It's A Saturday Morning Bonus Podcast For 11-23-24

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Michael Berry Show.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
We love Victor Davis Hanson here on The Michael Berry Show.
He's been a guest on our show many times over
the years, and he had some interesting things to say
about why Trump won the twenty twenty four election, and
we've been spending a lot of time ourselves explaining it.
I read the article by g Guria. I never heard

(00:21):
of him before that appeared in the Free Press. I
think it's important to understand why we won this election. Anyway,
this is the entirety of that of that piece by
Victor Davis Hanson that we used earlier in the week
in the in the six o'clock or the second hour
of our show.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
But even if you heard that, you haven't heard this
entirety of it. So give it a listen.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Victor, thank you Simus for giving us your time.

Speaker 4 (00:46):
I thank you.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
Very important moment in him and history. One of Australia's
top journalists, Paul Kelly, has just said this about the
American election. The wide swathes of Middle America. New Trump
wasn't any saint, but they turned the electoral matte red
because they endorsed his bedrock positions that living standards were

(01:09):
in retreat, inflation was too high, borders were not secure,
and elites were too arrogant. Is that a fair assessment.

Speaker 4 (01:20):
I think it's a very fair it's a very accurate assessment.
I think they also saw that the occasional crudity of
Donald Trump was almost a mechanism and their desperation that
was necessary to get the attention of the elites. In
other words, they wanted somebody who wouldn't equivocate and didn't

(01:40):
come from that milieu. And so they were really saying,
your agenda has no support, and yet you're ramming it
down our throats, and you won't listen to us, and
you make fun of us, You call us garbage, deplorables.
They were deemables, clingers, chumps, drags. These are all pejoratives
that Biden and Obama and the Clintons of yous and

(02:04):
you forced us to do this. But we have now
a champion, and he's going to cut through all of
this and remind you that we run the country in
not Hollywood or the institutions, or's academia Silicon Valley. And
so they were in a complete bubble about what this
earthquake was about to hit them or this storm. Everybody

(02:27):
could see it. I think some of them saw it.
But the media felt in the last seventy two hours
maybe or four days, if they rigged a poll in Iowa,
or they said that it was dead even or that
the Senate was going to be held by the Democrats,
that would either get people to the polls or it

(02:50):
would raise money or create momentum. But John, there were
so many indicators that would prove what mister Kelly said
that the registrations were an all time high for Republicans.
They had gained six hundred thousand registrations since the last
time they contested Pennsylvania in twenty twenty. They had been

(03:12):
completely dumbfounded in twenty twenty on non election day balloting,
and yet they had more people non election day ballot
They mastered the art of early and male in ballet
than the Democrats did. They got almost twenty five percent
of black males. That really and then that wasn't really

(03:33):
the key statistic. Black males who did not vote for
Donald Trump stayed home, and so these big sinners that
they count on to swarm rural areas in Detroit, Pittsburgh,
Philadelphia were not there in sufficient numbers. They said there
was a female gap and that Donald Trump was a
sexist and he had alienated women. He got in many

(03:54):
states he got more suburban white women than he did
than did he the Hispanic vote, and we'd talked about that.
I had never seen a and I live in a
Mexican American community overwhelmingly so. But I had not talked
to a Mexican American over the age of forty male

(04:16):
Mayo who was going to vote for Kamala Harris. And
that had not been true. In twenty sixteen. They even
had the Omish going out, They worked the Arab American
Muslim vote, They split the Jewish vote, which usually is
seventy thirty. All of that was known to the posters
and to the media, and yet they kept telling us
that Donald Trump was dumbfounded by Saturday Night Live, that

(04:41):
Donald Trump had threatened to kill Liz Cheney, that Donald
Trump wanted to kill the media, and they didn't. Everybody
got sick of them. They didn't like to be lectured too,
and they knew what was going to happen. Everybody that
I knew from the middle classes thought Donald Trump was
going to win, and I could feel it.

Speaker 3 (05:04):
The pict to The reality is is it looks to
be the case from here. All the money, all the celebrities,
all the so called influences, most of the media were
absolutely one sided and painting Trump as a threat to democracy.
This is surely actually in the end a win for
democracy because people saw through it all. They're not the

(05:25):
mugs that the elites take them to be.

Speaker 4 (05:30):
No, they, as you say, they had academia, Hollywood entertainment,
the celebrities, the money, Wall Street, the foundations. All they
lacked was the people because their agenda they had lied
to the American people. They had said Donald Trump was
a disruptor, a disuniter, and we under old Joe Biden

(05:54):
from Scranton in twenty twenty will unite the country under moderation,
and that was a complete live. They used him as
a vessel and empty vessel for an Obama extreme agenda
of open borders with no health or background checks, twelve
million illegal aliens, uninhabitable downtown of our major cities. They

(06:16):
were overridden with crime, an attack on fossil fuels, nuclear power,
a disastrous foreign policy that you could define it by
the Afghanistan debacle or the two wars in Ukraine and
the Middle East, or the Chinese balloon or China threat
to Taiwan. In addition to that, at a time when

(06:40):
the supply chains were still stagnant, consumer demand was ascending
at astronomical levels. After the COVID lockdown, they printed money
and so they put fake dollars in the hands of
consumers when they couldn't get goods, and the result was
nine percent inflation and inflation thirty percent in toto of

(07:02):
staples and food insurance rent. So they didn't care about
the middle class, and they kept telling them, you're mistaken.
The border is secure, Mister mill York has said, inflation
is moderate. Kamala Harris said, Biden amis is working. People
abroad have never been more impressed with you. It was

(07:24):
all a lie. And the people finally just waited and
did their time, and they said, we can't take this anymore,
and we're going to send a message no matter what
you've said. But I don't think over there you wouldn't
get a sense of the on reality where you would
talk to people, and they really really did believe they
were going to turn on their TV sets because The
New York Times Ciena Pole or Nate Silver said that

(07:47):
the Washington Post pole had been rehabilitated, or the Quinnipac pole.
They showed it was Debonie even, or Harris was ahead
in the popular vote, or Pennsylvania was a sure thing,
or Ted Cruz was only two points ahead, or Iowa
was three points and it was all completely bogus. There
was no factual basis, no data for any of it.

(08:08):
It was just a mechanism of massaging the outcome.

Speaker 3 (08:14):
Did you see yourself or imagine such a decisive victory?

