← The Josh Hammer Show
Loading summary
Transcript24 lines
- [00:01]
Josh Hammer
This is Mike Borlo of Lexicon Valley and I'm Bob Garfield.
- [00:04]
Mike Borlo
Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words?
- [00:08]
Josh Hammer
Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to chew over the history, culture and many mysteries of English, plus some wise cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts. I'm Josh Hammer, and this is the Josh Hammer Show. While wishing all of our Christian friends in the audience a beautiful and blessed beginning to this holy week, we Jews are getting ready for the Passover holiday, which starts this Wednesday evening. Personally, I have to confess, I am in a state of psychological distraught. I'm not sure how else to describe it, frankly, after the utterly catastrophic sports loss that I experienced yesterday. I know it sounds tongue in cheek, but there really are just a lot of emotions here to unpack when it comes to the love of sports, is it all worth it and all the above there. We'll get to that much, much later on in the show. Also, Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute joins us to unpack what is the main topic for today's show, which is what is the end game when it comes to the state of Iran? So Rebecca Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute joins us to continue that conversation in just a few minutes. But for now, begin by assessing the state of play. So there's all sorts of mixed signals when it comes to the situation with Iran. And what is Donald Trump going to do and when is he going to do it? And frankly, no one really knows what the answer is because there's just a lot to unpack here. Most recently, there have been rumors of up to 10,000 additional troops sent all the way to the Middle East. Some of those troops apparently are in transit essentially at this moment, what the Pentagon and the war planners. So the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Raisin Cain, Pete Hegseth, the suits, all the other folks in the Pentagon, et cetera, what they are being tasked to do essentially to draw up various competing options to essentially give President Trump as the commander in chief of the US Armed forces, the full menu, so to speak, the full panoply, the full array of options so he can pursue as he wants to pursue. As far as how Donald Trump is actually going to pursue, well, that really is the million dollar question of the hour. So just this morning on Donald Trump saying that he is prepared to destroy, he's prepared to completely obliterate Iran's electric generating plants, their oil wells, as well as Kharg Island. So Kharg island is this relatively small island that we talk a lot about on this show. You probably hadn't even heard of this island prior to this war starting. And for not a bad reason. I mean, it's a pretty small island halfway around the world, but it is a very crucial island situated fairly near the Strait of Hormuz. This 21 mile oil choke point, specifically the Iran oil and natural gas industry, their petroleum industry is largely refined. Their products are refined there on Carg island. And it sits really kind of at the intersection of a lot of energy markets and foreign affairs. So Donald Trump threatening now to either destroy Carg island on the one hand or potentially then to take it over on the other hand. There's been a lot of back and forth as to what would some sort of limited ground incursion look like. To be clear, no one expects and it's just not going to happen, folks. It's not going to be a full scale Iraq 2.0 boots entering on the Persian Gulf with this, this march all the way to Tehran. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. If ground troops are going to get involved here is good. They're going to get involved on things like Carg Island. But the other mixed signal, again takes us back to our mixed signals theme is that Trump also saying on Truth Social that the US Is in quote, serious discussions with a new and more reasonable regime to end our military operations in Iran. He continued and said great progress has been made, but if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormu Strait is not immediately open for business, we will conclude our lovely stay by blowing up and completely obliterating all of what I just said. Carg island, the electrical plants, etc. Etc. Etc. So this notion of having new and more reasonable people to deal with raises an interesting question. Are these the Minos, the mullahs in name only, not to be confused with the rhinos back home here in the Republican Party. Are these Minos that Donald Trump is talking about here when it comes to these newer mullahs? Is Khamenei the Younger. This, this man who we don't even frankly know if he's alive, but if he's alive, he's also rumored to be homosexual or potentially being even impotent. He was seeking treatment in the UK actually for this there. We haven't seen the guy. We have no idea if he's alive there. Is he potentially more moderate there? Donald Trump musing on Air Force One over the weekend about how in his vantage point, from his perch, it looks like we've had something resembling at least a lower version of regime change already. Here was President Trump on Air Force
- [05:02]
Mike Borlo
One over the weekend with them, pretty sure whether it's possible we won't, but we've had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they're all dead. The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we're dealing with different people than anybody's dealt with before. It's a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change. And frankly, they've been very reasonable. So I think we've had regime change. You can't do much better than that. The regime that was really bad, really evil was the first one that was done, the second was appointed, and they're gone. They're all dead, other than one who may have a little life. And then they're really in the third group and the third group of people that seem to be much more reasonable. It truly is regime change, and regime change is an imperative, but I think we have it automatically.
