Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:01]
Aura Advertiser
Most people don't realize how much personal information is bought and sold daily.
- [00:05]
Investment Advertiser
Data brokers collect your data from public
- [00:07]
Aura Advertiser
records and the Internet, selling it without your consent to scammers and telemarketers. That's where Aura comes in.
- [00:13]
Investment Advertiser
Aura automatically removes your data from broker
- [00:16]
Aura Advertiser
sites and alerts you to dark web breaches.
- [00:18]
Investment Advertiser
Plus, you get complete identity theft protection,
- [00:21]
Aura Advertiser
a VPN, antivirus, and a password manager all in one app. Start your free trial@aura.com safe if the
- [00:30]
Josh Hammer
emerging Iran deal is truly the greatest thing since sliced bread as many of its proponents claim, then why haven't we seen the darn text? I don't know. We'll try to find out. I'm Josh Hammer, this is the Josh Hammer Show. So last we checked in on our ever evolving tale when it comes to the would be Iran deal, this memorandum of understanding which essentially amounts to a 60 day kick the can down the road measure, we think. Again, we not heard a whole lot of details yet. Last we checked, there was a leak from a Saudi network, Al Arabiya. I've actually been on their English language program before. It's a Saudi television station. They had a leak of the alleged 14 points of the MoU. Now over the past 24 hours it was also leaked to Bloomberg, the reputable United States outlet founded by Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg apparently also has this same 14 point MOU. Thus far the Trump administration has not released the final form of the mou. And actually just this morning, just this morning there were all sorts of competing rumors flying as to whether or not this thing would actually be released in the first place. So for instance, there was actually a report that just came out this morning. I was pretty shocked to see this frankly, that the leadership in Iran. So apparently an Iranian official told Tasnim News service, which is an Iranian regime media run outlet, that the parties AKA Iran and the United States have agreed that this agreement will not be made public. So the Iranians are telling their state regime media that this thing is actually not going to be made public. On the other hand, you have mixed messaging at best, I would say from the administration. You've had both Vice President Vance and President Trump who at times have said this thing will be made public. And then you also have them acknowledging JD Vance seemed to acknowledge this in some of his media blitz tour interviews of the past couple days seem to acknowledge that one of the reasons why this deal has not been made public yet is because we are essentially bowing to a veto to from Qatar and Pakistan. Pakistan was the symbolic mediator of these talks, not exactly a neutral country. They are very cozy with Iran. So has Qatar historically been for the matter. I don't really know exactly why we would give veto power to Qatar and Pakistan when it comes to releasing to we the people. The full contents of this mou, I think is also noteworthy that Pakistan and Qatar, if you believe this, seem to have a veto power over why the text has not been fully informally released yet. While on the other hand, the Israelis apparently literally have not seen the text. Netanyahu just yesterday, if not mistaken, released a statement saying that they have not seen the text yet. So Qatar and Pakistan seem like they've seen the text and they're telling us not to release it and we're complying with that. Whereas the actual ally that we just went into war with, the very same one that Pete Hegsett said during those weekly or bi weekly Pentagon pressers during Epic Fury, said that it was a breath of fresh air to go into war with that ally, the Israelis. And they have not even seen the text yet. So I don't understand what is going on here. I hope this is not true. I truly do hope that we have the full final confirmed text asap. It is inexcusable. Let's not mince words. It is inexcusable that the text is not out at this point. If the text is actually final, as all OR B and Bloomberg are reporting, then we need to see it to form our own judgments. This spin operation is not going to work. Sending out various people on both social media and in traditional media trying to sell this deal and just say shut up, critics. Just take this and just don't ask any questions. That's not a winning tactic. A winning tactic is to negotiate a good deal and then to present it confidently. Not on your back foot, confidently. Best foot forward to the American people. Make your case and then let the chips fall from there. If it's actually a good deal, it will hold up. On the merits of the deal footwear at Donald Trump, who has been over in France for the past couple of days, over at the G7 summit. He says that rumors in America will be investing in Iran as part of this deal. He says that these rumors are false. It was Donald Trump over at the G7.
- [04:42]
Donald Trump
Have I read it?
- [04:43]
Interviewer
Well, it's been reported that it includes its $300 billion fund funded by Gulf allies.
- [04:49]
Josh Hammer
It's false.
- [04:51]
Donald Trump
People, you can invest if you want. I mean, what am I going to do? Say nobody's ever allowed to invest? No, we're not investing. We're not putting up 10 cents. And people can decide to do that, but that's up to them. I mean, do you want me to say nobody's ever allowed to invest in in a country? I'll say it. With Egypt. Nobody's allowed to invest in Egypt. Am I supposed to say that?
- [05:11]
Josh Hammer
I'm asking with it?
- [05:12]
Donald Trump
We are not investing in it and we do not have a fund.
- [05:15]
Josh Hammer
Are you asking?
