September 19, 2025 • 51 mins
President Trump is reportedly in talks with the Taliban to re-establish a counter-terrorism force on the ground in Afghanistan - while also making plans to reclaim control of Bagram Air Base. So what does this mean for the American people?
Guests:
Don Brown | Constitutional Attorney, Former Navy JAG Officer - Pentagon
Rep. Tom McClintock | United States Representative, California's 5th Congressional District
Richard Battle | Fifth Generation Texan, Longtime Business and Community Leader & Award-Winning Author
Chris Cella | Producer & Pop Culture Analyst, The Real Story
Guests:
Don Brown | Constitutional Attorney, Former Navy JAG Officer - Pentagon
Rep. Tom McClintock | United States Representative, California's 5th Congressional District
Richard Battle | Fifth Generation Texan, Longtime Business and Community Leader & Award-Winning Author
Chris Cella | Producer & Pop Culture Analyst, The Real Story
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Welcome to the Real Story. I'm your host, Riley Lewis.
Thank you for joining us. Today's top story brings us
to a breaking development coming out of Washington, d C.
A plan so bold that it's got many heads in
the swamp spinning. An idea that could lead to sweeping
change all over the world, A possible course of action
(00:31):
that could really set the stage for some world changing events.
And that brings us to President Trump's plan to find
a way to reclaim Bogram Airbase in Afghanistan from the
Taliban's clutches. President Trump discussed his desire to reclaim the
airbase on Thursday during a joint press conference with the
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and according to a few
(00:54):
unnamed sources, he's been quietly twisting arms to reclaim it
since March.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Know.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
For those of you who are wondering why, just picture
this a sprawling two mile runway hub just an hour
north of Kabble in the Parwan province that once served
as America's launch pad in the country for two decades
of operations, with cargo planes roaring in with supplies, fighter
jets scrambling against terror, and attack helicopters thundering overhead. Several
(01:26):
US presidents in previous years have all stood on this tarmac,
vowing victory over Jihati's and a brighter future for the region. However,
as it currently stands, the air bases under Taliban control.
Taliban forces gain control of it in August twenty twenty
one after Biden's crew slunk out like thieves in the
(01:46):
night in July of that year, stripping nearly nine hundred
c seventeen loads of gear and torching thousands of pieces
of equipment before the Taliban waltzed in. But to really
understand why Trump even wants to reclaim this strategic air base,
one must understand the storied history behind it.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
So.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Bogram Air Base, also known as Bogram Airfield, is a
major military installation that has served various world powers through
its complicated and long history. It situated about seven miles
south east of Charikar in northeastern Afghanistan, at an elevation
of nearly five thousand feet above sea level, and it
(02:28):
was originally built in the nineteen fifties by the Soviet
Union amid Cold War efforts to influence Afghanistan. The base
itself spans a vast area of the country and has
historically been one of the most strategically important airfields in
all of Central Asia due to its proximity to key
regional powers, including China, Iran, Pakistan, and even Russia. And
(02:55):
during the Soviet Afghan War, which lasted from nineteen seventy
nine to nineteen eighty nine, Bogram served as a primary
hub for Soviet military operations, hosting aircraft, troops, and more.
But following Soviet withdrawal in nineteen eighty nine, the base
suffered damage during Afghanistan's civil war in the nineteen nineties.
(03:17):
It even changed hands between different factions, eventually falling under
Taliban control by the year two thousand. But then after
the US led invasion of Afghanistan in two thousand and one,
following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on
September eleventh of that year, US and coalition forces secured
(03:37):
the base and expanded on it, adding a second runway
in two thousand and six for tens of millions of dollars.
The US then invested hundreds of millions of dollars more
into infrastructure. By two thousand and nine, it quickly became
the largest US military installation in all of Afghanistan, serving
as a critical logistics and operational center for NATO's International
(04:00):
Security Assistance Force, therefore providing the entire West with a
critical foothold in the country. But the base faced numerous
attacks in the following years, including a notable one in
two thousand and seven, a suicide bombing during a visit
by then Vice President Dick Cheney which killed twenty three people.
(04:21):
But still it remained in US control. But that all
changed in the summer of twenty twenty one. That's when
US forces withdrew from Bogram in July, handing it over
to the Afghan National Security Forces amid the broader US
troop pullout from the country that was negotiated under the
Doha Agreement, a deal that was signed by the Trump
(04:42):
administration in twenty twenty. Then, following the unexpected collapse of
the Afghan government, the Taliban seized control of it once
again on August fifteenth of twenty twenty one, twenty one
years after they first gained control. But now, in of
all of this history, we return to the question of
(05:03):
why why would the White House want to reclaim it. Firstly,
reclaiming control would enhance the US government's ability to surveil China,
whose border is less than five hundred miles away. Secondly,
it would help the US establish a firm counter terrorism
center to target groups like the Taliban and like ISIS.
(05:24):
And Thirdly, it could allow the US to gain access
to critical rare earth minerals located in the country. However,
the one critical detail about this whole plan is that
it would likely require a US military presence on the ground,
and that's where the real debate lies. With Jahatis in control,
nobody wins, but the idea of becoming entangled in the
(05:47):
country once again raises some very important questions. Near to
help us answer them all as a veteran with a
thorough understanding of America's history in the region, so here
with reaction is Brown, a constitutional attorney and former Navy
JAG officer who's running for US sunate in North Carolina.
Don thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Sir, Thank you for having me Riley. It's the pleasure
as always.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
And the same here and I have so many questions.
Let's just start here with your initial thoughts about this plan.
What do you make of it?
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Well, I was most Americans, and most veterans, I would say,
especially but all Americans were horrified by the embarrassing and
inexcusable surrender withdraw that the Biden administration put on display
for the entire world to see in twenty twenty one.
Remember those C seventeen transports trying to take off from
Bagrim with these poor Afghanis, you know, hanging onto the
(06:44):
wings and some getting crushed and maybe even sucked below
the engines. Is an absolute disaster. I felt and have
always felt that, you know, eventually leaving Afghanistan was proper,
except you have to keep the spoils of war. And
we look historically when we won World War Two against
the Japanese. Today we have marines in Okinaba, there's a
(07:06):
naval station at Yokuska. Look at Germany, Ramstein Air Base
and other bases are there. We have nothing to show
for all the blood, sweat and tears of our twenty
some years in Afghanistan. And as far as Bagram goes,
you've touched on it already. But the smart answer is
geography is Geo's strategic position in Asia gives us a
(07:26):
forward presence without having to spend a lot of money.
As you pointed out, that base was built, it's there,
We're not building it from scratch. We know how to
defend it, and the positives outweigh the negatives, and we
need to reclaim that base and we had. The President
is forward thinking here as he has in other areas
in terms of the US poggestion of the US military
(07:46):
is great bang for the BA and it needs to
happen for the sake of those who lost their lives
like Aaron Vaughn and others who died on Extortion seventeen
and so many others who died in that war. Their
sacrifices should not be in vain. This is a win
win proposition and I'm looking forward to seeing how it
plays out.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
So then done for people out there who say, Wull,
did this possibly put a target on our backs or
for American troops or lead to a potential conflict with
the Taliban on the ground there, what would you say
to them?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
First off, the Taliban has never been able to defeat
us on the ground. I've written two books on the Afghanistan.
They are, you know, except for the eighty billion whatever
the military equipment that Biden left them, which they don't
even know how to operate. For the most part, they're
not very sophisticated. They were never able to beat us
on the ground. They put tons and tons and tons
of IED's in the ground that is land mines, but Bagram,
(08:38):
as you pointed out, it's elevated to five thousand feetus,
about one hundred miles from the Pakistani border, about five
hundred miles or so from southern China and as xing
Jang is western area where are multiple military bases. It
is secure. Yes, there was, there have been some you know, bombing,
some gate bombings there, but we have the drone technology
(08:58):
to easily protect the perimeter of the base. It is
not going to require and you know, in another extensive
recommitment of major United States forces on the ground to
protect that base. We have the ability to do it
with minimal force and lots of firepower. And if I
were concerned about a long protracted re engagement of multiple
(09:18):
troops on the ground in Afghanistan, they'll be different. It's
not gonna take that. We got predator drones, we got
assets in the air to protect that base without a
substantial ground amendment outside of the perimeter of the base itself.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
That's interesting. You know, one thing that really catches my eye.