- [06:03]
Josh Hammer
Okay, so again, classic Trumpian rhetoric, regime change is imperative, but we already have it there. I mean, do we really have it? I don't know. Your mileage may vary. This strikes me as classic Trumpian braggadocio. I'm not entirely sure that the current situation looks like regime change. Recall that we have said on the show that regime change is not a technical requirement, a sine qua non, in order for the mission to be complete, albeit it is certainly the best outcome at this point. Donald Trump there on Air Force One, also addressing the question that we also just discussed briefly of whether there will actually be boots on the ground. US President Trump talking about that scenario. Are you considering still putting boots on the ground?
- [06:40]
Rebecca Heinrichs
And would you do that without going to.
- [06:41]
Mike Borlo
I just have lots of alternatives. We have tremendous numbers of ships over there. We don't need them all because of, you know, the power. Look, the. I would say we're just like, we're ahead of schedule on the ballroom in a much bigger way. We're ahead of schedule with Iran. We're weeks ahead of schedule. If you would have said that in three days we were going to knock out 158 ships, their entire navy, which we did. We knocked out their entire Air Force. We knocked out most of their missiles. That's why you see missile attacks. But they're down to. They're sputtering. And we have a group. It's really a new regime. It's a new group of people, people that we've never dealt with before that are acting very reasonable.
- [07:26]
Josh Hammer
Okay, so again, boots on the ground not going to happen when it comes to the traditional mental conception as to what boots on the ground looks like. A more limited ability of boots on the ground to try, potentially take over or possibly destroy carg islands. If this new Regime 2.0 does, actually does, does not give Trump what he wants to. Well, that I think will be a tale perhaps for another day. Much more to unpack here, including with Rebecca Heinrich is just a little bit late on the show. But for now, folks, just a brief word from our sponsor for today's show, which is Balance of Nature. You know, we talk a lot on the show about getting back to basics, faith, family, foundations that actually work. Nutrition should be the same way. When you look at a label study, it's obvious we've overcomplicated it. If you want to be more mindful of what you eat and how you supplement it, look to nature. When you eat whole foods, you're getting their phytonutrients, natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair and respond every single day. Bout of Nature takes real fruits and vegetables and puts them through a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes that phytonutrition. Their whole health system bundles their fruits and veggies with fiber and spice, giving you 47 who food ingredients and their phytonutrients in one simple routine. And their brand new freeze dried snacks go through a similar process. So even your snacks can actually support your body. Whole food phytonutrition plus Balance of Nature helps you fight the good fight. Save over 30% when you subscribe@ balanceofnature.com Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one support team that's changing the world again. Our sponsor today is Balance of nature@balanceofnature.com so when it comes to assessing whether or not the job is done in Iran, you can only do this by assessing what the objectives or goals were in the first place. So yesterday on Sunday, I stopped by to visit my grandfather who just turned 90 this past December. Very, very smart man, had a very fascinating career and mentally hasn't lost a wit about him. Memory starting to go a little bit as often happens. But in terms of his discernment, his ability to interpret news, make judgments, etc. He's sharp as wit. So I asked for his thoughts on the Iran quagmire and my grandfather is politically way to the left of me. He's not far left, but he' Bill Clinton, Democrat, let's call him. And he's someone who nonetheless was sounding pretty hawkish on the issue of Iran for some years now. And I asked him, and I was kind of surprised to hear that he said that at this point he thinks this is a politically losing campaign just to cut bait. And I said, grandpa, how can you say that when you don't actually have something to compare it to? We can only assess whether or not the job is done if you know what the objectives or goals were in the first place. And that is why we continue to say here on this show that President Trump did mess up a little bit, at least by not having a face to face, sit down at the Oval Office, speak right into the camera and tell the American people In the first 48 to 72 hours of the war, what are we doing? What is the purpose of this operation? What are the goals? What are the mission? And how will we define success and be able then to say that we are able to get the heck out? That has not happened. And frankly at this point, I think it still could happen. Actually, it would be a little late, but it would not be too late. And frankly, that would be welcome. Our assessment here on the show is that the objectives of Operation Epic Fury against Iran are the neutralization of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a threat to the United States and to the American national interest. Period, full stop, end of story. Iran has been seriously, seriously degraded, but they are not done. All of the countries in the region that you'd expect, Saudi Arabia, oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Israel, etc. Are also taking incoming