- [05:16]
Donald Trump
No, I'm not. If they do it, fine. But I would say they won't be doing it for a while until they find out the behavior. It's a behavior thing, but we are not invested. That's a false story that got picked up incorrectly from a statement that was pretty well made. I think maybe a little bit could have been a little more accurate, frankly. But it's a story. We are not investing 10 cents.
- [05:42]
Josh Hammer
So are we not investing 10 cents or are we potentially on the hook for $300 billion of US taxpayer money? The problem is that many of us are asking these questions because we haven't seen the final tax yet. What I will say is that according to the leaked 14 points MOU as obtained by both Al Arabia and Bloomberg, this number is conspicuously in there. So point number six in the 14 point plan, as confirmed by Al Arabia and Bloomberg reads as follows, quote, the United States undertakes, together with its regional partners to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development, AKA the reconstruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. Okay, that's verbatim point number six from this plan. So a lot of folks are not happy with this, as you can imagine. I saw Chris Ruddy, who is the head of Newsmax, which is an extremely pro Trump, Trump friendly network. Chris Ruddy was going all in on this, saying that we oppose the notion we will possibly fund $300 billion to Iran. All sorts of other things happening, as well as all sorts of rumors that there will be lots of frozen Iranian assets in banks overseas in China, Hong Kong, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha and elsewhere. That could be unfrozen. And according to some of the folks who have worked in the terror financing controls, divisions of the U.S. part of the treasury say that once you undo some of these frozen assets and unfreeze them, it could take years, maybe even decades to build up the case to get them frozen again. So you look at that, you look at immediate sanctions relief. Iran will be immediately able to ship their oil. The US Naval blockade looks like it's gone. Then you throw in a $300 billion Obama esque chef's kiss at the end. What are we doing here exactly? Again, I'm not arriving at a final definitive take because we have not seen the deal, but every indication we have is that this looks like a gigantic turd sandwich. And I'm sorry to paint that graphic a picture, but I'm just not seeing right now what is actually in this for the United States. And there's another interesting story that came out yesterday as well. So CNN reporting that U.S. officials, unnamed officials are downplaying the text of the agreement because they're saying that doesn't account for various back channel commitments. So on the one hand they're saying don't worry about the text, just trust us. And then on the other hand, at least according to cnn, at cnn, your mileage may vary. They're saying don't write the text because there's other texts which we also haven't seen. You know, I'm old enough to remember the 2015 Barack Obama JCPOA Iran nuclear deal flight. And one of conservatives many legitimate grievances during that process was that there were these exact same back channel side secret agreements. This was a major, major Republican talking point during the 2016 presidential campaign where all the candidates, even Rand Paul memory serves and said this deal is crap and we will tear it up if we were president. One of the reasons that there are back channel side deals, well, at least according to cnn, it seems like that is going to be the case all over again. So I'm just not understanding why we are in this position that we are currently in. It is notable, as I mentioned on yesterday's show, that the leading spokesperson for this particular deal has been Vice President J.D. vance. And that makes a lot of sense. It's actually highly logical. J.D. vance is of the more dovish end of the Republican Party's foreign policy spectrum. He has been known since day one to be a skeptic of re engaging in military hostilities with Iran. So it makes sense that he would own those convictions and become the lead negotiator, along with Wyckoff and Kushner, who are essentially deputized under Vance when it comes to the Pakistani media negotiations. And it makes sense that Vance would be the lead guy that the administration is sending out there to try to sell this deal to an increasingly skeptical public, an increasingly skeletal public, I might add, across the political spectrum. But that's a major wager. There's a major wager from Vice President J.D. vance. Right now. That wager is playing off in the prediction markets. His odds of getting the presidency in 2028 have gone up over the past week, while Marco Rubio's have gone down. I find it fascinating that Marco Rubio has been essentially sidelined and I haven't heard him utter a single peep when it comes to this. That might be because there was a rumor that Trump was threatening to potentially fire cabinet members such as Pete Hegseth who were skeptics or opponents of this deal. That was just a rumor. On the other hand, the other bit of 3D chess here might actually be riddle me this. It might actually be that Rubio potentially is trying to let the Vice President, his good personal friend JD Vance, own this deal. Because Rubio, who's been around the block a time or two when it comes to the Iran issue, knows that the mullahs are fanatical Islamists. They will not keep the deal. So is JD Vance staking his 2028 would be candidacy on becoming a Barack Obama esque foreign policy hand? Well, Ben Domenech had a clip the other night on Fox News that makes the comparison in pretty stark terms. Here was Ben Domenech and look, at
- [10:58]
Interviewer
some point this Republican Party needs to decide which kind of foreign policy it's going to have. Is it going to be an America first foreign policy or one that is bold, that uses American power in key moments decisively in order to affect what it wants to achieve? Or are we going to just backslide into being some kind of Hillbilly Obama kind of gop? That is not something that is acceptable to me. It should not be acceptable to Republicans and it should not be acceptable to any conservative who is who is interested in the success of America going forward.