Speaker 4 (08:19):
Did I imagine the victory such a deacon victory? Is? Yeah,
I thought he had a good chance of winning the
popular vote, just because if you have a Republican candidate,
and the way it works here, as you know, they
lose the urban areas and the minority votes, and they

(08:41):
count on the rural areas. And under the Obama massaging
those urban areas had reached such a you know, when
Obama ran in twenty twelve against Romney for reelection, he
won one precinct in Philadelphia, very dubiously, so thirty thousand
to one. How can you ever make that out? When

(09:05):
you hear that Donald Trump was going to get half
of the Latino vote, or he was going to get
twenty five percent of the black vote, or he was
going to get union people or the United Auto Workers
or the Teamsters. That hasn't happened here. And this was

(09:26):
a man that they said was racist and polarizing and hateful.
And then when you saw that suburban white women were
going over him. At the time, we were told all
they care about is abortion on demand. Yeah, you can
see that he had made inroads. And you had to
superimpose that fact on the reality that unlike a Bob

(09:50):
Dole or Mitt Romney or John McCain, he had a
fanatical base in rural and small town America. And I
mean fanatical is defined by they would do anything to
vote for him. If there's a hurricane in rural North Carolina,
they didn't matter. They were going to get out and
win him that state. Nobody had ever seen such loyalty

(10:12):
by these irredeemables. These were the people of East Palestine
in Ohio that the administration completely ignored when they had
a toxic fume. They were the people that were in
the hurricane damage that they were very tardy in helping.
And so I think it's a very good lesson because
it's democracy and representative democracy in its best form. You

(10:36):
know what another irony we were told John that with
the National Voters Compact that the Blue States had were
only sixty one votes short of getting rid of the
Electoral College, which has a lot of constitutional protections in
it and has a long history of utility for both sides.
And these state legislatures had voted to go around the

(11:01):
amendment process, which they could never do. You need two
thirds of Congress, three fourths of the state and just
have the states adhere to the national vote and reject
the state vote. Because they were sure they were going
to win the national vote, and they had won the
national every national vote since two thousand and four, for
twenty years, and they hadn't They a Republican hadn't gotten

(11:24):
fifty one percent of the majority votes since nineteen eighty eight.
And guess what. Donald Trump was the first person in
twenty years on the Republican side to win the popular vote.
He will probably be the first Republicans as ninety eighty
eight to win fifty one percent of the popular vote.
And all the states that swore and pass legislation they
would unconstitutionally reflect the national vote. They're not doing it.

(11:47):
California is pledging all of its electors to Harris, who
won the states, as they should. So the more that
the aftermath is really making the left look pretty bad.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
He moved. Trump moved quite quickly in his acceptance speech,
victory speech, whatever you might choose to call it, to
say that he would seek to heal America given that
he may in fact have secured that first majority vote
for so long and so forth is in a position
to do so. America looks so bifurcated, so at war

(12:28):
with itself. I mean, the constant him as a fascist,
I have to say he is. People apparently don't know
what the word means. Oh.

Speaker 4 (12:38):
I must remember that after twenty sixteen, after they were
he and Hillary, she was calling him a Russian agent
and he was calling her quoke and Hillary. Everybody thought that,
given she had destroyed thirty thousand emails and the devices
upon them and they were under subpoena, that he would
have the dl JAGO after and what he's say. The

(13:00):
first thing he said, she's suffered enough. People went to
him and said, you've got to fire James Comy, the
director of the FBI. He tried to sabotage. I'm not
going to do that. He never did any of that.
But how can he heal the country? When Latita James,
a prosecutor in New York who tried to bankrupt him
and said that she's going to press down. How can

(13:21):
you do when Alvin Bragg at the end of the month,
has been to try to put him in jail and
Jack Smith has re indicted him a federal prosecutor for
all of these were minor matters that no other prosecutor
would have picked up. They've never done it against the
next president. And now we're facing a situation where the
left is openly saying, well, we may have lost the election,

(13:44):
but maybe Fanny Willis or Latita James or Alvin Bragg
or Jack Smith can put him in jail, and that
would cause the constitutional crisis. He's been two people tried
to shoot him. People are very afraid of his health
in the next ninety days until he takes power. Everybody

(14:04):
had heard a new Kamala Harris that had rejected thirty
years of her radical, very radical socialist agendas to be palatable.
But everybody now is so cynical. They know that when
she has ninety days left on her vice presidential tenure,
she'll just revert back to what she was before the campaign.

(14:26):
So it's going to The hostility is coming from the left,
and it's always been that way in this cycle of
politics that we've seen. There's something about Donald Trump that
and you see it in your country. You see it
in Europe. Among wealthy elites, educated elites. They feel that

(14:49):
he he should not represent them, even though he has
constitutionally won that privilege of representing, they still don't want
him to be represented by him.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
It's a very patronizing attitude towards it is democracy and
the people's real right to choose their leader. I have
to say so. I would have thought it'd call for
a little bit of humility, But I suppose that's wishful thinking.
A little bit of humility, it might say, well, we're
out of step with what the American people want. How
do we go back and engage in some genuine reflection. No,

(15:23):
I wish we would meet those people and understand their concerns. Well,
that won't happen, I take it. No.

Speaker 4 (15:30):
If you look at the news shows today, and I
stayed up last night and watched a lot of the
left wing cable shows. I thought they would say it's
time to do what the Republicans did after they lost
to Barack Obama, and that was people said to themselves,
we're never going to win an election where they met
Romney or John McKean. We need to broaden the party,

(15:51):
and that's that's what brought in Donald Trump. But they're
not talking about that. They're not saying that the border
or the economic plan, or the third sex, the transsection,
the transgendered mania, none of that is polarizing they think,
So what are they talking about? Instead, we're gonna blame

(16:13):
Joe Biden. We didn't get rid of them quick enough,
or she only had one hundred days to campaign, or
nobody imagined how cruel Donald Trump was, or Fox News
didn't tell the truth. Fox News on a Good Night
has four million, and the left wing networking cables have

(16:36):
twenty five million viewers. So they're in la la land,
and I don't think they're going to get the message
if they lose the Senate at some of the levels
they're talking about. We have two tight races, one in
Pennsylvania and one in Nevada, but they could very easily

(16:58):
be fifty five five disadvantage in the Senate, and the
House looks like it will be main Republican with maybe
two pickups. And the thing that I think your viewers
should appreciate is this will not be a majority like
twenty seventeen when he came in and there were sizeable
numbers of never Trumpers among the Republican ranks that were

(17:22):
more hostile to Trump, McCain being one of them. But
there is no John McCain. There is no Bob Corker,
there is no Jeff Flake in the Senate, there is
no Adam Kissinger type, there is no Liz Cheney in
the House. The people who are in the majority now
are strong supporters to the person of Donald Trump. And
if these trends hold for the next day or two,

(17:45):
we have this embarrassing delayed count in some states. He
will be able to have initiatives that no one has
really had in a quarter century. And there's things that
he's been talking about informally into people that they look
back at Ronald Reagan and they say he was the
best conservative president. But he bought in the right people

(18:08):
and the right plans, but he didn't he didn't institutionalize
those And while they respect the constitution. And Trump will
not do something like the left would do get rid
of the filibuster or the electoral college. He will do
things that are constitutionally substantive, like break up the administrative state,

(18:28):
like put the FBI, for example, in Kansas City and
not in Washington, or maybe look at one cabinetcy Department
of Education to just abolish it. And so they are
talking about things we have not heard said before that
they feel that would make lasting change and stop these pathologies.