missile and drone fire. Heck, Diego Garcia, that joint American British military base 2 1/2 thousand miles away from Tehran in the middle of the Indian Ocean, they took in incoming fire just last weekend. So yes, the Iranian navy is now sitting largely on the ocean floor. Yes, the Iranian air force is now essentially done. So yes, the missiles have been depleted, yes, the drone's been depleted, yes, this, yes that. But they're not done. And perhaps even more to the point, the enriched uranium is not done. It's still floating around. Perhaps we don't even know where it is. I mean, that's a worst case scenario there, but it definitely has not been taken. So unless and until this is done, this talk about regime change, is it 2.0? Is it the Minos moles, name only? Are they actual more reasonable moles? Is the IRGC going to be going to be more moderate there? I don't think they will be to be honest with you, none of this really matters until the crass objective metrics defined by ballistic missiles, drones, etc. Have actually been achieved. I would like a little more clarity again when it comes to Dan Cain, Pete Hegseth, and above all, the commander in chief, John Trump when it comes to articulating what I have just articulated, especially as now some of Iran's allies are starting to join the fray in more earnest. Hezbollah and Lebanon is now more active in firing down upon Israel. Perhaps they will fire on some other Sunni Arab countries next. I suppose we will see. The Houthis of Yemen have actually just joined the war for the first time there. So things are very much in flux. And now would be certainly a good time for some increased clarity when it comes to the commander in chief. But someone who is always good for providing clarity is our guest after a short commercial break. That's going to be Rebecca Heinrichs of Hudson. She provides ample clarity. So stay with us, folks. Do a quick commercial break. Rebecca Heinrich joins on the other side. This is Mike Bolough of Lexicon Valley and I'm Bob Garfield.
- [12:30]
Mike Borlo
Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words?
- [12:33]
Josh Hammer
Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to chew over the history, culture and many mysteries of English, plus some wise cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts. Welcome back. So joining us now is someone who's become quickly one of our favorite guests here on the Josh Hammers show, and she will continue our conversation on all things Ron. And that is the great Rebecca Heinrich. So Rebecca Heinrich is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, also the director of the Keystone Defense Initiative over there. You can follow her on xrlheimris. Just a general fount of wisdom and a wellspring of sanity in a general desert of insanity these days. So, Rebecca, thank you for joining the program. We always do appreciate it. So we were just explaining a little bit here in today's opening monologue how we assess the state of play and next steps in relation to defined objectives. I think this gets lost in the shuffle here, Rebecca. Here you can only assess what has to happen if you understand what you're actually seeking to do. And I actually faulted President Trump a little bit for not having come out the gate there in the first 48, 72 hours of the war and actually articulating that very clearly. I think he probably should have done that. But it's not too late. He still could do that there. So why don't we start there? One, what are the actual objectives of Operation Epic Fury for the United States? Two, related have we achieved those objectives? And three, then of course is the obvious question, which is how do we proceed from that starting point?
- [14:08]
Rebecca Heinrichs
Sure. Well, thanks for having me, Josh. I think part of the problem that we're seeing, I agree with you that we want to hear more from President Trump in laying out what his goals are and how we've met them so far or where we're falling short. However, I will say part of a very Trumpian approach to foreign affairs is that he very intentionally muddies the water because he's engaging in information operations. He is a player in deception campaigns. He likes to maximize his options for decision making space. And so that creates a problem then obviously for the rest of us and saying, okay, but, but how are we doing? So I think it's more useful to keep track of things that Marco Rubio is saying, Admiral Cooper who's leading the cent operation, and then General Keane. And in that regard, it's actually very clear we're trying to defang the Iranian regime so they can no longer project power outside their borders. That directly has the effect of the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, them being able to hold hostage essentially 20% of global energy. And then that goes through the strait. And then also, of course, the terrorist activity that destabilizes the entire region through their funding of Islamic proxies. And then we're also getting rid of their nuclear program and their ballistic missile program, which they can obviously use, not just to deter the United States from intervening and taking out their nuclear program should they develop it further. But it would also be the delivery systems if they mature their nuclear program. And then of course, they're just the regime. We want a regime that is more compliant with the United States. It's not a true regime change. We're not engaging in de ba' athification like we saw in Iraq, for instance. But we do want a regime that's going to not support the kind of instability in the region that we've seen for the last 40 plus years.