- [11:28]
Josh Hammer
So powerful term there. Hillbilly Obama. Good for Ben for coining that term. This is going to be an issue in 2028 and beyond. Now it's true that the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a big coalition. Not everyone agrees on everything. But once upon a time, as I mentioned, I'm old enough to remember where the Barack Obama nuclear deal was pretty much unanimously opposed by the entire Republican Senate and Congressional Caucus. If this current Iran mou, if this deal ends up getting to a similar vote before the Congress, which itself is debated by the way John Thune, the majority leader, saying that this should come to a vote before the Senate in order to try to make it more than just a pure executive agreement, others said say it doesn't meet the threshold to necessitate that kind of legislative vote. If that happens there will the vote be Very, very different than it would have been under Barack Obama. And if so, what does that say? Just about the nature of our trial politics. There is a lot, lot to unpack here, folks. This story is not going anywhere. Again, the administration can nip this story in the bud by releasing the darn text. I do not understand for the life of me why that has not happened. We're gonna go to a quick commercial break. On the other side, we're gonna be joined by Jesse Arm, who will join us to unpack this and much more. Stick with us for Jesse Arm.
- [12:40]
Investment Advertiser
Did you know there's an investment account that's been around since 1888 and most people have never heard about it until recently. It's not stocks, it's not crypto. It's a trust that was created over a century ago and it's been averaging 29% returns for the past 25 years. To put that into perspective, it beat Apple, it beat Amazon, it beat Microsoft over that same period. BlackRock has over $2 billion parked here. JP Morgan, bank of America, some of the biggest banks in the world have been quietly using this for decades and they've never mentioned it to regular people. There are no commercials, no billboards, nothing. And literally anyone can start. You just need a few hundred dollars. There's a free video that explains exactly what it is and how to access it. And it's 100% worth your time. Go to my account29.com to check it out. That's my account. The numbers29.com myaccount29.com
- [13:43]
Josh Hammer
welcome back. So joining us now for a reaction and on so much more is first time Josh Hammershow guest and a good first time guest at that, that is Jesse Arm. Jesse Arm is the VP for external affairs at the Manhattan Institute. It's one of my personal favorite think tanks in these United States. And follow Jesse on X Essex Ledge. So, Jesse, welcome to the show. We're really pleased to have you. I want to get into some other topics, including your home of Michigan, your native home. And I know that there was a recent horrific terrorist attack at your home synagogue actually. So I want to kind of get your finger on the pulse of a lot of that. But I do want to begin with geopolitics. We led today's show as we began really every show this week with the topic of these ongoing Iran deals, Iran MOU talks. Jesse, what is kind of your gut check sentiment when it comes to this? The analogy that I can't escape a think of is you might be a little young for this, but it reminds me of what I was told from older conservatives about the Harriet Meyer Supreme Court nomination during the Bush administration where there was conservative backlash and ultimately the nomination was withdrawn. Is that similar ish to your sense as what's going on here or what do you make of all this?
- [14:48]
Jesse Arm
Yeah, I think so. By the way, I feel like we're around the same age. I might be a few years younger than you, so if you're not too young for it, I'm not too young for it. And I like how you called my Twitter handle esseledge. I wish I could say it was that clever and it's because I work on legislative issues, but it's actually just jesseleg. Cause I as a middle schooler thought it would be very funny to do leg rather than arm.
- [15:09]
Josh Hammer
Fair enough.
- [15:10]
Jesse Arm
Look, on the Iran stuff, there's a lot of people freaking out, right? I see a lot of hawks within the Republican coalition panicked about what is in the MoU according to leaks from institutions like Bloomberg and CNN. I see a lot of doves within the conservative coalition or people who have been skeptical and hostile to this administration's efforts in the Middle east since they kicked off last year with last summer with Operation Midnight Hammer. You know, they seem to be a little bit more excited that this is coming to a conclusion, but it's not like the administration is suddenly earning plaudettes from that crowd either. So nobody seems to be particularly happy on the right. Nobody is ever happy on the left. But I kind of fall in between everybody at this point, to be perfectly frank with you, which is just let's see where the chips fall. The administration has yet to conclusively say here's what's in the memorandum of understanding and here is what's not. We can be critical and skeptical of what was released in the MoU according to the Iranians via their media agencies or via even what corporate media outlets like CNN and Bloomberg are saying is in the deal. But until the White House is telling us something definitively, I don't think we should totally panic. And here's what I will say about what the White House is saying. Donald Trump has been very clear from the get go, if the Iranians don't do what I like, if they misbehave, we will punch back. We will bomb them again. We will do it very hard. I tried to explain this on CNN the other night. The other panelists weren't really hearing it. They were saying that would be very stupid. But look, I think the most Prudent thing that this president can do is say the Iranians are only as trustworthy as you know, I say they are. And I'm always going to be retaining my optionality to take aggressive action if I see fit.