Speaker 3 (18:50):
He'll be aided surely by the fact that arguments about
election frud pretty much better down now. I'd be interested
two things. Do you see any evidence of election fraud?
But be presumably the result of sim fatic that it
won't wash anyway. And he has now an authority that

(19:11):
might be crippled by people questioning the process. As to
be fair, he himself did last time round, well last time.

Speaker 4 (19:20):
Donald Trump had no idea what the left was doing
under the pretext of COVID when they went in March
and April twenty twenty used teams of highly paid lawyers
and changed the voting laws in nine or ten states,
to the effect of which was seventy percent of the

(19:41):
electorate would not, for the first time in history, vote
on election day, they would not have identification. The right
had no idea what they were doing. These ballots came
in at double their number and the rejection rate was
one tenth. And so that was the basis for the
claims of fraud, that the ballots were not mad the
registrars and list or they were not fully filled out.

(20:05):
So rather than go down that losing route of complaining
about fraud, what happened was the Republicans mastered that democratic art.
So when you started to look at mail in and
election day balloting in many in most states, the Republicans
not only mastered the art of getting people to mail

(20:26):
in the ballots, but they we find it in the
way that the Democrats had not fully appreciated, and that
is they scanned people who had hardly voted at all,
but were conservative that term that's been used low propensity voters.
Then they went out for them. They just ignored other people,
but they went after the people who never vote and

(20:47):
they got them registered. Six hundred thousand more in Pennsylvania alone,
a state they had lost last time by only eighty
thousand votes, and they got them to mail. Then they
got the high propensity voters and said you can go out.
They knew they would vote on election day. So the
left was saying, well, in our experience, you got to
be careful because if you get an early ballot that

(21:10):
just it's not an increase. They just don't show up.
But in this case, the early ballot got people that
were entirely different cohort and they voted for the first
time in their lives for Donald Trump. And then the
Donald Trump voter who had two prior occasions voted voted
a third time. So it was very brilliant what they did,

(21:32):
and nobody was aware of it. So the Democrats started
a process which the Republicans then inherited and trump them.

Speaker 3 (21:45):
They were real fears. A Cabby in America expressed this
termy the other day that when I was in Colorado
that a cluse result would have produced violence. There's been
no evidence of violence. Now do you think the emphatic
result will actually I mean, will America settle now for

(22:05):
a while, for long enough and you will view to
I don't know what.

Speaker 4 (22:12):
I can't say what will happen on an inauguration day,
but they have a problem and that is there were
arguments that he was a illegitimate in twenty sixteen because
he did not win the popular vote. He will win
the popular vote. He will win the electoral college, not

(22:33):
by one or two votes, but by a substantial mark.
He will get over three hundred electoral votes. He probably
will win the popular vote by three or four percent.
And more importantly, the left has said he'll do another
January sixth if he loses, they will be riots. We

(22:54):
cannot have that. So they put themselves into position that
if you were even to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically in
the fashion that Trump said on January sixth, in the
left's mind, that would be insurrectionists. So now they're going
to try to convince the American people if they hit
the street and try to contest a popular and electoral

(23:14):
college defeat, all they're doing is fulfilling their own prophecies.
They're doing what they're accusing Trump. I don't think it's
going to be very effective, especially because one of the
things that people don't talk about is in twenty twenty,
the minority vote was only twelve percent in these large cities,

(23:35):
and so there was a racial component that the left
said you can't go in and observe mail in vallet
because that's racist. But when you have half of the
Latino vote in twenty five percent of the black vote,
and many blacks and Mexican Americans that take one group
are actually in the larger cities and they're handling the ballots,

(24:00):
then they are eyes and ears that are making sure
that their candidate, Donald Trump is not being cheated. And
that was a dimension that no one quite understood. So
there weren't there weren't these big arguments as last time,
that you can't go and look at the votes. We're
not going to let We're gonna pull the curtains down,
We're going to have dropboxes. Because the people who were

(24:22):
in charge of that apparatus were themselves Trump supporters, at
least in large numbers.

Speaker 3 (24:30):
Nonetheless, we have to assume that they will be pushed back.
So we'll see over the next four years. I assume
a resumption of resistance law fare all over the place.
The influences I noticed, I've been saying, as I understand it,
what will the rest of the world think of America
for doing this terrible thing? Well, the rest of the world,

(24:50):
if you take my country you know, the media has
just been absolutely unable by lines to show any objectivity
at all. And in particular, what is distressing to me
is in Australian We'll come to this in a moment,
unable to assess independently what's best for the rest of
the world, which are the two candidates in a very

(25:12):
dangerous place might have a greater capability to handle the
geopolitical challenges. But my real point here is we've got
such a distorted reality from the media that it's very
hard for anyone to be able to make an objective
a judgment.

Speaker 4 (25:30):
It is in the rest of the world it is.
And you know, I've talked to very senior diplomats and
I've said, you think there's something here that Vladimir Putin
invaded Osatia and Georgia under the Bush administration, he invaded

(25:51):
the Donbars and Crimea. Under the Obama administration, he tried
to take Kiev and the Biden but for four years
when he was eager to go aid within his borders
under Trump? Or why was it there was no major
war in the Middle East? Or why was Iran broke?
Or why to China not send a balloon over the
United States or not serely threatened. So they know that,

(26:14):
and I think the world knows that. So it was
a far safer place when he was there. As far
as Australia, it would be it's kind of ironic that
a lot of the English speaking countries are suspicious of him,
and yet in the United States there has been criticism
from the left that he is such a partisan for

(26:37):
the Western countries and his mother was from Britain, and
that he is especially pro Australian, pro British, even pro
Canadian given the Trudeau government. And he's talked very warmly
of the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Israelis.