Here is the timing of this announcement because just a
few days ago we started seeing report service of Iran
and some other countries I believe Egypt, maybe even Qatar,
pushing for the creation of a NATO style military alliance
for Muslim majority countries. So we already have this, you know,
(09:51):
this competition between different you know organizations over this very
you know, important strategic area. I'm not sure if you've
seen those reports, but I'd like to get your comments
about that and whether or not that changes our plans
on the ground there.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Well, the the thing to remember is that can that
Candahar are the base in the south, and Bagram the
one that President In fact, i'd like to see us
take both of those based about Candahar and southern Afghanistan
as well. But both of these bases are in the
eastern the southern that is Kandahar and now Bagram is
in the central eastern part of of of Afghanistan. It
(10:26):
is a is an is an Asian uh you know,
geographical location.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
It is not.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Directly in the Middle East, but yet you know, the
Iranian border is on the western side of the country,
and it was it was very very easy to get
there and that the notion of a NATO type of
you know, strategic alliance among these Muslim or Sharia countries
is sort of bone chilling. If you look at history,
(10:55):
you know that we're one of the reasons World War
One was fought had to do with the old Ottoman
Empire which was busted up. That was the last Muslim caliphate,
which was busted up at the end of World War One,
and these nations were artificially put into place by the
skyspeed Co Treaty in nineteen eighteen, you know, to carve
them up so there would not be another calfhate. So
(11:17):
the notion of some sort of you know, a Muslim
or Islamic or Sharia NATO is bone chilling. And having
the presence of a large base there would allow us
to strike from the west back toward the East into
Iran and down into the Middle East very very quickly
if we needed to do that. It's a lot closer
than any other air base that we have permanently said already,
(11:38):
other than the ones that we're using in Saudi Arabia,
which is of course, you know, part of the part
of the proposed alliance. So it's something that would be
a valuable strategic importance, both with the projection of American
power into Southern Asia against China and Russia, but also
coming back into the Middle East as well. So that's
it goes back to what I said earlier. It's a
win win proposition for many of those strategic reasons understood.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Then, sort of my final question to bring everything back together,
I think the really the question on the center of
it all is what is the message that we're trying
to send here? And it comes on the heels of,
for example, changing the name of the Department of Defense
to a Department of War, signaling that we're going on offense.
We've also seen recent strikes on the nuclear facilities in Iran,
So I think there's clearly some sort of a message
(12:23):
we'd be sending here about us taking proactive measures to
protect our allies and our interests in the world stage.
But I want to get your thoughts about what kind
of message we be sending and the implications of a
move like this.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
It's a very strong what kind of message and to whom?
So there's a second elevement to your question, heaven with it, RAI,
to whom it's a strong message to the communist Chinese
and President g trying to establish themselves as a military superpower.
It's the message that the Russians were on the soft
side of there under belly as well, and it's a
message to the Middle East. But the content of the
(12:56):
message is that under President Trump a moving forward with
an America First policy, America is a back militarily and
I agree we cannot be the policeman of the world,
but we all I also believe in in you know,
the old big stick policy that t r head speak
softly but carry a big stick. And I believe in
Reagan's philosophy that our military should be so strong that
(13:17):
no potential adversary should ever test its strength. And this
is a win win situation. It sends a powerful message
that if you begin to engage in global shenanigans against
America and American interests, you're going to get a bloody
nose real quick, and we can strike anywhere in the
world very very quickly, because we're going to be close
to your backyard. We're not going to need to send
these powerful B two bombers from the middle of Missouri.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
We're going to be right there, and we can be
there with them a matter of minutes.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
So I think it's a matter of it's a message
of strength, and it's a message of power, yet it's
also a message of preserving the peace through strength as well.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Okay, understood. I just want to end by saying thank
you for your time today, sir, and thank you for
your service to this country.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
My pleasure, Riley, thank you so much for you as well.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Coming up next, FBI Director Cashptel testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee this week as well as the House Judiciary
Committee and what turned out to be a very intense
and unbecoming affair in California. Congressman Tom mcintalk joins us
to discuss the fallout as he was there for it all.
More details after the break.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Watch on live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch One
America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Welcome back to the real story. For those who want
to understand why so many Americans just don't engage in
politics anymore, look no further than what happened during FBI
Director Cash Betel's testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary
Committe earlier this week, in the echoing chambers of the
Rayburn House Office Building Director Patel, President Trump's no nonsense
(15:08):
pick to drain the swamp faced a Democrat led ambush
as he blasted the agency's weaponization against conservatives in years past,
while also the nation's civility crumbles into outright vitriol. In fact,
in one instance, Ptel shot back at ranking member Jamie
Raskin and crew, you're part of the cover up, he charged,
(15:33):
slamming court blocks on full releases of the Epstein files
amid accusations of shielding Trump's ties. But this isn't isolated fury.
It's the toxic spillover from a government gone rogue from
Biden era irs audits directly targeting school board parents to
(15:54):
say the doj burying hunter Biden's laptop scandals. Meanwhile, the
whole ordeal itself really highlighted the death of decorum in Washington.
Recall Texas Democrat Al Green's March sixth century for keeping
his cane strong, waving it furiously in the air, and
(16:14):
attempting to heckle President Trump's congressional address. A really interesting
pr stunt that earned housewide rebuke. And when we look
at these statistics here, it's also not a pretty picture.
For example, a Yugov poll reveals that eighty three percent
of Americans see surging political violence, with Printon's Princeton's bridging
(16:37):
divides noting a ten percent spike in threats against officials
just last year alone, with liberal respondents being twice as
likely as others to justify using force. Sometimes, folks, when
hearings like this one devolve into shouting matches, it's no
(16:57):
wonder that streets follow suit. And it's also no wonder
that many Americans just give up on politics, and frankly,
who could blame them? The halls of government aren't meant
for waging personal attacks. They're meant for productive discourse about
important issues. So when this discourse devolves into chaos and madness,
(17:20):
it makes everybody involved look foolish, and it makes the
American people completely uninterested in political discourse. And all of
this backlash and hysteria for what. Director Patel claims that
he's fighting to restore balance, reclaim sanity, and depoliticize the FBI,
(17:41):
things that everybody can and should support, regardless of politics.
So what really explains the outrage and what explains the
contempt with which he was treated earlier this week? Here
to help us answer those in questions is a lawmaker
who was present during these hearings, Representative Tom McClintock, the
(18:02):
GOP congressman who represents California's fifth congressional district. Representative. Thank
you for being here, sir.
Speaker 5 (18:09):
It's my pleasure, Riley, and I don't think I've got
much to add after that beautiful presentation you just made.
You are absolutely spot on.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Well, I appreciate it, and I do want to get
your thoughts about the hostility and contempt that he's been
treated with thus far. What do you think is really
going on there?
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Well, I think there's a clash between two very different ideologies.
One is the traditional American principles of individual liberty, constitutionally
limited government, and personal responsibility and this new woke leftist
phenomenon that is essentially one based upon on unequal application
(18:57):
of the law and the denigration of the most fundamental
principles that our country was founded on. And those are
incompatible things. And that's why I think you're seeing a
rising of dystopian effect in our national politics. You remember,
Congress is simply a reflection of what's going on among
(19:18):
the American people. And I think there's two very different approaches,
freedom and socialism. We've been there once before when the
difference was freedom and slavery, and if you think about it,
slavery and socialism are basically two sides of the same coin.
And I think that we're reaching such a moment in
our nation's history again where we're going to have to
decide whether we will see a new birth of freedom
(19:41):
or whether we will travel down the road of so
many failed civilizations before us.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
That's really interesting. Now do you really hammer home this point?
I want to play a sound bite. There's a few
that really stuck out to me, so I want to
get your thoughts. But this is one courtesy of Senator
Corey Booker, who I just think keep a clown himself.
This was unbecoming. It was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. But
I want to play this sound bite and then get
your reaction to it.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Sir, If you want to work on bringing this country,
it's my time, not yours.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
My god, my god.
Speaker 6 (20:10):
If you want to talk about biding this country, it
is I follow you on your social media post.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
You try all in.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
This country.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
Time for what said?
Speaker 6 (20:27):
You're time over this committee, sir. You don't tell me
by time is over? People tell me what my time is.
You can't lecture me.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
You can tell me.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
I am, mister chairman, not afraid of you.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
So representative. They're talking about the investigation into the man
who assassinated Charlie Kirk. There and some of these statements
that Director Patel had made online over the course of
the investigation. And I understand there were some concerns about it,
about the information that was coming to light. But you
watch that clip and you have to wonder what kind
of message does that send to the average American.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
It obviously sends a distress signal that our country is
reaching a climactic and we're all going to have to
decide which direction we want our country to take back
toward our fundamental values or toward the principles of the left,
which always lead to authoritarianism and chaos. And I might
point out, just in respect to the Kirk assassination, under
(21:31):
cash Ptel's leadership, the FBI resolved that case in thirty
three hours. It took five days. In the hunt for
Luigi Mangione, and a lot of the reason for the
success was Patel's decision to immediately release pictures of the subject,
which led to his surrender in just a matter of hours.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
I appreciate that perspective as well, and it brings me
to this broader point I'm wondering about. You were in
the hearings, sir, and I was just watching them, But
I was wondering the whole time regarding these lawmakers who
just attacked him. It seems clear to me that they
just they personally have issues with him. But I'm wondering
what is their end goal with this belligerent line of questioning,
(22:12):
other than maybe trying to make him look bad and
really just smear him in front of the American people.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
I think that's the entire objective, and the reason for
that is because they can't.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Win on argument.