- [17:05]
Josh Hammer
You can follow Jesse arm on X at Jesseleg not Jesse underscored as I now know. He's the VP of External affairs at the Manhattan Institute and point very well taken. I agree with that. For what's worth. We have not gotten the definitive word from the administration yet. We've seen leaks from Bloomberg and from the Saudi station, Al Arabia. Some people are saying these leaks are the real thing. But unless and until that shoe drops, I do think that you are correct that it's a little premature to issue a definitive judgment. I do want to switch gears a little bit, Jesse, because your think tank, the Manhattan focuses a lot on urban policy, a lot on New York City perhaps. Above all, after all, it is in the name the Manhattan Institute. And Zoramdani has been something of a leitmotif on this show ever since last year. We've had a number of segments, number of guests who has spoken about the Zopocalypse, if you will. It seems like every day ending in wide, there is some new headline that involves Ramadani saying or doing something crazy. I want to just get your gut check. You're really in the weeds of this. At a prominent conservative think tank which is based in New York City. How is Namdani experiment going thus far relative to expectations? So that's kind of the key point there, Jesse, is that it could have been truly catastrophic. Is it actually truly catastrophic or is it just bad and not truly catastrophic?
- [18:18]
Jesse Arm
So look, the Manhattan and Manhattan Institute on the one hand, refers to the place where we are located. It also secondarily kind of refers to our outlook in a certain way. The kind of conservatives that we are. We are a modern institution. We are, it is kind of to be read as like Cosmopolitan or Bain. We are sort of the institution on the American right that cares about institutions that are blue, big cities, higher education. We think that we have to fight to have a foot in the door, even if we're not going to win overwhelming majorities in these institutions today or tomorrow because they are important for determining the course of our culture, our future and the country. So here's what I'll say similarly about Zoran Mamdani. I'm starting New York and then kind of look outward about what it means for the rest of the country. His election, Zoram Hamdani a socialist, someone with sympathies for Islamists abroad, is an earthquake. It was something that until very recently would have been unthinkable in the nation's largest city, New York, but it happened. He's running into all kinds of hurdles with respect to his policy agenda. Those free buses have not arrived yet. A lot of buses don't arrive on time in New York City, if you've ever taken it regularly. But he's there and he's making an impact. And, you know, there was a lot of reporting in the lead up and immediately following his election that suggested that Mamdani was keenly aware of the politics of his victory as the first socialist mayor of a major city in the United States, and that he wanted to really be a communicator in chief, that he was going to source out a lot of the policy work to deputy mayors and he was going to be willing to kind of slow down things on some of these big fights he's ran into with Albany, with the City Council. And because he is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America member, he has a long record of radical organizing. The DSA crowd and the hard left crowd that are typically freaking out about Democratic politicians are lending this mayor a little bit of a longer leash to do good governance reforms, things of that nature. I don't think this experiment has been going particularly well thus far in New York City. I also don't think it has been an unmitigated disaster. I think it's quite possible we could get to unmitigated disaster territory. But I think what's also interesting is the political, political impact you're seeing around the country. Just yesterday we had the mayoral election in Washington, D.C. where Zoran Mamdani Light appears to be the winner by a pretty wide margin. Janice Lewis George is another socialist who is going to be running Washington. Washington is in a unique circumstance because there's a deputy mayor of Washington, D.C. informally, who goes by the name Donald Trump, who is the President of the United States. Look, if Janice Louis George cancels these curfews tomorrow and we've got youth getting out of hand and overriding parts of Washington, D.C. late into the evenings, I wouldn't be surprised to see the president flirt with, you know, deploying the National Guard selectively to neighborhoods at certain times or even, who knows, martial law could be something that enters the conversation at some point. I would not put anything off the table. The president is not going to let Washington degrade itself. He's already made quality of life improvements by deploying The National Guard, who have had a deterrent effect for crime by fixing fountains, by making an effort to do what the Obama administration tried to do by addressing the algae problem in the reflecting pool outside of the Washington Monument, between there and the Lincoln Memorial. The president cares about aesthetics, the president cares about the city. So he's going to push back against the socialist mayor here. But again, the point is that this is the trend. We've also got a socialist on the ballot in Los Angeles who's going to be running against the failed leadership of Karen Bass, which is going to be on the ballot in just a couple of months. I wouldn't be surprised to see Nithya Raman, the socialist there, win her election. And then we ask ourselves this question, right, with socialists leading cities all over the country, and then we see the downstream effects that are negative. What's going to happen?
- [22:19]
Josh Hammer
We actually have a little bit of
- [22:20]
Jesse Arm
a blueprint from what might happen. San Francisco, San Francisco has done this doom. They embraced all the progressive, radical, experimental policies and now they've got a new mayor who is more in the moderate Democratic mold. He's a corporate business guy, more of a competent, good governance moderate type who is trying new things. He's not my kind of preferred politician. He's not a conservative Republican lawmaker. But he is certainly not what Zoran Mamdani or Janice Louis George are and Daniel Lurie in San Francisco. So I think that is kind of the doom loop that we may see get run in some of these other cities.