(26:58):
And he's not a nice he's accused he as we've
talked before, Johnny, he's a Jacksonian. And what I think
what it means for Australia, he's committed to be a
strong ally of the United States. And what does that
mean in practical terms. He's not going to let China
go into airspace. It's Australia's. If Australia objects, he's not

(27:22):
going to get into your internal affairs. But if an
Australian diplomat says a Chinese ship is coming into our
territorial waters as they do with the Philippines or Chinese
are overflying, he will call up the Chinese and say,
you are vulnerable yourself? Do you want me to That's
how he's transactional like that. But he has a strong
a strong sense of affinity with the countries that best

(27:47):
mirror image the majority and the traditions of English speaking
founded by the British. And I would think people in
Australia and Britain especially would appreciate that. I mean, he's
very anachronistic, and he's been made fun of that had
he still talks of Reagan and Thatcher and Roosevelt in

(28:09):
Churchill and thinks that you know that the British version
of the European Western experience is the one closer to
the American spirit. And we'll see. But I think if
I was if I was a member of the former

(28:31):
British Commonwealth or the present British Commonwealth, I would feel
that this was an opportunity to have an American president
that would take political heat to be a very strong
ally in a way that we haven't seen before. And
I think you're going to see that very quickly. I

(28:52):
think he's going to increase the defense budget. He's already
talked about that, about breaking up the swamp, stopping the
res so we don't end up building one hundred and
seventy seven million dollar F twenty two's or fourteen billion
dollar aircraft carriers alone. We start to produce, as we
did in World Ward two thousands of cheap drones, thousands

(29:15):
of Patriot missiles at a cheaper cost, a whole new
way of trying to defend the West.

Speaker 3 (29:25):
The thoughtful media in Australia, we do have some appointed
to the fact that this has to be raised. Both
our Prime minister and our former Prime minister, our ambassador
to America have been personally, quite unwisely in my view,
critical of President Trump in the past, and there's real

(29:46):
speculation as to what that will mean for the relationship.
It raises the question of people claiming that he can
be vindictive. I'd be interested in your perspectives. I think
our Prime minister and our ambassador they'll be scrammed nowcles
to try and fix the relationship. But they have handed
him something of a club.

Speaker 4 (30:07):
I would have thought, yeah, well, that's what the left says,
But most of those charges are projectionists. So he was
in a position to fire all of the DOJ lawyers,
three hundred of them that had hounded him out. He
did not do that. Obama did that. Biden did that.

(30:27):
He did not do that. Obama weaponized the IRS against
his Trump did not do that. Trump did not indict.
He's not going to have local or state prosecutors work
as surrogates to go after the Biden family. In fact,
I would imagine he might even pardon Hunter Biden. And

(30:53):
he's a transactional kind of art of the deal. So
with the Europeans, and he talks a tough game and
then he he gets them to reluctantly spend one hundred
billion dollars on arms, and then all of a sudden,
the Ukraine War during the Biden administration breaks out, and

(31:15):
they're much better because of Trump. They're in a much
better position to defend themselves. Of course, they don't give
him any credit. So he talks certain ways, but he's
been actually criticized on the right for not being more
vindictive and for not playing tit for tat. I've had

(31:35):
so many prominent Republican people, are conservatives talk to me
and say, you know, somebody's got to talk to him
because he doesn't understand the terms. These people attack him
and attack him, and he mouse often, he replies, but
they're not going to get the message until we start
indicting those people. Or if they want to have sanctuary cities,
then we have to have sanctuary gun cities, or maybe

(31:58):
we our sanctuary this right wing city is. But he
hasn't done that at all, and.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
He will return to Washington, presumably vastly more experienced. He
now knows, I think how the place works, and he
will know. I would imagine who are real change agents
and who to put, who to build around him if

(32:29):
you like a good team around himself, that presumably with
a sympathetic House and Congress, as it appears he will have.
The Cynics might say that will give him unfettered power.
Others might say it will help him govern in a
very clean way. To respond, let's face it to Americans
vital concerns. The economy is not doing well for them,

(32:53):
immigration is a problem, and the elites and their wokism
are mad. People know now much more effectively how to
start to change these things. Would that be a fair assessment.

Speaker 4 (33:06):
Yeah, I think it is he doesn't see that as radical.
He sees it as he's called it common sense. He's
taken the example of Mexico. Mexico sent by deliberation twelve
million illegals. Here, we have three hundred and fifty thousand
people with criminal records that were knowingly let in from
Latin America and Mexico. They've committed horrendous crimes. We have

(33:30):
the cartels that have killed indirectly but by design in
a way, by masking fentanyl with prescription drugs and candy,
even one hundred thousand Americans. And Biden was so afraid
to say anything to Mexico. The first thing Trump said,
and he even said it before the election, I'm going
to call the president of Mexico up and I'm going
to say no more fentanyl and no more illegalation immigration.

(33:53):
I'm going to slap a twenty five percent tariff on you,
and I'm going to probably tax your remittance as you
get sixty billion. We'll see how you like it. And
he's serious about that. He's not trying to bully people,
but he does things like that. So if you have
a international incident where Australia isn't a very vulnerable to

(34:14):
take your country and they feel that they need the
support and encouragement of the United States. He's not going
if he believes that. If he were to agree with you,
he's not going to call up and say, well, on
the one hand, on the other hand, he would say,
what do you need, when do you need it, and
I'll do it. And that's the type of ally he is.
He's not wishy washy, and that's what bothers the left.

(34:38):
They think in nuances or ingredations and incrementalism. He's not that.
For better or worse. He's very decisive. He's not reckless,
but he's very decisive, and he moves very decisively with China,
with Russia, with the radical Islamic world. And if you

(34:59):
think what he said he was going to do in
two thousand and fifteen, he said he was going to
get rid of Isis and in fact they use the bulgarity,
I'm going to bomb the shit out of them. He
said he was going to deal with the Iranians who
had killed Americans in Iraq. That was Solomani. He said
that he was going to cut off Iran and bankrupt him.
He almost did. He would have if they hadn't uplifted

(35:20):
the sanction, all of those things he did. And I
was talking to, you know, to some Israelis diplomats, and
they said, we've had so many sophisticated people who knew
the Middle East, and we've asked them for support, and
they always give us a thousand reasons why they couldn't
do it. And they were asking me, as an American,

(35:40):
what is it with your president? He came over here
and our team said to him, we'd like to finally
get the embassy in Jerusalem. He said it always belonged there.
And then they said, they keep talking about the Golden Heights,
but it's Israeli. He said, yes, it is. That's done.
And then they said, when Iran is the cause of
all these problems, is there any chance that we could

(36:02):
discuss the Iran deal or the one hundred billion in
oil revenue. He said, they're done, We're out of the
Iran deal. We're going to get this. And then they
would say things like the Houthis are terrorists, but no
American would wants to ruffle their Farewell, we'll just call
them terrorists. And as this diplomat spoke to me, he

(36:23):
said he did more for Israel that needed to be done,
not just because he liked Israel, but were fair and
were for the greater good of the Middle East. He
did more in two months than the last fifty years
of American presidencies. And he said the odd thing about
it was he probably was not as sophisticated or as
well read in the intricacies and the nuances of Middle

(36:46):
East history and diplomacy, but he had an innate, I mean,
and sense of Moraley what had to be done and
why it wasn't done. And so that's why he's kind
of you know, you to Israel today and he doesn't
mention Israel much, He doesn't really talk about it, but
when you go to Israel, he's almost a sainted figure

(37:07):
because he did more for the autonomy of Israel than
any other president has done, and yet he didn't really
He may John have got forty percent of the Muslim
vote in Michigan, the more the left pan or to Yeah,
he did. Part of it was one of.