Speaker 5 (22:24):
In fact, you know, I've learned over the years that
when the other guy starts calling you names, you know
two things for sure. You know that you're winning the argument,
and you know that the other guy knows that you're
winning the argument. You know. Somebody once yelled at it
from a crowd at Abraham Lincoln called him a liar,
and Lincoln pause and he says, friend, you cannot disprove
(22:44):
Euclidian geometry by calling Euclid a liar. And yet that's
what the left is doing today. You know, Cash Bettel
did an outstanding job in our hearing catalog and the
accomplishments of the administration during his seven months as FBI director.
I mean, their policies have produce to dramatic drop and
violent crime in Washington, d C. We're seeing a surge
and applications for law enforcement positions again, where before we
(23:08):
were losing people quitting law enforcement. And it turns out
that when you enforce the law, crime drops. And he
attributed their success to shifting the FBI's attention from what
it was doing under the Biden administration, such as harassing
Catholics and parents who are attending school board meetings, and
instead getting violent criminals off the streets. They've been very
(23:29):
successful in doing that, and I think that's what the
left is really objecting to, but they can't say that directly,
so they simply attack him personally.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
That's really interesting, So to follow up then, I also
want to get your reaction to this moment he had
with Eric Swalwell. It seemed like a real low point,
maybe for them both admittedly, but especially for Swallwell here,
so I want to play this interaction between them and
then get your thoughts about it, sir.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done.
Speaker 6 (23:56):
So the question they hel to meet the muster in
the constitution, work.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
On the visual capabilities.
Speaker 6 (24:02):
I'm going to borrow your terminology and call both your
entire career in Congress disgrace the American You can your
time all you want.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
I mean, sir, what is going on there?
Speaker 5 (24:19):
Well, what we were just discussing of that they can't
argue the facts. Uh, so they make personal attacks. It's
it's not complicated. But this is not going on in
a vacuum. People are watching this. People are are seeing
the difference, uh, and they're adjusting their opinions accordingly. And
we're seeing that in all the polling data that's coming
(24:39):
out now. This is tremendous of exodus out of the
Democratic Party by a lot of lifelong Democrats. Who are
you going on social platforms and saying I can't affiliate
with this party anymore. They've as Reagan said, I didn't
leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic party left me, and
I think a whole new generation are to that conclusion
(25:01):
watching this sort of exchange.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Absolutely. I also bring this up in part just in
light of recent events. We have the funeral for Charlie
Kirk coming up this weekend, and in light of that
horrific and evil act of violence, a lot of people
are wondering how do we get back to a place
in America where we can have civil discourse. I think
one answer is we need to see that example set
by our country's leaders. I see you doing that, but
(25:25):
not so much for people like Eric Swalwell or Adam Schiff.
So in the final minute we have or so with you,
what do you think is really the recipe to getting
back to that place where we can dialogue with each other,
debate and discuss these issues in a way that's civil
and peaceful and productive.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
Well, ultimately, trust the people and trust the foundation of
a free society, which is freedom of expression. You know,
free society is recognize the only way to separate fact
from fiction, or love from hate, or truth from lies,
or wisdom from folly, or good from evil.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Is to put them.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
So I buy side and trust the people to know
the difference We've based our entire form of government on
the assumption that people are free to express themselves and
their opinions and to listen to those of others. More
than half of them are going to get it right more.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Than half the time.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
That served us well over the centuries, and I think
is our way back to that more perfect union that
we all desire understood.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
And I just want to say thank you for your time.
That's a very interesting point to end on. So thank
you for what you're doing in Washington, sir, because this
country really needs it.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
Thank you, Riley, and thank you again for a very
very beautiful opening statement.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
I appreciate it, sir. Coming up next, could a lack
of knowledge about the US Constitution be one of the
main things fueling division, hatred, and even violence in modern America.
That's what today's next guest suggests. More details about that
right after the.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
Break, watch AM Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go, visit klowd tv
dot com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Welcome back to the Real Story. Today's next segment centers
around an important, yet very very simple question, Why is
there so much division in modern America? The US is
deeply divided today. That much is very obvious, and this
division is the subject of much discourse. However, not nearly
(27:42):
enough time it's been discussing why the country is so divided,
let alone what can be done to address this division
and unite the American people again? And that brings us
to an interesting theory posited by our next guest. He's
a fifth generation Texan, a long time business and community leader,
and an award winning author, and he believes that a
(28:05):
lack of constitutional knowledge in today's polarized environment leaves Americans
increasingly vulnerable to partisan fear and hostility. Now, whether his
theory is ultimately true is for the viewers to decide. However,
we're bringing this issue to light for a few reasons
right now, including notably this disturbing rise of political violence,
(28:29):
which clearly reflects deepening divisions in the country, as well
as the breakdown of trust in America's institutions, and the
fact that Constitution Day was on Wednesday of this week.
Drafted in seventeen eighty seven during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia,
ratified in seventeen eighty eight and taking effect in seventeen
eighty nine. The US Constitution is the world's longest surviving
(28:52):
charter of government. Its creation permanently changed the entire world,
establishing a brand new framework for governance all over the planet,
and its real importance lies in establishing a system of
government that balances power among branches through checks and balances,
preventing any one part of government from becoming too dominant
(29:16):
and therefore preventing the rise of tyranny. So on that note,
our next guest will help us highlight how the document
has shaped American society and how I thorough knowledge of
it could play a pivotal role in uniting a divided nation.
So here with more is Richard Battle, a fifth generation Texan,
longtime business and community leader, and of course an award
(29:38):
winning author. Richard, thank you for being here today, Sir Riley.
Speaker 7 (29:42):
Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. And that was
a very good introduction.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
I really appreciate that. And I want to start with
my theory for you and just see what your thoughts are.
So I think your thesis is extremely interesting. I think
you're onto something, and I think I understand what you're
really saying here, we have so much division in modern America,
and in part it might be because people are fighting
about issues that they don't really fully understand. What do
(30:09):
you think of my theory on that.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Well, you're I think you're correct.
Speaker 7 (30:13):
But there's always been divisions, and they have risen and
fallen based on the times and the people. And one
of the sad things today or two of the sad
things are are our government to function properly, our citizens
have to be involved. It's a self governance system of
the people, by the people, and for the people. And
(30:35):
when our citizens aren't involved, that invites politicians from either
side of the aisle to abuse us as citizens, and
so that is bad. And then you have such a
large government operation now it invites people with ill will
into it to what I call the all you can
(30:55):
take buffet from the standpoint of pursuing they're versus the
good of the country. And politicians care about the next election.
Statesmen care about the next generation, and we have very
few statesmen right now.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
So completely agreed with you. By the way, sir, been
talking about solutions. It leads us to education. In the classroom,
we used to learn about the Bill of rights, the
Declaration of Independence, your state's constitution, and the US Constitution,
and then somewhere along the way we sort of phase
that out of education. Why do you think that is.
Speaker 7 (31:33):
Well, I think it's people that wanted to take advantage
of that lack of education for their own power.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
And you're correct.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
When we were kids, our parents could send us to
school and they could trust the schools.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
To teach us those things.
Speaker 7 (31:47):
Today parents cannot trust the schools, and they have to
get back into the schools to make sure they're being taught.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
But I believe it's our.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
Responsibility as parents and grandparents to make sure we teach
kids and grandkids what a great gift.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
We've been given. It's the most unique gift.
Speaker 7 (32:05):
Of freedom in the world and in history, and none
of us appreciated it.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Well enough during our lives.
Speaker 7 (32:13):
But it's important as we appreciate it to make sure
we pass that down to the next generation.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
So they don't give it away. If we don't give
it away before they arrive.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
That's interesting. Now following up then, I mean, these are
transformational documents we're talking about, and you only have so
much time with a kid in the classroom, So I
like this idea of a lifelong education coming from friends
and family. How do you go about bringing this cultural
change to modern America.
Speaker 7 (32:41):
Well, I think that's a great point, and it goes
right into some of the things that myself and other
people are trying to do to educate parents and grandparents,
inspire and motivate them, to make sure they spend time
with kids, to let them know what a great gift
we have. I can remember my mother when I was
a kid, reminded me how blessed we were to be
(33:05):
in the United States. And as a former friend and
mentor of mine, in a Texas attorney a.
Speaker 8 (33:10):
General John Ben Shephard, said, to be born free is
an accident, to live free is a responsibility, but to
diath free is an obligation.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
That's very interesting. I appreciate the perspective. I do want
to pivot though for a moment too, because, like you said,
we've always had division in this country, even if it's founding,
we were divided between loyalists who wanted to remain under
the British control and people who wanted to start a
new country. So, going all the way back to our founding,
we've had division, but we've only had a few of
(33:44):
these moments like we see today where political violence is
center stage and Americans are attacking each other in the streets.
What do you make of that? And do you think
that constitutional knowledge is really going to be enough to
address that problem in a meaningful way.
Speaker 7 (34:00):
Well, the Constitution is there as our roadmap and rule book,
if you will, and it only works if people restrain
themselves from taking power that they may be able to
take and honoring the rules that are in there. And
so we've had generations for two hundred plus years that
have done that, but we're starting to see now people
(34:23):
who are not honoring that self restrain, if you will. Now,
the hope I have is after the Civil War we
were able to heal and bring the nation back together.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
It wasn't simple, quick.