- [22:57]
Josh Hammer
And just, just about 30 seconds left, unfortunately in our conversation. But before I let you go, I just want to get your quick prediction on your home state Senate race. I mentioned that you are from Michigan. Your home synagogue, if I'm not mistaken, had this brutal near massacre just a few months ago back in March. There is someone with some suspicious ties, shall we say, to some Islamist circles. Abdul El Sayed, who was one of the leading candidates to be the Senate Democratic candidate there in the primary. Is he going to win and is this the direction of the Michigan Democratic Party more generally?
- [23:24]
Jesse Arm
Yeah, I've written about this race. I wrote recently about it for the Daily Wire and talked about why I think Abdul El Said can be credibly classified as an Islamo leftist, which we've seen more and more of in left of center politics across Europe. It's a major proxy battle for the future of the Democratic Party in Michigan this cycle. Haley Stevens is the normal, moderate, conventional Democratic option. She is down in a number of polls to this figure. Abdul Al Said we have all of these indications of how aggressively Democratic politics are changing. The UAW endorsed Abdul Said without making any mention of manufacturing or the auto industry in their endorsement. This is the perfect suggestion for us that Omni caused leftism is taking over. Everything is the same issue. Abortion rights are, climate rights are, Gaza. They're all interconnected. Abdul Al Said is a kind of soldier for that cause and I do think he has a strong chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
- [24:22]
Josh Hammer
Well, unfortunately we're out of time, Jesse. We'll keep our close eyes on that race. I agree with you fully. That is a real proxy for November, folks. Follow Jesse Arm on xessylague. Jesse, first time guest, hopefully not a last time guest. Enjoy the rest of your day, my friend. Thank you for joining the program. Be right back with more on the other side.
- [24:39]
Investment Advertiser
Here's something most people don't know. When Warren Buffett was just 13 years old, he didn't put his money into a savings account. While other kids were earning next to nothing at local banks, Buffett put one $114 into a little known investment. Today that $114 would be worth over $15 million. And it wasn't a risky trade. It wasn't even insider knowledge. It was an account that's been around since 1888. And over the last 25 years it's averaged 29% a year. That's what happens when your money is allowed to compound. Compare that to today's savings accounts paying less than half a percent while inflation quietly eats away at your buying power. Buffett understood early banks are great businesses, just not for savers. If you'd like to see what some investors call the 29% account, go now to account29.com that's account the numbers29.com again account29.com.
- [25:41]
Josh Hammer
Welcome back. Good stuff there from Jesse Arm. I love the way that he referred to this radical Hezbollah adjacent, let's call him candidate for US Senate in Michigan, Abdul El Sayed as being an Islamo leftist, very similar to this man who is going to likely be the congressman From New Jersey's 12th congressional district, Adam Homily, who was a witness on behalf of the so called Blind Sheikh, the terrorist Mastermind of the 1993 World Trade center bombing. Yes, that literally is who this man is. There is a real chance that they both make it into the next Congress come January 2027. God help us. So you have that happening. You have Zoramdani, who is the mayor of the nation's largest city of Western Civilization's arguably most important city. And what you have is you have a political movement, the left, and a party, the Democratic Party, that is going all in for these thesis, for the proposition that there is no issue trying to harmonize and synchronize Islam with America values, American values, constitutionalism, America as a whole, the west as a whole, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. On the other hand, what you could have, what you could have, and indeed what you should have, as my late friend Charlie Kirk liked to argue, quite frequently, I might add, what you could have is an alternative paradigm, a vision of the right, a concerted movement, a Republican Party that stands boldly and unapologetically for Americanism, for constitutionalism, and for the related corollary notion that Islam is categorically incompatible with Western civilization. The problem is that in order to arrive at that correct conclusion, at a bare minimum, you have to understand that the most radical Islamist regime on earth is not negotiating in good faith. These are not rational actors, the people who are negotiating on behalf of Iran. By the way, I saw Vice President Vance and President Trump actually was saying very similar things that the folks they're talking to seem like they're rational. They want to get over these terrible past 47 years. Eh, forget it. Let's turn over the page, turn over the leaf, start a new life together, Kumbaya, smoke the peace pipe. I don't know if they do that in Islam, but smoke whatever kind of pipe, the hookah, whatever you want to call it. Not how it works. If Vice President Vance actually thinks that the people that he is speaking to are trying to turn Iran into a new page, to have genuinely cordial relations with the United States, he might be the only person who thinks that. Indeed, that was over the own internal assessment of President Trump's own CIA director, John Ratcliffe, who has almost been fired this week for having the temerity, the chutzpah, to say that, you know what? Based on the track record, based on their professed ideology, their actions, etcetera, we can't trust these guys because they will not actually abide by their word. When they signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty back in the 70s, they violated time and time again. When they signed the Barack Obama nuclear, they violated time and time again. That's why they've enriched uranium to way above whatever they said they would. That's why they've hidden the IAEA inspectors and on and on and on and on and on. So the whole thing doesn't make sense. Ronald Reagan used to talk about How Republicans conservatives do better when they run in bold colors, when they define themselves in bold stark contrast to their subversive leftist, Marxist political foes. That was good advice then and it remains good advice now. If you're trying to run against a radical political party. That among other things, yes, they're obsessed with race. Yes, they're obsessed with the rainbow agenda. More