Speaker 3 (37:25):
His daughters in the West. We do have a look
in the wish that there are many many people in
the Middle East who are quality cheering Israel on because
they frightened of Iran.

Speaker 4 (37:34):
Yes, he did, and he was He made the argument
that Hamas does not represent or it may have been
elected once, but it's not in the interests of the
people of Gaza that Iran. If you cut off the
head of the snake, then people would be free to
deal with Hesbalah and Hamas and the Hutis. A lot
of people from the Middle East appreciate that, and so

(38:01):
I think it's an exciting time. We'll see if he
gets good people around him. One of the problems that
when you talk to people surrounding him in twenty sixteen,
no one wanted to work for him, The Maverick, the Outsider.
Twenty twenty, it was sort of that he had a team.
Now they're getting six and seven applications for even minor position.

(38:22):
Everybody wants to work for Donald Trump. And I don't
know if he's going to be able to filter out.
But suddenly the thing in Washington is all of these
never Trump or anybody wants to be part of this team.
They're very excited and they're going to have a terrible
time trying to find people who will not do what

(38:42):
happened last time with the anonymous the person in Homeland
Security that was bragging to the New York Times, and
he was sort of an insurrectionist in devailing executive orders
or people in the Defense Department that were overriding Trump's orders.
He's got to get a team that loyal, but he's
got so many people that want to participate.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
He did say, as I understand it, at one point,
that Israeli should go after Iran's nuclear capability. Presumably he's
likely to revisit that, and presumably the Iranians are now
deeply concerned because plainly they've been hit much harder already

(39:28):
by the Israelis, and they're admitting plainly they now know
that Israeli is highly effective with American encouragement. I would
have thought the Israelis could do a men's damage to
Iran and they would be extraordinarily subdued by that. At
the moment.

Speaker 4 (39:48):
Yeah, I would say that because of his Yeah, a
lot of people RFK Tulsi Gabbard around him, and he
is campaign streng against optional military wars in the Middle East,
especially land engagements. Cost of benefit analysis, these are not
worth it. But as I understand, his message to net

(40:12):
Yahoo is it would be better for you if you
feel that Iran is going to attack you again, either
to write it out and then take it in retaliation.
Given the prompt to take out the nuclear facilities, their
military bases, they're oil before I'm president, that would be easier.

(40:34):
So that is the message that I think he's telling
the Israelis, And if they don't do it, I think
the message is the United States is not going to
interfere in your internal affairs. We're not neo conservatives. We're
not going to go try to bomb Iraq and Iran
and change the government. But I can tell you this,

(40:54):
given the provocations that Iran has leveled at you, we're
going to be very supportive of helping you protect your
homeland and more importantly, the decision of what targets to
hit and when to hit them, and how to hit
them as yours as an a grieved sovereign nation, and
we will facilitate your decision. But we're not going to

(41:16):
interfere and tell you you can't do this and you
can't do that. And I think that is one reason
why Iran is very hesitant. They're in a situation now
where they've sent five hundred projectiles into Israel, only about
five or six have hit anything. Israel has retaliated twice

(41:39):
and just demonstrated that they can take out the entire
air defense system of Iran, and the next time they're provoked,
they have the ability to take out all of its
oil revenue ability and its nuclear sites, even if that
were to take a week with complete impunity, And so
Iran now is in a very difficult position if it

(41:59):
doesn't do anything, loses face among its satellites, the Huthis Hezbollah.
If it does do something and provokes Israel a third time,
they may not have any revenue or nuclear program or
any military basis. So there's nothing that can stop the
Israeli Air Force from doing that. And with a new
administration that would encourage Israel to take care of its

(42:22):
own deterrent needs, I think Iran is going to be
very cautious.

Speaker 3 (42:30):
This will have enormous amplifications for Iran's allies, if you like.
I would have thought, particularly the Russians, but also the
Chinese coming to Russia first. In a town hall meeting
not so long ago, the President Trump said, if I'm president,
I will have that war settled in one day, because

(42:53):
MBE will move to try and force a deal. I've
heard this line that he might say to the Ukrainians,
you'll have to see in territory, will stop helping you.
But he might say to the Russians, unless you agree
to something now, we'll give the Ukrainians everything they need.
That's the sort of it would reflect that transactional skill

(43:14):
that he and ability he has. How do you think
he might tackle this.

Speaker 4 (43:20):
Well, I think that's pretty much. He's a deal maker.
So he's not going to go in, as the Left
alleges and just pull the rug from Ukraine, not because
he would agree or disagree with that, but because it
would be impossible for him to get a settlement. He
actually is a much more interested in humanitarian questions than

(43:41):
the Left is. He's talking always about the one million
plus dead wounded, missing on both sides, and largest war
in war Europe since World War Two. So I think
we know the outline of what he wants to do.
He wants to tell the Ukrainians, you have our so
port We're going to continue to arm you, but this

(44:02):
is what I want putin to do and you to do.
During the Obama administration, Obama never said he wanted to
use force to get back the Crimean Dombas. Neither did Trump,
neither did Biden. And I think people who look at
the history of those areas, in the long association within

(44:23):
the areas and in their surrounding areas with Russia, understands
that it was militarily impossible for Ukraine to take back
the Crimea and Dombach. And I think that will be
the bone, one of the two bones that Putin gets.
He can tell the Russian people, I had to go
to war to make sure that Crimea remains ours forever,

(44:44):
like it has been since seventeen eighty seven. It was
an independent country for three years after eighty nine. Then
Ukraine took it Fromas. That's will be the propaganda and
the Dombas. This was Stolin, this was Khrushchev's area. He
seated it stupidly to Ukraine. He thought Ukraine would be
part of the Soviet Union forever. Now it's ours. And

(45:04):
then second, Putin will tell the Russian people, we went
to war to make sure that Ukraine is not in NATO,
and I don't think Trump will put it in NATO.
And then Ukraine will say, well, what do we get
out of it? And He'll probably say you're free to
join the EU. We'll try to get a demilitarized zone.
Russia will go back to where they were on February

(45:25):
twenty fourth of twenty twenty two, and we will arm
you to the teeth. And I think that's the outlines
of a deal, more or less, and that would be
I think nobody's going to be satisfied. But it would
stop the blood killing, it would stop the escalation, it
would stop the talk of the use of nuclear weapons.
This week, people had suggested that some of the Russians

(45:46):
were pretty in explosive devices on cargo and passenger planes
headed to the West. If we don't do that, it's
going to be an escalation. And I think he doesn't
want that, so he's willing to be a broker to
cut a deal.