Speaker 9 (34:36):
Or easy, but it occurred because both sides sacrificed and compromised,
and it will take both sides to come together for
us to heal going forward.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
I agree with that. So then on that point, how
do we go about, I guess, getting people to compromise again,
showing them the value of compromise, because if that seems
like a monumental challenge, well it is.
Speaker 7 (35:04):
And that's why they need to know that the people
will hold them accountable at the ballot box and are
watching what they do. If we the people don't demand
change in our government to serve us better, we're going
to get what we're getting now and worse going forward.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
And people get frustrated because there's so.
Speaker 7 (35:23):
Many things they can't change, and they don't know what
to do, and they're paralyzed. And so my suggestion is,
find one thing, one area that you want to help,
school board, city council, whatever it is. Find one thing
and contribute there, and if we can get enough citizens
participating one level higher than they are now, we can
(35:45):
correct a lot of this.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Okay, I appreciate that. Before we let you go as well,
I want to highlight your book for people who might
want to learn more about you and read some of
your works, including Americans who Made America. Where can they
go to get a copy?
Speaker 7 (36:00):
Richard Battle dot com is my website. They're all there
and signed. If you go to Amazon, we have the
kindle and audio versions of that and all twelve books
as well.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Okay, thank you for your time today, sir and your insight.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
My pleasure. Riley God Bless America.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Coming up next. The seventy seventh Annual Emmy Awards have
come and gone, and there was no shortage of political
virtue signaling or pop culture analyst Chris Chella dish is
the dirt on Tinseltown's elite. Right after the.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
Break, watch an live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network. Wherever you go, visit klowd tv
dot com. Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Welcome back to the real story. Today's next topic brings
us to these past week's Emmy Awards. But before we
get into the nitty and gritty of it all and
of course, the fallout from it, just picture this for
a moment, Hollywood's glittering elite, draped and borrowed finery strutting
across a stage that's less about celebrating art and more
(37:16):
about boosting the egos of the celebrities there. That was
the site at this year's Emmy Awards, a spectacle that
was broadcast to millions and millions of people. And yes,
it was a whisper up from last year's whisper, but
still a deafening silence compared to the twenty million strong
crowds of decades past, which is very interesting. Nonetheless, it's
(37:38):
still served up the annual ritual of a list actors
using their podium to preach about politics instead of just
sticking to the artistic creations that brought them to the
ceremony in the first place. And whether or not that's
actually a good thing to see really just depends on
who you ask. Celebrities have every right to use their
platforms to discuss political issue and the fact that we
(38:01):
honor that right is actually something that makes America exceptional.
After all, everybody has a right to their opinions, and
everyone has a right to express them, and in public,
every man, woman and child has a god given right
to say what they think is true. It's what the
founder stood for. However, bringing politics to an awards show
is a very interesting gamble for an industry that has
(38:23):
hemorrhaged viewers over the last decade, drawing increasingly smaller audiences
to spectacles like this one. It's almost as if these
ceremonies aren't really about celebrating artistic excellence, but are instead
about dividing the American people by pushing politics and cliche
talking points, as if that's why anyone really tunes in
(38:46):
to the show. Oh here with his thoughts, analysis, and
reaction to it all is producer for this program and
our resident pop culture analyst, Chris Cella. Chris, thank you
for being here.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
All.
Speaker 10 (38:59):
He's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
So, you know, I don't really watch these things. I
personally just don't really care about them so much, but
you believe they're very important for American culture. So walk
us through what we saw and your key takeaways from it.
Speaker 10 (39:12):
Yeah, you know, so, of course, you know, I think
most Americans don't really care about the opinions of politicians,
and we learn that in the excuse me the opinions
of celebrities, and we learned that in the twenty twenty
four presidential election. Nonetheless, though, Hollywood does shape culture and society.
And so these award shows where there were people who
you know, get paid to pretend to be other people,
(39:34):
patting each other on the back, celebrating, and they drop
the mask, they drop the veil, and they show us
who they really are, Riley, and it's often it's not
very pretty. Most of them are disingenuous, they're extremely arrogant,
and they're trapped in this kind of delusional mind state
that like therapy, a Kido cleanse in a well timed
tweet can absolve them of the society, contributing to the
(39:55):
societal collapse and turning Tinseltown Hollywood into a cultural wasteland
that they have monetized. By the way, So like, this
is the industry Riley that greenlit this show Euphoria, which
is essentially soft core pornography as family viewing and has
put homosexual themes into animated films aimed at children.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
They're like they these people virtue.
Speaker 10 (40:21):
Signal signal like a malfunctioning smoke detector beeping every thirty
seconds about you know, the issues and then going off
to uh, you know, film reboots of shows about rich
white white people having existential crises. There's uh, you know,
there's the selective outrage and the people who gave a
standing ovation to a convicted child rapist. They worship Parvey
(40:42):
Weinstein as this Hollywood demigod. And then the fine moral
outrage kicks in when the predator du jour u becomes
you know, just too too hot to handle. Then they
act like, you know, I never had you in my
biopic or took hundreds of pictures with you. I don't
know this guy. They're also they're just been narcissists, and
they've drawn on about things like climate change and bark
(41:04):
at you and me for driving gas powered cars when
their jets sit idle on the tarmac emitting more carbon
than a Michael.
Speaker 4 (41:13):
Bay action scene.
Speaker 10 (41:15):
I mean. And then there's the this is great the
wealth inequality riley because they talk about how terrible the
one percent is on ironically, they use this term some
of the wealthiest people in the country talk about how
it's just it's really funny. They are, as you would say,
very serious people.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Right, well, clearly they exist in a bubble in this
ecosystem that know what the Americans can really relate to.
But I'm wondering if you have some examples to show us, yes,
just to prove this point.
Speaker 10 (41:43):
Absolutely so. It really kind of kicked into high gear
when Trump won the twenty sixteen election, and you have,
you know, just the loss of decorum, respect and decency
shown here by Robert de Niro at the twenty eighteen
you know, the ever so subtle attack on Trump at
the twenty eighteen Tony Awards.
Speaker 11 (42:02):
I'm gonna say one thing Trump, So just that's his
official political position right now.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
That's about it.
Speaker 10 (42:17):
Yeah, he's becoming like the character Travis Buckley from Taxi Driver,
but instead of talking to himself in the mirror, he's
running around screaming at Trump supporters. I mean, it's just
he is wild, he's off the rails. But the Trump
presidencies have really helped expose to how just repulsive these
people are. Again, not all of them, many of them.
Here's Hannah Enbinder accepting an award for Best Supporting Actress
(42:40):
for the show Hacks. How ironic, But let's play that sot.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Finally, I just want to say, I just want to say, finally,
go birds, guys, and free Palestine.
Speaker 10 (42:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
Yeah. Look, oh, I mean I don't think there's any
real deeper thought here than just that. It seems like
these people think just in terms of talking points. But
I do sincerely wonder is there any kind of real
goal they're trying to achieve here or is this really
just for show?
Speaker 10 (43:12):
You know, I honestly think it's it's just for.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
Show, Like, are they really trying to accomplish anything or
solve any real problems just why.
Speaker 10 (43:18):
I think they might delude themselves into believing the art,
but the no, I mean, they're not. And you know,
all this talk about you know, first of all, if
you want to go and use your platform to you know,
talk about you know, Palestine, Gaza, okay, fine, sure, But
to denigrate law enforcement, federal US law enforcement is disgusting,
and then to get cheered for it is even more disgusting.
(43:41):
And you know, it's it's it's just it's unacceptable. And
the way this happens and they spew this absolute propaganda,
but then they don't say a single word.
Speaker 4 (43:53):
Not one person.
Speaker 10 (43:54):
Said anything about the biggest political assassination in my lifetime,
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Not one person had the
spine to stand up and say that what happened to
Charlie Kirk was wrong and political violence is unacceptable. Instead,
they just fan the flames and the cherry. On top
(44:17):
of this whole sham of an award show is Stephen
Colbert got the award for Best Late Night Talk Show Host,
but he doesn't have a late night talk show. Ironically,
this is the Emmys were hosted by CBS Paramount. CBS
paramount was the company that fired or canceled his show,
(44:38):
So it's kind of like a yes, you were the
virtue signaler in chief, so here's a golden trophy. Sorry,
we had to like over your show, which by the way,
lost forty to fifty million dollars every time absolutely year
for the last five years.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
Well, I'll agree with you here completely. These award shows
are shams, absolutely, And yes, I respect the idea that
it's a free country. So if you want to take
a political position, so be it. That's that's your choice
to make as a free American. However, what really haunts
me here, something you've just alluded to is the breakdown
of decorum in modern American society. Instead of coming out
and saying, you know, with all due respect to the
(45:12):
current president, I think that we are not doing things
the way we should be doing or I oppose this
certain policy, it's just profanity foul language posturing from people
who do have some real sway over the direction of
the country. What do you make of this breakdown of
decorum in modern America?