on that in just a few minutes. By the way, they're obsessed with all that. But they're also obsessed with trying to harmonize that which cannot be harmonized, namely, above all, Islam with the west and with cultural and legal Americanism. The bold, stark contrast would be to stand athwart that and say, no, we are here to protect our homeland, to protect our people, to protect our flag, protect our Constitution, protect our way of life. And above all, that means not treating in good faith eschatological, apocalyptic, 12th Imam, immunotizing Islamists who've been trying to kill the United States of America and our allies for 47 years. Again, release the darn MLU text and we will then go from there. Now, one of the things that President Trump has said over the past couple days, interestingly is, and interestingly is a somewhat charitable way to put it, is he said that without him, Israel would not exist. Now, I understand where he's coming from at a certain level, I really do. President Trump has been by whatever has happened over the past few weeks, President Trump has been by far, by far the most pro Israel president since 1948 and the founding of the modern Jewish state. No one can ever deny that. No one ever should deny that it is objectively, empirically true. And I will say, here's where I will play a little bit of devil's advocate to some of my peers in the space. I will say that it's not a great look, if you, like me, support a robust US's reliance, it's not a great look to immediately turn fully on the guy who has done so much in this space. Donald Trump, despite all of what we said on today's show, does still deserve, at a certain level a benefit of the doubt. He's done so much for this alliance. Having said that, he said a very dumb thing this week where he said that without him Israel would not exist. I don't think think that is the view of any God fearing Jew or Christian. Israel exists because it's the Promised Land, because it's all over the Hebrew Bible. It's all over the Old Testament. It is the land. It is the land that God gave to his Chosen people is the entire story of the Torah, of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The five books of Moses is getting to the Promised Land. In fact, interestingly, you actually could, if you're really inclined, make a somewhat different argument that it's not that without America, Israel now exists. If you actually wanted to, you could in theory make the argument that without the story of Israel, not the modern state, but the story of Israel as a whole going back to the Bible, you can make the case that without that, America would not exist. Funny enough, Mike Huckabee, the very biblically literate Southern Baptist pastor of a US Ambassador to Israel, he actually made that exact case. It was a very, very interesting clip. Let's go ahead and watch this from Ambassador Mike Huckabee. But it is also my job to represent the importance of Israel to the United States. This is just another reminder that it is your heritage, without a doubt. But Minister, it is also the heritage of the United States. Without Israel, without the Jewish foundation, there would not be an America. We owe our very existence to what happened in this land. So in response to that historically accurate clip, Huckabee was getting it from all the likely suspects from the whole Tucker, Megan, Candace, Orbit, the groipers saying that you're trying to Judaize America. But Huckabee is fundamentally correct in what he said here. The story of the children of Israel, the story of the exodus from Egypt above all perhaps was the foundational story that inspired the American founders. Heck, it actually inspired generations before the American founding. When the pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower across the great ocean, they viewed themselves as the modern day equivalents of the ancient Israelites crossing their version of the Red Sea to flee their version of oppression in Pharaoh's court back in Egypt. In fact, as George Washington himself wrote on June 14, 1789 to the Hebrew Congregation in Savannah, Georgia, he wrote, quote, may the same wonder working deity who long since delivering the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, planted them in the Promised Land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of heaven and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah. He is saying, may the God of Israel continue to bless these United States. Essentially what he is saying, there are too many other examples to count. There was a founding father by name of Elias Bodino, who's actually the founder of the American Bible Society. He was of the opinion I'm not exaggerating. He actually said repeatedly he was also a high ranking professor at Yale University back in the day. He actually said that he thought that the reason that America was so blessed by God was so that America could be used to help restore the Jewish people to the promised Land. He viewed that as part of his Christian Zionism. American history is replete with these examples. Just look at the Liberty bell today. Leviticus 25:10 Thou shalt proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof. There's actually a park in Jerusalem where I just was a couple weeks ago dedicated to the Liberty Bell. There are streets in Israel named after George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln who famously referred to America as being an almost chosen people. So it's been a common theme of our history and we forget that history at our peril, which is why I'm actually pleased to share with you on the show the first time they have a brand new book coming out next year. It's tentatively called Covenant and How the Hebrew Bible Made Christian America. It'll be a logical sequel to a book out last year. I'm really excited to get started in earnest on this project. It's a book not about foreign policy, but really about America and correcting the historical record on these exact topics. Fortunately, Mike Huckabee, our current ambassador to Israel, is a man who needs no such correction. But for now, folks, just make a mental note. Be on the lookout sometime next year for my next book, covenant and how the Hebrew Bible Made Christian America. Folks, one final commercial break. We'll be right back. Some closing thoughts after this.
- [35:50]
Aura Advertiser
Most people don't realize how much personal information is bought and sold daily.
- [35:54]
Investment Advertiser
Data brokers collect your data from public
- [35:56]
Aura Advertiser
records and the Internet, selling it with without your consent to scammers and telemarketers. That's where AURA comes in.