Speaker 3 (46:03):
We know, of course that he he doesn't like the
leader of North Korea very much, refers to him as
a little rocketman. The little rocketman appears to be supplying
mercenaries and quite substantial numbers to Russia. I would imagine
Trump will be onto that one very quickly.

Speaker 4 (46:21):
I think so he was last time. Even there, though
he confounded the left. The left started out saying that
he was too mean. He was too reckless when he said,
my button's bigger than yours. He came in where North
Korea was just being a very useful bulldog that the
China Master cut loose and caused havoc, and then China

(46:43):
kind of chuckled about it. And when they started threatening
to send missiles into the West Coast, Trump was alarmed
and said, I have a bigger button than you do,
and we can do the same thing to you, and
ours will work. He said, ours will work. The left
went crazy, and then he did what everybody who read
any of his books or followed his career knew he

(47:04):
would do. He wrote a letter to North Korea and said,
this is not in your interest to be on the
wrong side of my administration. I'm willing to talk. They talked,
and then he did exactly what he wrote about in
his books. He said, I like mister Kim Jong un.
We can cut a deal. I didn't find him to
be a monster. If you read anything he wrote about.

(47:25):
That's what he always said. When you make a deal,
you do not insult your opposition, and then when you
make the deal, you make sure you get an advantage.
And then after the deal is over, you did not
privately ridicule him, that you praise him to the skies,
and that's exactly what he does. So I would imagine
that he would tell Kim Jong un in stage one,

(47:47):
what you're doing is unacceptable. If you keep doing it,
it's going to end badly for you. Then stage two
is I'm willing to make a deal, and then make
some kind of deal and then pray Kim John un.
And that's where the left came in and said, look
at this, he's praising a dictator, even though he had
They had just told us that he's deliberately antagonizing a dictator.

(48:11):
They had no idea the modus operandi of how he works,
but it was working, and it worked with Putin, and
it worked with Chi and we didn't have a war,
and it worked with the radical islamances. As soon as
he did this, he said, Iran is an outlaw nation.
He killed Solomani. No one even dared to do that.
He bombed the crap, he said, out of Isis. And

(48:32):
then he Iran called him up and said, you've made
us look ridiculous, and Trump said, well, I'm about ready
to hit you. And they said, can we send sixteen
or seventeen missiles over to you in Iraq and Syria
and get close to your base. We'll tell you the
time and the location. Put everybody in and it'll save it.
So he said, yeah, as long as you don't kill

(48:54):
one America. If you kill one American, we're going to
send a salvo. So there's some disagreement the military. Some
people suffered shell shock from the but Iranians basically did
what they said they were going to do it. It
was a put timpkin attack. And then Trump didn't cause
a war, but Iran behaved, and then he put sanctions

(49:15):
on and yet they criticized him for that. They said
he was provoking a war with Iran. And then when
Iran didn't do anything and back down, and they said, well,
they sent missiles in and he didn't reply to them.
He didn't care about America. So we got to the
point whatever he did they were going to criticize, but
it all had utility, and they haven't come up with

(49:37):
any formula or solution that improved on his own. And
as soon as he left the world fell apart. It
really did.

Speaker 3 (49:48):
What does bring us to presidency? There's a general view
in many quarters at the next four or five years.
In other words, during the next presidential term, well is
the most dangerous time of all the warnings that the
Chinese military has been told to be ready by twenty
twenty seven to take Taiwan by force it necessary. I

(50:13):
would imagine that Trump's reelection is hardly being welcomed in
Beijing today.

Speaker 4 (50:22):
No, it is not welcomed. And of course on the
far right there was always a conspiracy theory because of
the lab leak that people felt. I don't subscribe to that,
but is a sign of what the right thought of China.
They felt that the cold COVID that originated in China

(50:43):
was somehow connected to the Chinese fear of Tom Frump
and wanting them out. When in November of twenty nineteen
it was almost sure that he was going to be
re elected, He was ahead of the polls. He would
have been re elected if it had not been for
COVID and the lockdown, and then the George Floyd riot,
which I think in themselves were a result of the

(51:03):
lockdown their intensity. So China realizes that for all the
talk about their they are ascendant, and they are all powerful,
and they have a bigger military. They still have. I
think in most economists will agree that they still have
only about seventy to eighty percent of our GDP. They

(51:24):
have four times the population, and of very crude formations,
that takes four Chinese workers to approximate seventy percent of
what one worker does in the United States. We're a
very productive society and in many areas for all of
the Chinese, stealing and copying were much more pre eminent.

(51:48):
And under Trump, I think China will be faced with
a lot of things that is going to bother them.
They have over three hundred thousand students come here. Most
people think two or three percent are actively agent espionage.
I don't think that's going to continue. I think that
they have a lot of asymmetrical tariffs. They know that.

(52:08):
I think for everyone, Trump will try to outdo their tariffs.
Not a blanket tarraff, but a tit for tat. I
think he will tell the Chinese, if you go and
bully the Taiwanese, or the Philippines or any of our
more prominent allies, we have ways of retaliating against you,
and we will do that, and we wish you wouldn't

(52:29):
do that. The thing about it so strange is that
under prior Republican administrators candidates that believed in the same
theory of deterrence as Trump, there was kind of a
bragadaccio that was different than Trump's. They actually would kind
of brag that we want to get go to war
with them or something. Trump talks a great game, but

(52:51):
he does not want to destroy relations with China or
any of our adversaries. He just wants to remind them
that they have overreached and what they're doing is not
in their interests and they will stop it. But he
doesn't really want to go to war. And there's no
idea of going into Iraq or Afghanistan or bombing Libya

(53:13):
like Hillary did to create some type of utopia. He
doesn't have any dreams like that. It's all Jacksonian and
he wants to protect the Western world. And when I
go to Europe, it's very bizarre john to hear people
who are going to be beneficiaries of Trump's foreign policy

(53:36):
damn him and then praise people who would not lift
a finger to help Europe in a crisis or would
you know? Trump said to the Germans, you're playing with
fire with a North Stream pipeline number two, and you're
heavily dependent on natural gas and we better stop that

(54:00):
for your own benefit. Biden then said he was a
warmonger or he was alienating or ally, and then they
went over Trump tried to stop the pipeline, Biden came
in and green lighted it, which was I think unfortunate.
And the same thing they said Trump was suspended armaments.