- [15:52]
Josh Hammer
And those all strike me as eminently reasonable and achievable goals. So with that in mind, then where does that actually leave us as far as a state of play on the ground today? There's a lot of mixed signals and a lot of this is deliberate, as you said. This is on the one hand, some of it. This talk of regime change is kind of classic Trumpian braggadocio. On the other hand, the Other half is that it is kind of him just really kind of messing with the enemy. Frankly, a lot of folks speculating that maybe one of the reason that he brought Tucker Carlson into the White House was to throw off Khamenei and the Iranians prior to the commencement of this war. So Trump definitely does do this. So given the goals that you just laid out, Rebecca, what are the actual concrete next steps?
- [16:32]
Rebecca Heinrichs
You think, great. And also remember Josh, he also brought Steve Bannon into the White House before Operation Midnight Hammer. And so there's also, which of course, Bannon was opposed to the United States striking, engaging in that, in those strikes against the nuclear program too. So. So again, President Trump definitely does participate as a main player in this deception operations. I think that we are doing very, very well. I think if you just look at just metrics, basic metrics, the Iranians have been totally defanged in their ability to significantly, I would say significantly project power outside their borders. So it's not just that we've taken out, I think the number is like 90% of Iran's production capabilities to produce more missiles. We don't know exactly how many missiles they had to begin with, so it's hard to of know how much more we have to, to take out. But we can see the tempo of their launches significantly decrease. So now the Iranians are changing their strategy. Rather than launching a high numbers of salvos throughout the day, they're basically kind of terrorizing the Israeli population by, by doing it through small bursts throughout the day so that you're. They're trying to wear out the Israeli people by going into bomb shelters, et cetera, you know, multiple times a day. Good luck at trying to, you know, demoralize or wear out the Israeli people. They're incredibly resilient. It's not working. But that does seem to be their approach, which tells me that we have just degraded their missile program and in their drone program and then their ability to reproduce these things. So that part of it is going very well. But that's why, Josh, you're seeing now the Marines move in larger numbers of Marines. It's not because I think there's going to be a massive number of Marines deployed all at once. But these Marines are essentially, it's a Swiss army knife of what we call these Marine Expeditionary Units. They can do lots of different things, trained for specific raids, that type of thing. So now you might see the United States kind of doing the other parts of the campaign, removing the nuclear material from inside Iran or taking out these cruise missile targets that might be nested in the caves along the coast of Iran, which we want to finally extricate, remove, so that the strait can be, you know, open for free and open commerce through the region.
- [18:46]
Josh Hammer
And we're chatting, folks, again with Rebecca Heinrich, who's a senior fellow at the Hutton Institute, A Wealth of Sanity. You follow her on xlheinrichs. Rebecca, one of the questions that we've been debating back and forth since this conflict started was whether or not true, genuine regime change is a necessary condition, a sine qua non of this operation. In fact, we actually brought on your Hudson colleague Mike Duran in the first few days of the war. And Mike essentially said no. And in fact, he said that he would expect there not to be full scale regime change here in Iran. And that's certainly my expectation as well. And that does raise the obvious question then, getting us back to our objectives as to whether or not we can feel we, as the United States, Trump administration, et cetera, can all feel secure that our objectives have been met if there is something less than full scale regime change. I would love your thoughts on that very thorny question that we've been kind of publicly wrestling with for close to a month now here on the show.
- [19:41]
Rebecca Heinrichs
So I totally agree with you and my colleague Mike Duran. I think, again, this gets back to we're not going to go sort of move through the entire the entire government and removing every single participant of the Islamic revolution over the last several decades. So there's not going to be a total regime change. At least we don't need one in the immediate future to understand that this has been a success. Americans are already safer today. We are safer today. Four weeks after Epic Fury began, Iran's missile program, drone program, I mean, their nuclear facilities, I think, have already been really successfully degraded after Midnight Hammer. But we just they start the Iranians, rather than being chastened after Midnight Hammer, they started building out their missile program and then also their air defenses, which would have made it much more difficult for the United States to do another Midnight Hammer should they grow out their nuclear program. So I think that the timing of this would was brilliant. You don't want to wait until they're on the doorstep of getting ready to have 10, 20 nuclear weapons. You want to take out their program when it's at the lowest risk to the American people and our forces. And so I already think we're on our way. I think the regime has been so weakened that we're creating the conditions for the Iranian people to kind of take the reins once the military operation is over and we've succeeded in carrying out the things that are necessary for our security. So, no, I don't think that we need to do that to declare victory. It's already a rump regime that's sort of left over. It's not a full Iranian regime kind of in place. The Israelis have fully penetrated the Iran regime and are one by one systematically eliminating regime leaders, Basij leaders inside the government who are not willing to comply and to cooperate and to defect. And I expect that to continue for some days and weeks, again setting the conditions for the Iranian people, perhaps more defections from the standing army so that they can take control of their own government. And then we don't have to be in the business of full regime change.