- [36:03]
Investment Advertiser
AURA automatically removes your data from broker
- [36:05]
Aura Advertiser
sites and alerts you to dark web breaches.
- [36:08]
Investment Advertiser
Plus, you get complete identity theft protection,
- [36:10]
Aura Advertiser
a vpn, antivirus and a password manager all in one app. Start your free trial@aura.com safe.
- [36:23]
Josh Hammer
Welcome back. So other domestic news happening as there always is, it was primary night on Tuesday nights in various states across the country. So Georgia, Oklahoma, Washington, D.C. among those jurisdictions who went to the polls. So in Georgia, it looks like the challenger for Jon Ossoff, who's one of the most vulnerable Democratic senatorial incumbents this fall. His challenger will be Mike Collins. So Mike Collins was the endorsee of President Trump. This was one of these President Trump versus Governor Kemp Mano a mano endorsement matchups. Governor Kemp had gone for Derek Dooley, the former Tennessee Volunteers college football coach who was from Georgia and was trying to run for Senate there. Mike Collins, who was a maga, perhaps you might even call him ultra MAGA Congressman. He is now the Senate nominee to take on John Ossoff. Collins has some skeletons in his closet, which is why a lot of folks were trying to steer away from him. He will probably defeat Ossoff. If I had to guess, partially depends on the political climate this fall, depends on the economy, inflation, all the above. And in any event, score that as a win for Donald Trump. Donald Trump getting another victory as well in Oklahoma, where Kevin Hearn is going to be the nominee and therefore in a very red state, essentially the guaranteed next senator to replace Mark Wayne Mullen, who of course has gone from the US Senate over to the Department of Homeland Security. The tentative short term temporary senator who was selected by Governor Stitt in Oklahoma is an oil executive, a billionaire by the name of Armstrong. Due to somewhat in the weeds statutory reasons in Oklahoma, he cannot run for a full term. Therefore, it looks like Kevin Hearn, who is the Trump endorsed Congressman from Oklahoma's 1st congressional district, he will go ahead and all but assuredly be the next U.S. senator from Oklahoma. If you look at the picks more generally though, if you start kind of getting in the weeds a little bit more, it looks like Trump is batting at a near 1000% level. Not quite, but a very close to 1000 level when it comes to his federal picks. When it comes to his picks for US Congress, think about Thomas Massie in Kentucky, four his picks for US Senate, think about Ken Paxton over John Cornyn. We just mentioned Mike Collins over Derek Dooley, et cetera, et cetera. He's doing really, really, really well when it comes to these federal picks and surely, sure enough, when it comes to some state picks. Thinking about the Indiana redistricting fight, he's doing really well there too. But some of the other state picks, it gets a little more interesting. So in Iowa, for instance, when Trump endorsed Randy Feenstra, the congressman to be the next governor of Iowa to replace Kim Reynolds, Randy Feenstra actually lost his primary to Zach Lane. If you look at South Carolina, it looks like Donald Trump's pick for governor is actually going to lose to Alan Wilson. Looks like Kansas might be an issue as well. And on and on we go. So you see this interesting contrast between our national politics, which is totally Trump dominated on the right, and the state level politics, which at Least are a little more interesting a little bit. Again, Indiana really still went for Trump, but you get the idea. So the notion that I'm getting at here is maybe there really is an ideas policy based post Trump future on the right. Trump is such an overwhelming force, personality overwhelming that so often over the past 10 years we have been forced to debate whether the whole Trump America first phenomenon, is it just cult of personality or is it policy and substance? Has the movement, the party, all the above, has it actually shifted in a more nationalist, populist, working man, blue collar direction? Or is this all just a total smokescreen for Trump being so dominant with his 99.99999999% name recognition that whatever he says goes and it's a legitimate debate. Is there such thing as Trumpism? Without Trump, the debate continues 10 years after he won the primary back in 2016. What I'm getting at is the slightly less successful all our loyalty to Trump in some of these state levels suggest that there is a hunger for some more ideas and less personality based conservatism at a more local level. I think often about Florida and Texas, the nation's two largest red states. I'm a former citizen of Texas now I live in Florida. My concealed carry license, my law license and various other things are back in Texas, but I live here in Florida these days. There's been a very healthy competition between Florida and Texas for years now as to basically who can out red state the other state. It's a very, very, very healthy form of intra red state federalism. For instance, when Ron DeSantis recently led our state's current redistricting fight up in Tallahassee, he was really responding above all to Greg Abbott in Austin. Texas was the first mover when it came to the mid decade. Trump pushed redistricting push and then Florida responded in kind. So potentially that could be somewhat of a blueprint for what a state level conservatism at a local and state level could look like moving forward. So just put a thumb in that for now. We'll come back to that of course as we get more information. But for top headline looks like Jon Ossoff will be taking on Mike Collins this November. It'll be interesting, interesting matchup. Georgia very much won the seats that Republicans will be looking to flip. Speaking of leftist radicalism, because John Ossoff called himself a moderate, but he is anything from that. I want to circle back briefly to Minnesota. Minnesota was a topic that we covered on the show basically every day for a period