Speaker 10 (45:29):
Well, it's just it's really sad to see Riley, and
I mean it's amplified by you know, academia, by the
media just just everywhere you look. And so you know,
and this is another you know, if we could play
the Stephen Colbertsott, which doesn't really age well for him,
but just another example of the the lack of respect
(45:49):
shown for a sitting president. And that's you know, again,
just to highlight.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
It, sure real quick.
Speaker 12 (45:55):
We know the biggest TV star of the last year
is Donald Trump. And we all know the Emmys mean
a lot to Donald Trump because he was nominated multiple
times for Celebrity Apprentice, but he never won. I tell
you this, if he had won an Emmy, I bet
he wouldn't have run for president.
Speaker 1 (46:13):
Okay, so final thoughts for you, Chris. What's the real
takeaway for us here?
Speaker 10 (46:18):
Well, the Emmys used to have you know, back in
two thousand they had twenty two million viewers. Now they
have seven point four million viewers. So people are tuning
out because you know, people like me use movies as
an escape from politics and you know, all that stuff.
It's something that I want to enjoy without that all
of that being shoved in my face. So again, Hollywood,
(46:41):
if you want people to start watching your award shows again,
make the award shows about the films, about good quality
products and not about your hatred for Ice or for
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (46:50):
Very well said and a really great point to end
on today, So Chris, thank you for that.
Speaker 10 (46:55):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (46:56):
Coming up next on today's edition of Real Good News,
we paid tribute to Elliott, one of the extremely talented
musicians who was in the prominent folk rock group The
Mamas and the Papas, as she was born on this
day in nineteen forty one. More details about her life after.
Speaker 4 (47:11):
The break, Watch an live on cloudtv dot com and
see what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and
watch One America News Network wherever you go, visit klowd
tv dot com. Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Welcome back to the Real Story. We'd like to dedicate
today's edition of Real Good News to Cass Elliott, as
today is her birthday. Unfortunately, this world lost cast in
nineteen seventy four, and in doing so lost one of
the greatest musical artists of an entire generation. Cass was
(48:03):
a timeless talent and was from the very beginning, starting
off in theater first before moving to folk music, and
before her rise to stardom in the band The Mamas
and the Papas. She got her feet wet with groups
like The Big Three and the Mugwumps. California Dreaming was
famously her first giant commercial success with The Mamas and
(48:25):
the Papas, and this song skyrocketed them to the top
of the cash Box year End Hot one hundred list
and then the Billboard Year End Hot one hundred list
in nineteen sixty six, changing the whole musical scene in
just one moment. Now. Some other hits of THEIRS included
songs like Monday Monday Dedicated to the One I Love
(48:46):
and Creek Alley Now. After some internal conflict caused the
group to disband unfortunately, she pursued her own solo career,
releasing major anthems like make Your Own Kind of News
and Baby, I'm Yours. She was a larger than life
figure with this magnetic personality and truly undeniable musical talent.
(49:11):
In fact, Rolling Stone once dubbed her the Queen of
Los Angeles pop society, and that moniker really fit her well.
She ran in major circles with many major musicians of
the time as well, including people like Jimmy Hendrix, Joni Mitchell,
Janis Joplin and even the Beach Boys. She was extremely accomplished,
(49:34):
with four albums to her name with The Mamas and
the Papas, plus five solo records, as well as herston
and the nighttime television in the late nineteen sixties on
popular shows and even her own prime time specials. She
had countless accolades all throughout her career and was posthumously
inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in
(49:55):
nineteen ninety eight. Then fast forward to twenty twenty two
and she was given a star on the Hollywood Walk
of Fame. So she was really larger than life in
so many different ways, and according to her own website quote,
everything about her was big, her talent, her heart, and
(50:15):
her legacy. So from all of us here at the
Real Story, happy birthday, casts, and thank you for making
your own kind of music and sharing it with all
of us. And that concludes today's broadcast. We truly hope
you enjoyed it, and remember we always want to hear
from you, so please email your feedback and any new
(50:37):
stories you'd like us to cover to the Real Story
ATANAN dot com and follow us on social media at
the Real Story. An so until we meet again, God
bless you, God bless our troops, and God bless America.
Speaker 4 (51:00):
Watch o AN live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go. Visit k l
o w d tv dot com Today. That's k l
o w d tv dot com Today.
Welcome to the Real Story. I'm your host, Riley Lewis.
Thank you for joining us. Today's top story brings us
to a breaking development coming out of Washington, d C.
A plan so bold that it's got many heads in
the swamp spinning. An idea that could lead to sweeping
change all over the world, A possible course of action
(00:31):
that could really set the stage for some world changing events.
And that brings us to President Trump's plan to find
a way to reclaim Bogram Airbase in Afghanistan from the
Taliban's clutches. President Trump discussed his desire to reclaim the
airbase on Thursday during a joint press conference with the
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and according to a few
(00:54):
unnamed sources, he's been quietly twisting arms to reclaim it
since March.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Know.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
For those of you who are wondering why, just picture
this a sprawling two mile runway hub just an hour
north of Kabble in the Parwan province that once served
as America's launch pad in the country for two decades
of operations, with cargo planes roaring in with supplies, fighter
jets scrambling against terror, and attack helicopters thundering overhead. Several
(01:26):
US presidents in previous years have all stood on this tarmac,
vowing victory over Jihati's and a brighter future for the region. However,
as it currently stands, the air bases under Taliban control.
Taliban forces gain control of it in August twenty twenty
one after Biden's crew slunk out like thieves in the
(01:46):
night in July of that year, stripping nearly nine hundred
c seventeen loads of gear and torching thousands of pieces
of equipment before the Taliban waltzed in. But to really
understand why Trump even wants to reclaim this strategic air base,
one must understand the storied history behind it.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
So.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Bogram Air Base, also known as Bogram Airfield, is a
major military installation that has served various world powers through
its complicated and long history. It situated about seven miles
south east of Charikar in northeastern Afghanistan, at an elevation
of nearly five thousand feet above sea level, and it
(02:28):
was originally built in the nineteen fifties by the Soviet
Union amid Cold War efforts to influence Afghanistan. The base
itself spans a vast area of the country and has
historically been one of the most strategically important airfields in
all of Central Asia due to its proximity to key
regional powers, including China, Iran, Pakistan, and even Russia. And
(02:55):
during the Soviet Afghan War, which lasted from nineteen seventy
nine to nineteen eighty nine, Bogram served as a primary
hub for Soviet military operations, hosting aircraft, troops, and more.
But following Soviet withdrawal in nineteen eighty nine, the base
suffered damage during Afghanistan's civil war in the nineteen nineties.
(03:17):
It even changed hands between different factions, eventually falling under
Taliban control by the year two thousand. But then after
the US led invasion of Afghanistan in two thousand and one,
following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on
September eleventh of that year, US and coalition forces secured
(03:37):
the base and expanded on it, adding a second runway
in two thousand and six for tens of millions of dollars.
The US then invested hundreds of millions of dollars more
into infrastructure. By two thousand and nine, it quickly became
the largest US military installation in all of Afghanistan, serving
as a critical logistics and operational center for NATO's International
(04:00):
Security Assistance Force, therefore providing the entire West with a
critical foothold in the country. But the base faced numerous
attacks in the following years, including a notable one in
two thousand and seven, a suicide bombing during a visit
by then Vice President Dick Cheney which killed twenty three people.
(04:21):
But still it remained in US control. But that all
changed in the summer of twenty twenty one. That's when
US forces withdrew from Bogram in July, handing it over
to the Afghan National Security Forces amid the broader US
troop pullout from the country that was negotiated under the
Doha Agreement, a deal that was signed by the Trump
(04:42):
administration in twenty twenty. Then, following the unexpected collapse of
the Afghan government, the Taliban seized control of it once
again on August fifteenth of twenty twenty one, twenty one
years after they first gained control. But now, in of
all of this history, we return to the question of
(05:03):
why why would the White House want to reclaim it. Firstly,
reclaiming control would enhance the US government's ability to surveil China,
whose border is less than five hundred miles away. Secondly,
it would help the US establish a firm counter terrorism
center to target groups like the Taliban and like ISIS.
(05:24):
And Thirdly, it could allow the US to gain access
to critical rare earth minerals located in the country. However,
the one critical detail about this whole plan is that
it would likely require a US military presence on the ground,
and that's where the real debate lies. With Jahatis in control,
nobody wins, but the idea of becoming entangled in the
(05:47):
country once again raises some very important questions. Near to
help us answer them all as a veteran with a
thorough understanding of America's history in the region, so here
with reaction is Brown, a constitutional attorney and former Navy
JAG officer who's running for US sunate in North Carolina.
Don thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Sir, Thank you for having me Riley. It's the pleasure
as always.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
And the same here and I have so many questions.
Let's just start here with your initial thoughts about this plan.
What do you make of it?
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Well, I was most Americans, and most veterans, I would say,
especially but all Americans were horrified by the embarrassing and
inexcusable surrender withdraw that the Biden administration put on display
for the entire world to see in twenty twenty one.