- [21:42]
Josh Hammer
Rehak, just about 30 seconds left here. So real quick, if you can, if you're putting on your prognostication cap and you're thinking one year from now, let's call it the regime, the government, Iran will look like X, I think it'll
- [21:58]
Rebecca Heinrichs
be, I mean, my, my hope of what I think is actually plausible is a much more, much more greatly weakened regime that although it still might be sort of fighting to maintain sort of a hostile relationship with the west, with Israel in the United States, it's much more pragmatic in dealing with us. It simply doesn't have states get their confidence from their military capabilities. Iran is simply being totally defanged and weakened. And so it's not going to have the same coercive ability as it did before this operation. So, of course, my hope is that you actually have a country that is on their way to being a more pragmatic partner in the region. And you know, and understanding that there's the Gulf states combined with the Israelis want to get back, want to have normalcy, want to conduct trade and they do not want rampant terrorism throughout the region. And so hopefully, of course, you're going to see an Iran regime that plays a more constructive role in that process.
- [22:56]
Josh Hammer
It's definitely what we all hope. But of course, we all also live in the real world as well. Rebecca Heinrich definitely lives in real world and she is a great contributor to the Real World Conversation. Follow her on xrl. Heinrich. Rebecca, we always appreciate you joining the show. Thank you so much.
- [23:07]
Rebecca Heinrichs
Thanks, Josh.
- [23:09]
Alex Kanchowitz
Hi, this is Alex Kanchowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is, is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
- [23:48]
Josh Hammer
So great stuff there as always from Rebecca Heinrichs. I tend to agree with her assessment that the regime will at some point in Iran look, if we're just putting on our prognostication pure analytical expectations here will probably look something remotely like what it currently does, albeit will be severely defeating. They will simply not have the offensive facing military capacity. Of course we are all hoping for, indeed we are praying for the Iranian people to take matters into their own hands and to finally topple this horrific of regime and to remove the yokes of tyranny from their backs for the first time in 47 years. But I do at times like this think back, as I not infrequently do, to this wonderful speech that John Quincy Adams gave in 1821. John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams, you probably know him less well than John Adams. John Quincy Adams was one of the first true realists in the long tradition of American foreign policy realism and prior to him actually ascending to the presidency and taking the White House, John Quincy Adams, I believe this was actually when he was Secretary of State, had this wonderful speech which historians of American history typically refer to as the monsters to destroy speech. And what he said, this paraphrase, it's very close paraphrase, he said that America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher of liberty to the masses around the world, but she is the guarantor only of her own. It is a very sound conception of the sober limits of American foreign policy. This Bush freedom agenda forcible exporting of Western liberalism. That cannot be what we are here to do. We are here to try to set the conditions in this particular case in Iran for the Iran people to take matters into their own hands. But we simply cannot do it for them. To borrow a very old analogy, of course you can bring the horse to the water, but you cannot actually force the horse to drink the water. And that very much applies here as well. Well, just a quick word also on the Middle east before zooming out a little bit. Lots else I want to get to here for the remainder of our show. Today there was an unfortunate incident in Jerusalem On Sunday. So y. Yesterday was Palm Sunday. And the man was essentially the head of the Catholic Church in the city of Jerusalem. He is the head of the Latin Patriarchate there. My Latin is terrible, so you have to forgive me on that one. He's a cardinal of the Catholic Church by the name of Pierre Battista Pizabala, who. Your mileage may vary. He has been in the news at various times. There are a lot of folks who know him say that he is a wonderful man. Some folks say that he is something of a provocateur. So your mileage may vary as to what exactly he was trying to do. So it's Palm Sunday, obviously, a deeply important holiday for Catholics, perhaps above all in particular. And he was going to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre there in the Old City of Jerusalem to try to lead a Sunday Mass, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, one of the holiest sites in all of Christianity. I have been there myself. And the context for this is that because of this war with Iran, there have been a lot of Iranian missiles whose fragments have landed right there in the Old Sea of Jerusalem, where all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, have holy sites. And because of that, the Israeli government, governmental authorities, have set a limit on gatherings there for the time being at least. They had a baseline rule of no religious gatherings over 50 people. So because of that, the entire Western Wall, or as Jews call it, the Kotel, like the holiest site in Judaism, next to the Temple Mount itself on top there near that Dome of the Rock Mosque, is Jews cannot actually pray right now. Like literally, as I speak in the lead up to the Passover holiday, Jews are not praying at the Western Wall. So nonetheless, pieceabala. The cardinal tries to lead a Mass at the church and he is stopped by the Israeli police because of what I just said, because of this facially neutral rule that's in place. The optics of this are obviously horrible. Horrible. At a time where Israel's public image is dwindling in many people's eyes and they're having particularly fierce debates here among some parts of the American Christian population, this could not possibly have been handled in a worse manner. Now