because we're creating most of the things that they eventually benefit from, even the medicines we were doing for that wall.
And we should make sure that we retain a stranglehold on enough so that in a crisis, we have enough.
Of course, we made that mistake, obviously, with some of the rare earths and minerals and materials that we need both for the use of our economy and for our military.
And particularly for the growth of our economy into the super economy, it's going to have to be five years from now or 10 years from now.
Luckily, just in time, we got the right president who's from day one, that first deal with Korea, which I remember, I'm sorry, with Taiwan, which I remember, which is to have them come over here and start building the super chips here, which is a great advantage we have over China, but we lose if China were to take Taiwan.
It's also part of China's calculation in taking Taiwan.
They don't want to destroy those factories with indiscriminate bombing.
They want those factories and they want them functioning.
It sounds like we're doing clones here in America.
So there'll be a backup, like there is, you know, like there is a backup for communication system.
One goes out, you have another one and another one and another one.
So what we're doing with the farmers, you know, is making sure that we haven't gotten ourselves into any kind of critical position with regard to food.
We are in a critical position with regard to minerals.
We're working our way out of it.
We are in a critical position with regard to pharmaceuticals.
We're working our way out of it.
And who knows what else?
We're not quite there with food yet, but we're getting there.
There's no reason why America shouldn't have a very, very robust and very, very strong and very profitable agricultural industry.
We've got a lot of people to feed.
And I don't know.
I think anything that comes out of American land is probably better than any place else in the world.
So this idea, for example, soybeans.
So soybeans turned out to be an enormously critical commodity for us because China buys massive amounts of soybeans from us.
And our soybean farmers are getting hurt very badly by the tariff situation, as well as some natural disasters that they've had.
And that's only one example of a critical commodity.
The farmers in general, their bankruptcies have gone up and the competition from abroad is getting worse and worse and people buying more and more food from abroad.
Half of all American soybeans are exported.
So we use half for ourselves and half for exportation, which is rare for us, right?
Because we're a big domestic consuming economy.
And a quarter of them go to China.
And they're processed.
They're also processed into oil for cooking and biofuels and diesel fuels and meal for livestock.
So they have enormous amounts of uses.
And China had agreed in the deal they made with Trump to kind of fix this and they didn't.
They've only lived up to 20% of the deal.
So China is doing everything it can to squeeze us out of the export market.
And even though it isn't critical to us the way it is to them, it's sure necessary to a nicely balanced economy.
So this money that he's giving to the farmers to get them through this year and give them a nice bridge into next year is really, really very, very smart and very sensible investment.
You know, we give away a lot of welfare money and we give away a lot of welfare money to people who absolutely need it.
And then we give away a lot of welfare money to people that we make and keep dependent.
And then a lot of welfare money is stolen.
Way more than you think.
If I were to tell you you could cut welfare and you wouldn't hurt a single person if you did it right, I wouldn't be too far off.
And I tell you that as a former investigator and prosecutor who knows what he's talking about and now it's getting proved right with all of these revelations that are coming up, Minnesota is tip-tip,
and we're going to talk about that at eight o'clock on X very shortly about how this is going to become a massive scandal in two areas where the Democrats have really attempted to ruin America,
welfare and immigration, because the fraud involved in both of those areas is mind-boggling.
It probably would be an exaggeration to say that more money attributed to that is fraudulent than real.
But to say there are numbers approaching that is not at all unreal.
And I think I've been telling you that for years because I know it firsthand, having been a prosecutor and a mayor of New York.
But the New York phenomenon is now well ingrained within the Democrat Party.
And it's not that Republicans aren't crooks, but for Democrats, it's a profession.
For Republicans, it's an avocation.
They're amateurs at it.
The Democrats have been doing it since boss tweet and they just perfected it every generation.
And what they've now done is turn entire giant parts of our government into direct fraudulent governments.
I mean, it started as government grew, dishonesty in government grew.
The bigger it gets, the more dishonest it gets.
The bigger it gets, the more unaccountable it becomes.
The bigger it gets, the more dictatorial it becomes.
And that's why when you say, you know, one party wants big government and the other wants diverse government with power spread out, really one wants authoritarianism and the other wants freedom.
So we'll be back with you tomorrow on a theme like that, because every one of our shows is a theme like that.
And I ask you to go to the podcast because we now have two, I'm about to have a third and the last chapter in our analysis of another dangerous phenomenon, and that is the growth of anti-Semitism,
and in particular, Fuentes and what he displayed, not only in his interview with Tucker Carlson, but the things that were not explored and have not been shown about his past and his pathological hatred of the Jewish people and really ultimately of what America is all about.
So pray for us.
Pray to God for the president and that he remains strong and that he remains wise and that he remains with the health and unbelievable acuity of vision to bring us through this terrible time.
And dear God, we mean this so from the bottom of our hearts.
▲
Export Selection