Remember those C seventeen transports trying to take off from
Bagrim with these poor Afghanis, you know, hanging onto the
(06:44):
wings and some getting crushed and maybe even sucked below
the engines. Is an absolute disaster. I felt and have
always felt that, you know, eventually leaving Afghanistan was proper,
except you have to keep the spoils of war. And
we look historically when we won World War Two against
the Japanese. Today we have marines in Okinaba, there's a
(07:06):
naval station at Yokuska. Look at Germany, Ramstein Air Base
and other bases are there. We have nothing to show
for all the blood, sweat and tears of our twenty
some years in Afghanistan. And as far as Bagram goes,
you've touched on it already. But the smart answer is
geography is Geo's strategic position in Asia gives us a
(07:26):
forward presence without having to spend a lot of money.
As you pointed out, that base was built, it's there,
We're not building it from scratch. We know how to
defend it, and the positives outweigh the negatives, and we
need to reclaim that base and we had. The President
is forward thinking here as he has in other areas
in terms of the US poggestion of the US military
(07:46):
is great bang for the BA and it needs to
happen for the sake of those who lost their lives
like Aaron Vaughn and others who died on Extortion seventeen
and so many others who died in that war. Their
sacrifices should not be in vain. This is a win
win proposition and I'm looking forward to seeing how it
plays out.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
So then done for people out there who say, Wull,
did this possibly put a target on our backs or
for American troops or lead to a potential conflict with
the Taliban on the ground there, what would you say
to them?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
First off, the Taliban has never been able to defeat
us on the ground. I've written two books on the Afghanistan.
They are, you know, except for the eighty billion whatever
the military equipment that Biden left them, which they don't
even know how to operate. For the most part, they're
not very sophisticated. They were never able to beat us
on the ground. They put tons and tons and tons
of IED's in the ground that is land mines, but Bagram,
(08:38):
as you pointed out, it's elevated to five thousand feetus,
about one hundred miles from the Pakistani border, about five
hundred miles or so from southern China and as xing
Jang is western area where are multiple military bases. It
is secure. Yes, there was, there have been some you know, bombing,
some gate bombings there, but we have the drone technology
(08:58):
to easily protect the perimeter of the base. It is
not going to require and you know, in another extensive
recommitment of major United States forces on the ground to
protect that base. We have the ability to do it
with minimal force and lots of firepower. And if I
were concerned about a long protracted re engagement of multiple
(09:18):
troops on the ground in Afghanistan, they'll be different. It's
not gonna take that. We got predator drones, we got
assets in the air to protect that base without a
substantial ground amendment outside of the perimeter of the base itself.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
That's interesting. You know, one thing that really catches my eye.
Here is the timing of this announcement because just a
few days ago we started seeing report service of Iran
and some other countries I believe Egypt, maybe even Qatar,
pushing for the creation of a NATO style military alliance
for Muslim majority countries. So we already have this, you know,
(09:51):
this competition between different you know organizations over this very
you know, important strategic area. I'm not sure if you've
seen those reports, but I'd like to get your comments
about that and whether or not that changes our plans
on the ground there.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Well, the the thing to remember is that can that
Candahar are the base in the south, and Bagram the
one that President In fact, i'd like to see us
take both of those based about Candahar and southern Afghanistan
as well. But both of these bases are in the
eastern the southern that is Kandahar and now Bagram is
in the central eastern part of of of Afghanistan. It
(10:26):
is a is an is an Asian uh you know,
geographical location.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
It is not.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Directly in the Middle East, but yet you know, the
Iranian border is on the western side of the country,
and it was it was very very easy to get
there and that the notion of a NATO type of
you know, strategic alliance among these Muslim or Sharia countries
is sort of bone chilling. If you look at history,
(10:55):
you know that we're one of the reasons World War
One was fought had to do with the old Ottoman
Empire which was busted up. That was the last Muslim caliphate,
which was busted up at the end of World War One,
and these nations were artificially put into place by the
skyspeed Co Treaty in nineteen eighteen, you know, to carve
them up so there would not be another calfhate. So
(11:17):
the notion of some sort of you know, a Muslim
or Islamic or Sharia NATO is bone chilling. And having
the presence of a large base there would allow us
to strike from the west back toward the East into
Iran and down into the Middle East very very quickly
if we needed to do that. It's a lot closer
than any other air base that we have permanently said already,
(11:38):
other than the ones that we're using in Saudi Arabia,
which is of course, you know, part of the part
of the proposed alliance. So it's something that would be
a valuable strategic importance, both with the projection of American
power into Southern Asia against China and Russia, but also
coming back into the Middle East as well. So that's
it goes back to what I said earlier. It's a
win win proposition for many of those strategic reasons understood.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Then, sort of my final question to bring everything back together,
I think the really the question on the center of
it all is what is the message that we're trying
to send here? And it comes on the heels of,
for example, changing the name of the Department of Defense
to a Department of War, signaling that we're going on offense.
We've also seen recent strikes on the nuclear facilities in Iran,
So I think there's clearly some sort of a message
(12:23):
we'd be sending here about us taking proactive measures to
protect our allies and our interests in the world stage.
But I want to get your thoughts about what kind
of message we be sending and the implications of a
move like this.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
It's a very strong what kind of message and to whom?
So there's a second elevement to your question, heaven with it, RAI,
to whom it's a strong message to the communist Chinese
and President g trying to establish themselves as a military superpower.
It's the message that the Russians were on the soft
side of there under belly as well, and it's a
message to the Middle East. But the content of the
(12:56):
message is that under President Trump a moving forward with
an America First policy, America is a back militarily and
I agree we cannot be the policeman of the world,
but we all I also believe in in you know,
the old big stick policy that t r head speak
softly but carry a big stick. And I believe in
Reagan's philosophy that our military should be so strong that
(13:17):
no potential adversary should ever test its strength. And this
is a win win situation. It sends a powerful message
that if you begin to engage in global shenanigans against
America and American interests, you're going to get a bloody
nose real quick, and we can strike anywhere in the
world very very quickly, because we're going to be close
to your backyard. We're not going to need to send
these powerful B two bombers from the middle of Missouri.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
We're going to be right there, and we can be
there with them a matter of minutes.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
So I think it's a matter of it's a message
of strength, and it's a message of power, yet it's
also a message of preserving the peace through strength as well.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Okay, understood. I just want to end by saying thank
you for your time today, sir, and thank you for
your service to this country.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
My pleasure, Riley, thank you so much for you as well.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Coming up next, FBI Director Cashptel testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee this week as well as the House Judiciary
Committee and what turned out to be a very intense
and unbecoming affair in California. Congressman Tom mcintalk joins us
to discuss the fallout as he was there for it all.
More details after the break.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Watch on live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch One
America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Welcome back to the real story. For those who want
to understand why so many Americans just don't engage in
politics anymore, look no further than what happened during FBI
Director Cash Betel's testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary
Committe earlier this week, in the echoing chambers of the
Rayburn House Office Building Director Patel, President Trump's no nonsense
(15:08):
pick to drain the swamp faced a Democrat led ambush
as he blasted the agency's weaponization against conservatives in years past,
while also the nation's civility crumbles into outright vitriol. In fact,
in one instance, Ptel shot back at ranking member Jamie
Raskin and crew, you're part of the cover up, he charged,
(15:33):
slamming court blocks on full releases of the Epstein files
amid accusations of shielding Trump's ties. But this isn't isolated fury.
It's the toxic spillover from a government gone rogue from
Biden era irs audits directly targeting school board parents to
(15:54):
say the doj burying hunter Biden's laptop scandals. Meanwhile, the
whole ordeal itself really highlighted the death of decorum in Washington.
Recall Texas Democrat Al Green's March sixth century for keeping
his cane strong, waving it furiously in the air, and
(16:14):
attempting to heckle President Trump's congressional address. A really interesting
pr stunt that earned housewide rebuke. And when we look
at these statistics here, it's also not a pretty picture.
For example, a Yugov poll reveals that eighty three percent
of Americans see surging political violence, with Printon's Princeton's bridging
(16:37):
divides noting a ten percent spike in threats against officials
just last year alone, with liberal respondents being twice as
likely as others to justify using force. Sometimes, folks, when
hearings like this one devolve into shouting matches, it's no
(16:57):
wonder that streets follow suit. And it's also no wonder
that many Americans just give up on politics, and frankly,
who could blame them? The halls of government aren't meant
for waging personal attacks. They're meant for productive discourse about
important issues. So when this discourse devolves into chaos and madness,
(17:20):
it makes everybody involved look foolish, and it makes the
American people completely uninterested in political discourse. And all of
this backlash and hysteria for what. Director Patel claims that
he's fighting to restore balance, reclaim sanity, and depoliticize the FBI,
(17:41):
things that everybody can and should support, regardless of politics.
So what really explains the outrage and what explains the
contempt with which he was treated earlier this week? Here
to help us answer those in questions is a lawmaker
who was present during these hearings, Representative Tom McClintock, the
(18:02):
GOP congressman who represents California's fifth congressional district. Representative. Thank
you for being here, sir.
Speaker 5 (18:09):
It's my pleasure, Riley, and I don't think I've got
much to add after that beautiful presentation you just made.