the story has a happy ending, for what it's worth, because Benjamin Netanyahu, a few hours later, upon becoming aware of this, said that this has been remedied and that he instructed the authorities to enable the Patriarch to hold services as he wishes. They clarified that it initially could not be approved, but then they made an exception for him and pizza bolloughed for what it's worth, had a very gracious response there. Essentially said that, yes, this is actually just a bureaucratic miss out, that that has not stopped some of the provocateurs here in American social media discourse from saying, oh, there's another example of Israel hating Christians. It's a pure disinformation operation. Don't be stupid. Do not fall for this. It's the only country in the region, folks, with a growing Christian population. You want to, you want to, you want to go to Qatar or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia and see if the Christian population there can openly pray. And it's just nuts. It is pure disinformation. Clearly the Israeli government does not handle this well. Definitely an unforced error at a very sensitive time there. But if you think that this is an act of the Netanyahu government hating on Christians, then frankly, you are either stupid or just deeply vulnerable to information operations. Because even the cardinal himself is saying, that's clearly not what happened there. So don't believe the crap that you see on social media. Speaking of crap that happened on social media and in the real world over the weekend, we had another of these so called no Kings protests that happened here over the weekend. Now, they've tried this numerous times. They first tried at memory serves last spring into last June. It's hard to even know what there is to say about these no Kings protests that has not been said. I mean, the whole thing is basically just a grand exercise in performative virtue and performative outrage. They're trying to make themselves look outraged for the sake of being outraged. There apparently 8 million people, this could have fooled me. 8 million people apparently is what they're estimating, took to America's streets this past Saturday, which surpassed the 7 million that they had at the last no Kings event in October 2025. I think if you actually did full gonzo journalism, if you tried to do the whole Nick Shirley style man on the street thing and you actually went to talk these people and say, what exactly are you protesting? They would have presumably no freaking clue. Really? What are they there for? I actually don't think I know the answer. I mean, they're there presumably as the name implies, because they think that Donald Trump is a king. Oh really? I mean, you mean like literally every president since Woodrow Wilson who has acted in some sort of varying degree of quasi dictatorial fashion? If you want to be really super textual, super formalist, going back to original separation of powers, the modern presidency, the modern executive branch is obviously not at all what the founders thought that it would be. It's not. And frankly, last I checked, it actually was Barack Obama, noted Democrat Barack Obama, who had the infamous I have a pen and I have a phone line. Remember that in his second term memory service, around the time of the whole executive amnesty debates, there was daca, then there was dapa. Obama says, I've got a pen, I have a phone. You, Paul Ryan, you, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, whoever was in charge then, you try to stop me. Me. I mean, this sort of stuff is ubiquitous. Now. Donald Trump, of course, is not a monarch. He's not. We've had multiple record breaking shutdowns just over the course of this presidency. There was a massive, massive shutdown a few months ago and now there's been a 45 day DHS partial shutdown. If Donald Trump was actually a king, actually a monarch, I'm pretty sure he would not allow that to happen. Now the interesting thing to note is that virtually none of this that you see from the so called no kings idiots is organic. It is, as we have previously explained on the show, coming from some foreign and some domestic but subversive forces. It is definitely astroturfed and it is definitely inorganic. So I knew Fox News Digital Investigation. The folks@fox news.com have been doing some excellent work actually in this respect. They've been doing a lot when it comes to foreign operations and foreign funding into American politics in general. So the Fox News Digital investigation team finds that these no Kings protests, all 8 million of them roughly, are collectively backed by a network of about 500 groups with an estimated $3 billion in combined annual revenue, including various communist and socialist organizations calling for revolution. The man at the center of this, if you watch or listen to the show every day, you know his name by now, is Neville Roy Singham, who is the American born tech tycoon who literally lives in Shanghai, China and is very, very close to the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, the entire Politburo there in Beijing, and is a massive, massive funder of subversive pro China, anti American causes. He's a funder of Code Pink and various other organizations like that. They are the ones who fund the People's Forum were the ones that were organizing these pro Maduro rallies after the Maduro Traction, these pro Khomeini rallies after the Commandeer Command. It's coming from China, it's coming from Neville Royce. George Sordos obviously is involved as well. He has been one of the lead coordinators, his organization for a lot of these movements throughout the country. So none of this organic, it's done, it's performative and I wish we could ignore it, but for the fact that this level of foreign influence and astroturfing and riling up the American people is bad. And if we were a true first world country, we would have this sort of regulation in place to try to crack down on deliberate foreign meddling. Last I checked, the left pretend they care a lot about foreign meddling. Wasn't that Russiagate? Really, you guys should care a lot about Neville Roy Singham and the Chinese Communist Party information operation that is so called no Kings.