(54:21):
He did not. He everything that the Congress opposed approved.
He sent to Ukraine. Eventually Biden came in and put
another arms embargo on Ukraine, and he said he would
only react if it was a major invasion, if Putin
went into Ukraine. He asked Zelenski, do you want to

(54:43):
write out, We'll fly you out of Kiev the first week.
So it's a very it's a very strange paradoxical disconnect
where people who are beneficiaries of American muscularity attacked the
person who cares for them or wants to help them,
and then praise the multilaterals, people who appease and would

(55:07):
allow them to be very vulnerable, and yet it's all emotional.
They just don't like Donald Trump's visage, they don't like
the way he looks, they don't like his accent. They
don't like his mannerisms, they don't like his language, so
they can't get over that.

Speaker 3 (55:23):
You refer to American muscularity. Three questions as we if
you like, bring the boat into Harvard. That muscularity depends
on the vibrancy of the American economy. First question would be,
presumably Trump will not support decisions that around the environment

(55:51):
that hobble American growth. With any great enthusiasm, you'll see
a resetting of America's environmental objectives. Would that be a
a rewaiting in favor of economic growth and cost of moving.

Speaker 4 (56:08):
I think that will be done by executive orders. I
mean he'll preface it as he always do. He loves
I love our water, I love our clean error. I'm
a conservationist, not an environmentalist. I'm a conservationist. But then
he will lift the ev mandate that has almost destroyed
some of our major automakers. That will be gone. He

(56:29):
will promote, especially this new technology of smaller nuclear power
plants that are much safer and much easier to build,
and much quicker to build. He said that when Biden
replied to him, as did Harris, well we're pumping more
natural gas and oil than you did. He just simply said,
you weren't until the midterms and then you copied my protocols.

(56:50):
But you're not telling the truth because if you'd follow
them to their comprehensiveness, you would have been pumping three
to four more million barrels. And he always prefaces that
in terms of Europe, we could be supplying it's a
great deal. We could be supplying Europe with all the
liquid natural gas they want. And of course he said

(57:11):
that it was a big mistake for the Europeans and
Joe Biden to stop the Greek Cypriot Israel natural gas
line to Europe. He's a businessman. He wants as much
production of food, fuel building. He just said the other day,

(57:34):
I'm a builder. Builders in America. Unite. We're gonna build houses.
We're not going to have any homeless. We're going to
get the country movie again. He tells the story almost
every time when he's addressing people. Elon, can you imagine
with this huge rocket, it's ten stories high, it comes down,

(57:54):
it's ten thousand degrees, it's going to burn up everything
or crash in the ocean, and then this arm come
out of nowhere, and I call Elon out, Elon, what
did you do? I grabbed a rocket? Mister president. Can
the Chinese do this? Not for ten years? Mister President.
That's the kind of can't. It's It reminds me of JFK.
He had that same idea that we were going to

(58:16):
get back moving again and build things and be preeminent.
And it's very funny. One of the touchstones is the
way he reacts to Elon Musk, who the Left hates
because of his purchase of X, but his attitude is
my God. He created an electric company. The vehicles are

(58:39):
better than the Big threes vehicles. He's the only person
really to break into the eight three. He saved NASA
from itself. He revolutionized social media. He's a renaissance man.
We've got to get We've got to tap into this
guy's genius. He's American. He's American. This is the kind
of guys we want. Even people he doesn't particularly fond of,

(59:00):
like Jeff Bezos, he's been very fair to. He likes
people like that that are entrepreneurial, successful. He's not envious
of them as most people are. So I think it's
an exciting time if you're an entrepreneur in the United States.

Speaker 3 (59:19):
Well, Elon Musk himself was identified to trillion I think
in potential savings. And that does lead to the question
about America's loss of control of the budget in recent years,
and the prospect that in many ways President Trump may
want to cut taxes, for example, which might have an

(59:39):
even more delectarious effect on that bottom line. Neil Ferguson
was an Australia recently and he made a fascinating comment.
I heard him observe that down he's an economic historian,
of course, that down through the ages, no great country
has remained great for long. When the cost of servicing

(59:59):
its debt succeeds what expends on defense, will America cross
that rivercun as I understand it last financial year getting
that budget under control. It means growth, but it also
means restraint. Elon Musk is pointing to areas where they
can be big savings. How do you see that unfolding?
And how worry you about that budgetary mess? It seemed

(01:00:21):
to actually received very little attention during the campaign.

Speaker 4 (01:00:25):
It does I'm very worried about it. That was his
great failure in the first term. That, of course, it
was the COVID stimulus. He hadn't been as reckless Obama,
but he ended up as being reckless because of the
COVID stimulus. The problem with the thirty six trillion dollar
debt is that half of it was run up by Republicans.

(01:00:46):
And when Republicans run up the debt and they're supposed
to be sober and judicious custodians of physical sanity, then
the left says, well, if they did it, then we're
going to do it because as if they say they're tightwads,
and they're not tight wads, so what do you expect
of us. The other thing is when you promise no

(01:01:10):
tips here, no income tax on Social Security, it's kind
of people here have been katching, kaching, kaching. Mister President,
you're giving them four trillion dollars of lost revenue. And
he says, well, we're going to deregulate the economy and
grow our way out of it. I think people think
we can grow partly out of it, but not at

(01:01:31):
current spendings. And then when you put all of the
social entitlements like Medicare and Social Security off the budget,
what are you left with? Well, the left says, you
have nothing to cut except defense or trim around their margins.
But now he's saying, yes, there's a lot to cut
because what you think are essential, we're pretty much products

(01:01:52):
of the great society that we got along fine with without.
Why do we need a department of energy? Why do
we need some of these Why do we have to
have a prob to like National Public Radio or PBS.
Maybe we can outsource it. They're talking of all these
other areas that are sizable as a way of avoiding

(01:02:14):
to cut social Security or Medicare. But he's going to
have to get the physical. We're spending one point one
billion servicing the debt. We spend eight hundred million, eight
hundred billion, excuse me, on defense. So he's very worried
about defense, as you and I've talked before, because we're
putting our money into too few platforms and we're behind.

(01:02:38):
We don't make things anymore, or supply chains are dependent
on foreign suppliers. We've demonized a particular cohort, the white
male from the middle class that died at double its
numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan fifty thousand short. We have
a whole group of generals who, upon retirement violate the

(01:02:59):
uniform quote of military justice, attack, the commander in chiefs,
all of these things. He's talked about about hoving to
address that. But debt is I think should be the
center of his focus, because we can't go on this way, And.