You are absolutely spot on.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Well, I appreciate it, and I do want to get
your thoughts about the hostility and contempt that he's been
treated with thus far. What do you think is really
going on there?
Speaker 5 (18:28):
Well, I think there's a clash between two very different ideologies.
One is the traditional American principles of individual liberty, constitutionally
limited government, and personal responsibility and this new woke leftist
phenomenon that is essentially one based upon on unequal application
(18:57):
of the law and the denigration of the most fundamental
principles that our country was founded on. And those are
incompatible things. And that's why I think you're seeing a
rising of dystopian effect in our national politics. You remember,
Congress is simply a reflection of what's going on among
(19:18):
the American people. And I think there's two very different approaches,
freedom and socialism. We've been there once before when the
difference was freedom and slavery, and if you think about it,
slavery and socialism are basically two sides of the same coin.
And I think that we're reaching such a moment in
our nation's history again where we're going to have to
decide whether we will see a new birth of freedom
(19:41):
or whether we will travel down the road of so
many failed civilizations before us.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
That's really interesting. Now do you really hammer home this point?
I want to play a sound bite. There's a few
that really stuck out to me, so I want to
get your thoughts. But this is one courtesy of Senator
Corey Booker, who I just think keep a clown himself.
This was unbecoming. It was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. But
I want to play this sound bite and then get
your reaction to it.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Sir, If you want to work on bringing this country,
it's my time, not yours.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
My god, my god.
Speaker 6 (20:10):
If you want to talk about biding this country, it
is I follow you on your social media post.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
You try all in.
Speaker 4 (20:23):
This country.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
Time for what said?
Speaker 6 (20:27):
You're time over this committee, sir. You don't tell me
by time is over? People tell me what my time is.
You can't lecture me.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
You can tell me.
Speaker 4 (20:38):
I am, mister chairman, not afraid of you.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
So representative. They're talking about the investigation into the man
who assassinated Charlie Kirk. There and some of these statements
that Director Patel had made online over the course of
the investigation. And I understand there were some concerns about it,
about the information that was coming to light. But you
watch that clip and you have to wonder what kind
of message does that send to the average American.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
It obviously sends a distress signal that our country is
reaching a climactic and we're all going to have to
decide which direction we want our country to take back
toward our fundamental values or toward the principles of the left,
which always lead to authoritarianism and chaos. And I might
point out, just in respect to the Kirk assassination, under
(21:31):
cash Ptel's leadership, the FBI resolved that case in thirty
three hours. It took five days. In the hunt for
Luigi Mangione, and a lot of the reason for the
success was Patel's decision to immediately release pictures of the subject,
which led to his surrender in just a matter of hours.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
I appreciate that perspective as well, and it brings me
to this broader point I'm wondering about. You were in
the hearings, sir, and I was just watching them, But
I was wondering the whole time regarding these lawmakers who
just attacked him. It seems clear to me that they
just they personally have issues with him. But I'm wondering
what is their end goal with this belligerent line of questioning,
(22:12):
other than maybe trying to make him look bad and
really just smear him in front of the American people.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
I think that's the entire objective, and the reason for
that is because they can't.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Win on argument.
Speaker 5 (22:24):
In fact, you know, I've learned over the years that
when the other guy starts calling you names, you know
two things for sure. You know that you're winning the argument,
and you know that the other guy knows that you're
winning the argument. You know. Somebody once yelled at it
from a crowd at Abraham Lincoln called him a liar,
and Lincoln pause and he says, friend, you cannot disprove
(22:44):
Euclidian geometry by calling Euclid a liar. And yet that's
what the left is doing today. You know, Cash Bettel
did an outstanding job in our hearing catalog and the
accomplishments of the administration during his seven months as FBI director.
I mean, their policies have produce to dramatic drop and
violent crime in Washington, d C. We're seeing a surge
and applications for law enforcement positions again, where before we
(23:08):
were losing people quitting law enforcement. And it turns out
that when you enforce the law, crime drops. And he
attributed their success to shifting the FBI's attention from what
it was doing under the Biden administration, such as harassing
Catholics and parents who are attending school board meetings, and
instead getting violent criminals off the streets. They've been very
(23:29):
successful in doing that, and I think that's what the
left is really objecting to, but they can't say that directly,
so they simply attack him personally.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
That's really interesting, So to follow up then, I also
want to get your reaction to this moment he had
with Eric Swalwell. It seemed like a real low point,
maybe for them both admittedly, but especially for Swallwell here,
so I want to play this interaction between them and
then get your thoughts about it, sir.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
Anyone that has been terminated at the FBI has been done.
Speaker 6 (23:56):
So the question they hel to meet the muster in
the constitution, work.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
On the visual capabilities.
Speaker 6 (24:02):
I'm going to borrow your terminology and call both your
entire career in Congress disgrace the American You can your
time all you want.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
I mean, sir, what is going on there?
Speaker 5 (24:19):
Well, what we were just discussing of that they can't
argue the facts. Uh, so they make personal attacks. It's
it's not complicated. But this is not going on in
a vacuum. People are watching this. People are are seeing
the difference, uh, and they're adjusting their opinions accordingly. And
we're seeing that in all the polling data that's coming
(24:39):
out now. This is tremendous of exodus out of the
Democratic Party by a lot of lifelong Democrats. Who are
you going on social platforms and saying I can't affiliate
with this party anymore. They've as Reagan said, I didn't
leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic party left me, and
I think a whole new generation are to that conclusion
(25:01):
watching this sort of exchange.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Absolutely. I also bring this up in part just in
light of recent events. We have the funeral for Charlie
Kirk coming up this weekend, and in light of that
horrific and evil act of violence, a lot of people
are wondering how do we get back to a place
in America where we can have civil discourse. I think
one answer is we need to see that example set
by our country's leaders. I see you doing that, but
(25:25):
not so much for people like Eric Swalwell or Adam Schiff.
So in the final minute we have or so with you,
what do you think is really the recipe to getting
back to that place where we can dialogue with each other,
debate and discuss these issues in a way that's civil
and peaceful and productive.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
Well, ultimately, trust the people and trust the foundation of
a free society, which is freedom of expression. You know,
free society is recognize the only way to separate fact
from fiction, or love from hate, or truth from lies,
or wisdom from folly, or good from evil.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Is to put them.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
So I buy side and trust the people to know
the difference We've based our entire form of government on
the assumption that people are free to express themselves and
their opinions and to listen to those of others. More
than half of them are going to get it right more.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Than half the time.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
That served us well over the centuries, and I think
is our way back to that more perfect union that
we all desire understood.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
And I just want to say thank you for your time.
That's a very interesting point to end on. So thank
you for what you're doing in Washington, sir, because this
country really needs it.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
Thank you, Riley, and thank you again for a very
very beautiful opening statement.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
I appreciate it, sir. Coming up next, could a lack
of knowledge about the US Constitution be one of the
main things fueling division, hatred, and even violence in modern America.
That's what today's next guest suggests. More details about that
right after the.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
Break, watch AM Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go, visit klowd tv
dot com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Welcome back to the Real Story. Today's next segment centers
around an important, yet very very simple question, Why is
there so much division in modern America? The US is
deeply divided today. That much is very obvious, and this
division is the subject of much discourse. However, not nearly
(27:42):
enough time it's been discussing why the country is so divided,
let alone what can be done to address this division
and unite the American people again? And that brings us
to an interesting theory posited by our next guest. He's
a fifth generation Texan, a long time business and community leader,
and an award winning author, and he believes that a
(28:05):
lack of constitutional knowledge in today's polarized environment leaves Americans
increasingly vulnerable to partisan fear and hostility. Now, whether his
theory is ultimately true is for the viewers to decide. However,
we're bringing this issue to light for a few reasons
right now, including notably this disturbing rise of political violence,
(28:29):
which clearly reflects deepening divisions in the country, as well
as the breakdown of trust in America's institutions, and the
fact that Constitution Day was on Wednesday of this week.
Drafted in seventeen eighty seven during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia,
ratified in seventeen eighty eight and taking effect in seventeen
eighty nine. The US Constitution is the world's longest surviving
(28:52):
charter of government. Its creation permanently changed the entire world,
establishing a brand new framework for governance all over the planet,
and its real importance lies in establishing a system of
government that balances power among branches through checks and balances,
preventing any one part of government from becoming too dominant
(29:16):
and therefore preventing the rise of tyranny. So on that note,
our next guest will help us highlight how the document
has shaped American society and how I thorough knowledge of
it could play a pivotal role in uniting a divided nation.
So here with more is Richard Battle, a fifth generation Texan,
longtime business and community leader, and of course an award
(29:38):
winning author. Richard, thank you for being here today, Sir Riley.
Speaker 7 (29:42):
Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. And that was
a very good introduction.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
I really appreciate that. And I want to start with
my theory for you and just see what your thoughts are.
So I think your thesis is extremely interesting. I think
you're onto something, and I think I understand what you're
really saying here, we have so much division in modern America,
and in part it might be because people are fighting
about issues that they don't really fully understand. What do
(30:09):
you think of my theory on that.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Well, you're I think you're correct.