- [33:36]
Alex Kanchowitz
Hi, this is Alex Kanchowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
- [34:14]
Josh Hammer
So I want to finish my thoughts on that before we move on here. If the left were actually intellectually consistent on this, if they actually opposed foreign meddling, foreign funding in American politics there, which if you take at their word, which you really should not do, but if you do, then you would think that they oppose that based on their total hysteria over Russian election interference, then they really, really, really should care about the level of Chinese financial sponsorship of American astroturfing operations, of Iranian involvement there. That group out of New Jersey that we sometimes highlight on this show, the network Contagion Research Institute, NCRI just had a recent study about the extent of Iranian propaganda financial dissemination throughout American grassroots astroturfs. The left really ought to care a lot about this. Like really, really, really a lot about this. The fact that they don't is just a total indictment on their lack of any principles and the lack of anything remotely resembling intellectual consistency. Well, speaking of things that the President United States has been intellectually consistent on for a very long time. One of his long standing issues is that of birthright citizenship. So we're going to do a deeper dive on this topic on Oral Argument day, which would be this Wednesday. The case is Trump versus Barbara. This is a case that is at the U.S. supreme Court now to determine the constitutionality of Donald Trump's day one executive Order essentially getting rid of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens here in the United States. I have lots and lots of thoughts on this issue. We will save a longer legal constitutional analysis for Wednesday's show. The 14th Amendment debate happens to be a very, very interesting one. One that I've been paying very close attention to my very first days in law school over a decade ago. But for now I want to just talk a little bit about the politics and the act policy and the morality of this. The entire premise of the American constitutional government, of our entire scheme. Here is one premise, as you might know, upon popular sovereignty and the the consent of the govern. That's the entire premise. That's the entire notion of the we the people of which the preamble to the US Constitution speaks. We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, etc. Etc. Etc, etc. It's all based on we the people who are the people. Well, the people are not the citizens of the world. It's not the global masses. If we want to welcome in aliens, foreigners to join us in we the people, we can do that. That's called immigration policy. Congress has an Article 1 Section 8 ability to do exactly that, to prescribe a quote, uniform rule of naturalization. And they've done that many, many times since the origins of the Republic. But in order to have a system of incentive government, you have to know who is the governed. Well, a system of immigration that rewards not just legal status, but full on citizenship to those whose first acts here are to cross the border illegally is to so greatly diminish the moral heft, the moral salience, indeed the sanctity of American citizenship. It is to strip it of anything remotely resembling meaning and substance. It is to vitiate the very notion of we the people in the first place. Who are we the people if we're just giving out citizenship, willy nilly, not just as someone who applies to be here legally and goes the process, but the people who cross the border illegally. There's all sorts more practical ramifications as well when it comes to the rise of birth tourism, which is a horrific industry. I actually saw this when my wife was pregnant. It's nuts. It's really quite nuts actually how people come here later in their term, usually in their eight month, for the express purpose of giving birth on US soil. A lot of these folks are Russian from Eastern Europe. At least here in Florida where I live, a lot of them seem to be from the former Iron Curtain states there in Eastern Europe, including Russia itself. It's nuts. How can we operate like this? And America's also an outlier when it comes to this topic as well. We're one of the only first world countries that has this. It's essentially a non startup when it comes to Europe. And I'm not saying that is necessarily the winning argument. There are a lot of things where America is different than the Europeans. We are more religious, we are more faithful. There's a lot of things that separate us there. But this is, this is one where America, I would argue, is an outlier in a wrong direction. And it's an outlier in a wrong direction also when it comes to the legal argument, which again, we will get to in much greater depth on Wednesday. Unfortunately, I think that Trump administration has something of an uphill climb when it comes to this, or at least to winning it in the U.S. supreme Court. I very, very much hope that