Speaker 3 (01:03:15):
That raises the question of tariff's I can understand. I
really can't genuinely understand the motive appeal to somebody like
the Vice President elect in many ways is such an
interesting and clear thinking man. And yet you know he
said the hollowing out of American industry, and yet conventional

(01:03:36):
economic wisdom would say tariffs are not the answer. I
can understand too. Why you would want to use the
threat of that against the Chinese when you think they're
not dealing in good faith. That's a different matter. But
tariffs per se are generally regarded as counterproductive v and

(01:03:56):
inducive to reduced trade at least to trade world worst,
and a reduction in living standards for all of us.
Where do you think that debite mott Land.

Speaker 4 (01:04:08):
Well, sometimes he's been very sloppy in the use of tariffs.
But when you talk to some of his advisors, like
Kevin Hassert, for example, I think who's his most influential
Economic Advisor, they will clarify it. And they said, of
course free trade allows everybody to benefit. But if the

(01:04:29):
free trade is not fair, and by that they mean
primarily the Chinese, but also the Europeans. If they have
tariffs on goods on American products and we don't have
tariffs on the same identical American product European import, then
he's going to put a tariff to equalize it. And
then if the free marketer comes back to Donald Trump

(01:04:52):
and says, well, you can't do that because they're more
they are more effective, or this this particular product is
done cheaper and benefits the world because it can be
done better over there, then he will say, well, then
we're going to find something that we do that's better
than what they do. But they don't play fair. So

(01:05:13):
I think what they're trying to say is they're going
to look at the totality of import and exports, look
at the various tariffs, and as a general rule, I
don't think I'm being chavinistic, but the reports that I've
seen show that the United States is one of the
most asymmetrically tariff countries in the world. In other words,

(01:05:34):
since World War Two, it's been the position of both
parties that the United States shall take a hit in
trade to allow countries that are allies of the United States,
but even neutrals, to develop economically at our detriment, based
on two realities. One we can take the hit because

(01:05:55):
we're so wealthy, and two that newfound prosperity will end
up in freedom and consensuality and pro western cinements. I
don't think that's operative anymore. If you drive through my hometown,
I will see six or seven major factories have been
closed for twenty years, gang activity, poverty, per capita income

(01:06:20):
of sixteen thousand dollars a year. When I was in
high school, it was booming. We made trailers, we made
hydraulic lifts. We had one of the biggest canries in
the country. But all of those were put out of business.
You could argue by cheap Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean exports. Now
those countries have reached a level of affluence for that

(01:06:42):
asymmetry is not conducive to anybody anymore. So I think
he's going to target those with some exceptions, and the
exceptions are countries that are military allies of the United States.
And I think one thing I will say just to finish.

(01:07:03):
And when I say he's transactional. I've been writing another
book about him, just starting, and I've been reading a
lot about his past. He's very I don't say insecure,
but he's very sensitive and he feels that if people
are going to attack him personally or the country, the
United States, the embodiment of him as president, then he's

(01:07:26):
going to reply in kind so they will cease doing it.
And that ended up in the minute name calling. But
I've been watching various foreign leaders that have been bullying
the United States, and I noticed that they calm down
during the campaign with the idea that Trump might be elected,

(01:07:47):
Especially president early on of Turkey, he has not been
as boisterous or saber rattling against Trump as you would think,
given he would see Trumps more likely to stand up
to Turkey than Biden or Harris or Obama. And I
think it's in all of us as humans that we

(01:08:10):
develop a respect for people who are confident and treat
us as equals. And whether we like it or not,
maybe we're ashamed to admit it, but we have we
develop a sense of contempt for people who weak, are
considered weak, or obsequious or toadish, and we all like

(01:08:31):
to be treated with respect. And Donald Trump doesn't look
at magnanimity as weakness to be exploited. When he sees
magnanimimity from a foreign leaders, he feels they should be
reciprocated in kind. That's all. That's unusual and a leader.
So if I was an Australian or a British person,

(01:08:51):
or European, our Japanese or South Korean, I would are
in Israeli. I would feel a sense of relief because
the world is more dangerous. We're closer to the use
of tactical nuclear weapons than I've seen any point in
my life, and I think that he will restore a
sense of deterrence without trying to be chauvinistic and with

(01:09:13):
raggadoccio that would start a unnecessary war.

Speaker 3 (01:09:19):
Well, as an Australian, I have to say the biggest
criticism I'd make of my country is that we're asleep
on the wheel on the geopolitical dangers that confront us.
I believe the Wall Street Journal was right when they
pointed out that Kamala Harris seemed to have little experience
or interest in this matter, and that certain of these
bad actors would have tried her on very early on,

(01:09:43):
and I see no evidence that she was equipped for that.
So I have to say as an Australian.

Speaker 4 (01:09:48):
Yeah, it's very funny because today as a historian or
World War Two, it's remarkable how of all countries, given
the size of the Australian population, how in the world
it was able to field crack troops all the way
to North Africa to Burma, all over the world, and

(01:10:10):
the Australian Navy of Australian pilots during the Blitz. It
had a reputation of a very muscular, tough military that
was not afraid to fight for itself. That's why it
had such a strong affinity with the United States still does.

(01:10:32):
As I said before, I think in one of our broadcasts,
the last Pew International poll that I saw, it listed
Australia as the one country the United States had the
highest regard for the people of the United States. I
hope he can develop that relationship, so do I.

Speaker 3 (01:10:49):
Victor, you have been very very kind with your time. Again,
your insights have been absolutely magnificent, and I'm hoping that
lots and lots of people The last time we talked
to immediately after election. We hit about two and a
half million YouTube downloads, so give them the importance of
what you had to say. I particularly hope this time
that people in my country tapping. Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (01:11:12):
Well, thank you for having me.

Speaker 3 (01:11:13):
John.

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
If you like the Michael Berry Show and Podcast, please
tell one friend, and if you're so inclined, write a
nice review of our podcast. Comments, suggestions, questions, and interest
in being a corporate sponsor and partner can be communicated
directly to the show at our email address, Michael at

(01:11:35):
Michael Berryshow dot com, or simply by clicking on our website,
Michael Berryshow dot com. The Michael Berry Show and Podcast
is produced by Ramon Roeblis, the King of Ding. Executive
producer is Chad Knakanishi. Jim Mudd is the creative director.

(01:12:00):
Voices Jingles, Tomfoolery and Shenanigans are provided by Chance McLean.
Director of Research is Sandy Peterson. Emily Bull is our
assistant listener and superfan. Contributions are appreciated and often incorporated
into our production. Where possible, we give credit, Where not,

(01:12:22):
we take all the credit for ourselves. God bless the
memory of Rush Limbaugh, Long live Elvis, be a simple
man like Leonard Skinnard told you, and God bless America. Finally,
if you know a veteran suffering from PTSD, call Camp
Hope at eight seven seven seven one seven PTSD and

(01:12:48):
a combat veteran will answer the phone to provide free counseling.