there in January Back during this mini insurrection under the auspices of Tim Walls and Keith Ellison and the various other deeply corrupt and fraud, addle brained Minnesota Democratic leadership. So the Trump DOJ has now announced it's charging 15 people in Minnesota with respect to trying to impede or injure federal officers, assault on a federal officer, destruction of gun property. All this coming from the mini insurrection that happened in Minnesota earlier this year. As we said on the show at the time, you do not have an obligation to affirmatively assist the Feds while they're executing federal law, but you definitely don't have a right to, to impede or obstruct them. That is illegal. In fact, we fought an entire civil war to settle that exact question. Yes, these states are sovereign in their legitimate spheres of sovereignty, but trying to actively obstruct or hinder federal law enforcement, that's not it. If anything, that's a violation of the Supremacy clause of Article 6, which says that this Constitution, treaties and statutes are the supreme law of the land. That means that the feds ultimately, when putsch comes to shove, are supreme over the states. This is one of the most basic compromises that got us the Constitution of 1787 from the failed Articles of Confederation. So that history aside, it's a very, very good thing that some of these mini insurrectionists are being prosecuted in Minnesota because it sends a message that you can't thwart federal law enforcement. You want to stand there with your stupid dumb signs, go away, Ice. Whatever, bro. If that's how you want to have fun, you prefer that to sitting your basement playing video games all day, whatever, go for it. But you can't obstruct an investigation. Now, 15 people have been charged by this DOJ in Minnesota for doing exactly that. And it is very, very welcome news to my ear. Finally, I want to circle back to close out today's show to a story that we hit on yesterday, which is a story out of San Francisco. So San Francisco, one of the most rainbow friendly, what's called cities in America, the city of Harvey Milk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They celebrated, quote, unquote, pride night the other night. It is June after all. And they put the SF logo on the Giants team, on the MLB team's baseball cap in Rainbow. And you had some Christian pitchers who wrote Bible verses, namely Genesis Bible verses referring to the covenant with Noah on the side of that. And they are now being reprimanded by Major League Baseball. So first of all, let's go ahead and actually listen to this clip from an Arizona dimebags patriot by the name of Ryan Thompson who spoke on MLB warning the Giants not to do this. So go ahead and listen to this clip from Fox 10 Phoenix.
- [44:41]
Ryan Thompson
A lot of the hate comes from perceived negativity and without getting too off track, but like the pride night stuff with the Giants, like, I think that there's a perceived negativity with this stuff of like, okay, Landon Raup wrote a verse on his hat that means that he's anti something. That doesn't mean that, right? It means that he's pro something. Right? So the rainbow means something to him. It means that he believes in the Noah covenant being something that's special to us as Christians. Right? That means that no matter how bad we possibly could be, no matter how much we reject God, that he will never again flood the earth. That's really cool. That's really special. And we do a lot of stuff and we're all sinful. We all do a lot of stuff that may be worthy of a flooding, but God will never flood us. And because of that promise and his promises are unconditional. So that's something that's really cool to me is that there's nothing negative, there's nothing anti. There's nothing that says that he doesn't support anything or that he's like hateful or anything like that at all. It's all positive. It's all like, man, this is what the rainbow means to me. And I just thought that was really cool to hear.
- [45:40]
Josh Hammer
Did that so fun fact. We in Judaism have a prayer, a blessing that we say every time we see a rainbow that refers to how God remembers his covenant. Zochar Habrid I'm not going to say the full blessing, but it's about remembering the breach, remembering the covenant. We say that every single time we see a rainbow. So that's what these Christian pictures were doing. It's really cool, actually. It's a really, really, really cool harmonization of the two biblical religions, Judaism and Christianity. I love it. And shame on Major Basil. Shame on mlb. They let their players, their team, their names be signs advertisements for BLM and for any cause as you're. But God forbid, God forbid a Christian put a Genesis quote there, then the whole roof comes falling down. It is absolutely, absolutely shameful. Josh Hawley, a Missouri descender, is writing to MLB to try to get to the bottom of this. Good for him. We wish him the best of luck because this should never happen. Good for these pitchers for standing up. I say to the rainbow agenda, folks, have a great rest of your evening. Josh Hammer signing off. We'll be right back. As always, tomorrow,
- [46:45]
Investment Advertiser
Here's something most people don't know. When Warren Buffett was just 13 years old, he didn't put his money into a savings account. While other kids were earning next to nothing at local banks, Buffett put $114 into a little known investment. Today, that $114 would be worth over $15 million. And it wasn't a risky trade. It wasn't even insider knowledge. It was an account that's been around since 1888. And over the last 25 years, it's averaged 29% a year. That's what happens when your money is allowed to compound. Compare that to today's savings accounts paying less than half a percent while inflation quietly eats away at your buying power. Buffett understood early banks are great businesses, just not for savers. If you'd like to see what some investors call the 29% account, go now to account29.com that's account the numbers29.com again, account29.com.