I am wrong. I've been caring about this issue for a very, very long time. I think that Donald Trump is exactly right. This is a wonderful executive order. I read the entire thing. It was pretty much spotless. Unfortunately, if I'm trying to count votes on the current Supreme Court, I think there are at most, really at most, I think two votes for this Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. And unfortunately, if I'm correct, then President Trump himself ultimately then earns some of the blame based on the justice that he selected the first time, if I'm correct that neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch nor Barrett will ultimately vote to uphold this. But a much greater legal unpacking of the constitutional merits demerits this on Wednesday's show. Make sure to tune in there, hoping to bring on a great expert guest for you to continue to unpack that as well. For now, I want to turn, as I tease in the very opening minute of the show, to something a little more frivolous but also a little more personal, which is basketball, actually, of all the topics. So it's March Madness. You may or may not have noticed the tournament is now just over two weeks old. And I am personally dealing with today, as are my fellow Duke fans, dealing with what can only be described as the single worst loss in the history of the very storied program that is Duke basketball. And unfortunately, there are no shortage of possible contenders for that dubious distinction. What happened on Sunday is just utterly unfathomable. Duke was playing UConn, the University of Connecticut, the Huskies, in a 12 Elite Eight matchup in Washington, D.C. they were up by 19 points at its widest margin in the first half, completely dominating the pace of play. Slowly, slowly, slowly, the lead starts to dwindle. And a series of just, just horrific decisions by both players and coach alike in the final minute of the game really ultimately culminated in a UConn player by the name of Braylon Mullen sinking a 35 to 40 foot jump shot, a three pointer. That is to win the game by one point. One of the most improbable endings you will ever see in a basketball game. And unfortunately, it happens for Duke against UConn, a program that mightily upset Duke in the 1999 national championship game. That was UConn's first big breakthrough. That was an amazing Duke team. They had won 32 games in a row until UConn beat them that year. And then 2004, a very similar thing happened in the Final Four in San Antonio, where Mech Ogefor and Ben Gordon did it as well. A final two minute comeback to defeat a very good Duke team as well. So UConn really just seems to have Duke's number in these moments. And it's really painful. This is two years in a row, frankly, where my team, and I am a hardcore fan, I watch every single game. I read all the blogs. I am really, really, really into this. My wife, last night, I was like a zombie was trying to cheer me up and I was like, I don't think you understand. I am dead on the inside. I'm just staring at the TV for the second straight year. Houston, the Final Four last year, similar thing, massive collapse in the final two minutes. And unfortunately, our young coach, John Shire, who objectively is having an amazing start of his career, is now going to start to get a lot of these questions there. Is he a choke artist, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And all this kind of raises an interesting question, which is for those of us who are so into this, this realm of sports, and we end up feeling this way after a devastating loss. I think the natural thing to do as a human being is to ask, is it worth it? In other words, are the highs so high or is the inherent thrill of following your team so worth it that these lows, and this is a real low, let me tell you, really, it's just awful. Is it worth it? And the answer has to be yes. I had one of my friends joking yesterday. He's like, I can't do this again. I'm done. Next year, I'm resigning as a Duke sports fan. I am not done. I will look forward to coming back next season. As painful as it is to say in this most sullen of moments right now, because it is beautiful, these are amazingly talented humans competing at the highest level for sheer enjoyment and love of the game, testing their bodies to their greatest. And at the end of the day, you win, you lose. But it's always. It sounds cheesy and corny, but it always is really, really fun. And I that is how I conclude this. I do look forward to coming back next year. But for now, for now, I'm rooting for anyone other than UConn to cut down the nest in Indianapolis next month, folks. Have a great rest of your evening. Josh Hammer signing off for now. Hopefully I'm in a better spirited place tomorrow. We'll be back then.
- [44:09]
Alex Kanchowitz
Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is is, well, basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science, tech and the. Wait, what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future's happening fast and it's way too fun to miss.