Speaker 7 (30:13):
But there's always been divisions, and they have risen and
fallen based on the times and the people. And one
of the sad things today or two of the sad
things are are our government to function properly, our citizens
have to be involved. It's a self governance system of
the people, by the people, and for the people. And
(30:35):
when our citizens aren't involved, that invites politicians from either
side of the aisle to abuse us as citizens, and
so that is bad. And then you have such a
large government operation now it invites people with ill will
into it to what I call the all you can
(30:55):
take buffet from the standpoint of pursuing they're versus the
good of the country. And politicians care about the next election.
Statesmen care about the next generation, and we have very
few statesmen right now.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
So completely agreed with you. By the way, sir, been
talking about solutions. It leads us to education. In the classroom,
we used to learn about the Bill of rights, the
Declaration of Independence, your state's constitution, and the US Constitution,
and then somewhere along the way we sort of phase
that out of education. Why do you think that is.
Speaker 7 (31:33):
Well, I think it's people that wanted to take advantage
of that lack of education for their own power.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
And you're correct.
Speaker 7 (31:40):
When we were kids, our parents could send us to
school and they could trust the schools.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
To teach us those things.
Speaker 7 (31:47):
Today parents cannot trust the schools, and they have to
get back into the schools to make sure they're being taught.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
But I believe it's our.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
Responsibility as parents and grandparents to make sure we teach
kids and grandkids what a great gift.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
We've been given. It's the most unique gift.
Speaker 7 (32:05):
Of freedom in the world and in history, and none
of us appreciated it.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Well enough during our lives.
Speaker 7 (32:13):
But it's important as we appreciate it to make sure
we pass that down to the next generation.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
So they don't give it away. If we don't give
it away before they arrive.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
That's interesting. Now following up then, I mean, these are
transformational documents we're talking about, and you only have so
much time with a kid in the classroom, So I
like this idea of a lifelong education coming from friends
and family. How do you go about bringing this cultural
change to modern America.
Speaker 7 (32:41):
Well, I think that's a great point, and it goes
right into some of the things that myself and other
people are trying to do to educate parents and grandparents,
inspire and motivate them, to make sure they spend time
with kids, to let them know what a great gift
we have. I can remember my mother when I was
a kid, reminded me how blessed we were to be
(33:05):
in the United States. And as a former friend and
mentor of mine, in a Texas attorney a.
Speaker 8 (33:10):
General John Ben Shephard, said, to be born free is
an accident, to live free is a responsibility, but to
diath free is an obligation.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
That's very interesting. I appreciate the perspective. I do want
to pivot though for a moment too, because, like you said,
we've always had division in this country, even if it's founding,
we were divided between loyalists who wanted to remain under
the British control and people who wanted to start a
new country. So, going all the way back to our founding,
we've had division, but we've only had a few of
(33:44):
these moments like we see today where political violence is
center stage and Americans are attacking each other in the streets.
What do you make of that? And do you think
that constitutional knowledge is really going to be enough to
address that problem in a meaningful way.
Speaker 7 (34:00):
Well, the Constitution is there as our roadmap and rule book,
if you will, and it only works if people restrain
themselves from taking power that they may be able to
take and honoring the rules that are in there. And
so we've had generations for two hundred plus years that
have done that, but we're starting to see now people
(34:23):
who are not honoring that self restrain, if you will. Now,
the hope I have is after the Civil War we
were able to heal and bring the nation back together.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
It wasn't simple, quick.
Speaker 9 (34:36):
Or easy, but it occurred because both sides sacrificed and compromised,
and it will take both sides to come together for
us to heal going forward.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
I agree with that. So then on that point, how
do we go about, I guess, getting people to compromise again,
showing them the value of compromise, because if that seems
like a monumental challenge, well it is.
Speaker 7 (35:04):
And that's why they need to know that the people
will hold them accountable at the ballot box and are
watching what they do. If we the people don't demand
change in our government to serve us better, we're going
to get what we're getting now and worse going forward.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
And people get frustrated because there's so.
Speaker 7 (35:23):
Many things they can't change, and they don't know what
to do, and they're paralyzed. And so my suggestion is,
find one thing, one area that you want to help,
school board, city council, whatever it is. Find one thing
and contribute there, and if we can get enough citizens
participating one level higher than they are now, we can
(35:45):
correct a lot of this.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Okay, I appreciate that. Before we let you go as well,
I want to highlight your book for people who might
want to learn more about you and read some of
your works, including Americans who Made America. Where can they
go to get a copy?
Speaker 7 (36:00):
Richard Battle dot com is my website. They're all there
and signed. If you go to Amazon, we have the
kindle and audio versions of that and all twelve books
as well.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Okay, thank you for your time today, sir and your insight.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (36:14):
My pleasure. Riley God Bless America.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Coming up next. The seventy seventh Annual Emmy Awards have
come and gone, and there was no shortage of political
virtue signaling or pop culture analyst Chris Chella dish is
the dirt on Tinseltown's elite. Right after the.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
Break, watch an live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network. Wherever you go, visit klowd tv
dot com. Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
Welcome back to the real story. Today's next topic brings
us to these past week's Emmy Awards. But before we
get into the nitty and gritty of it all and
of course, the fallout from it, just picture this for
a moment, Hollywood's glittering elite, draped and borrowed finery strutting
across a stage that's less about celebrating art and more
(37:16):
about boosting the egos of the celebrities there. That was
the site at this year's Emmy Awards, a spectacle that
was broadcast to millions and millions of people. And yes,
it was a whisper up from last year's whisper, but
still a deafening silence compared to the twenty million strong
crowds of decades past, which is very interesting. Nonetheless, it's
(37:38):
still served up the annual ritual of a list actors
using their podium to preach about politics instead of just
sticking to the artistic creations that brought them to the
ceremony in the first place. And whether or not that's
actually a good thing to see really just depends on
who you ask. Celebrities have every right to use their
platforms to discuss political issue and the fact that we
(38:01):
honor that right is actually something that makes America exceptional.
After all, everybody has a right to their opinions, and
everyone has a right to express them, and in public,
every man, woman and child has a god given right
to say what they think is true. It's what the
founder stood for. However, bringing politics to an awards show
is a very interesting gamble for an industry that has
(38:23):
hemorrhaged viewers over the last decade, drawing increasingly smaller audiences
to spectacles like this one. It's almost as if these
ceremonies aren't really about celebrating artistic excellence, but are instead
about dividing the American people by pushing politics and cliche
talking points, as if that's why anyone really tunes in
(38:46):
to the show. Oh here with his thoughts, analysis, and
reaction to it all is producer for this program and
our resident pop culture analyst, Chris Cella. Chris, thank you
for being here.
Speaker 3 (38:58):
All.
Speaker 10 (38:59):
He's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
So, you know, I don't really watch these things. I
personally just don't really care about them so much, but
you believe they're very important for American culture. So walk
us through what we saw and your key takeaways from it.
Speaker 10 (39:12):
Yeah, you know, so, of course, you know, I think
most Americans don't really care about the opinions of politicians,
and we learn that in the excuse me the opinions
of celebrities, and we learned that in the twenty twenty
four presidential election. Nonetheless, though, Hollywood does shape culture and society.
And so these award shows where there were people who
you know, get paid to pretend to be other people,
(39:34):
patting each other on the back, celebrating, and they drop
the mask, they drop the veil, and they show us
who they really are, Riley, and it's often it's not
very pretty. Most of them are disingenuous, they're extremely arrogant,
and they're trapped in this kind of delusional mind state
that like therapy, a Kido cleanse in a well timed
tweet can absolve them of the society, contributing to the
(39:55):
societal collapse and turning Tinseltown Hollywood into a cultural wasteland
that they have monetized. By the way, So like, this
is the industry Riley that greenlit this show Euphoria, which
is essentially soft core pornography as family viewing and has
put homosexual themes into animated films aimed at children.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
They're like they these people virtue.
Speaker 10 (40:21):
Signal signal like a malfunctioning smoke detector beeping every thirty
seconds about you know, the issues and then going off
to uh, you know, film reboots of shows about rich
white white people having existential crises. There's uh, you know,
there's the selective outrage and the people who gave a
standing ovation to a convicted child rapist. They worship Parvey
(40:42):
Weinstein as this Hollywood demigod. And then the fine moral
outrage kicks in when the predator du jour u becomes
you know, just too too hot to handle. Then they
act like, you know, I never had you in my
biopic or took hundreds of pictures with you. I don't
know this guy. They're also they're just been narcissists, and
they've drawn on about things like climate change and bark
(41:04):
at you and me for driving gas powered cars when
their jets sit idle on the tarmac emitting more carbon
than a Michael.
Speaker 4 (41:13):
Bay action scene.
Speaker 10 (41:15):
I mean. And then there's the this is great the
wealth inequality riley because they talk about how terrible the
one percent is on ironically, they use this term some
of the wealthiest people in the country talk about how
it's just it's really funny. They are, as you would say,
very serious people.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Right, well, clearly they exist in a bubble in this
ecosystem that know what the Americans can really relate to.
But I'm wondering if you have some examples to show us, yes,
just to prove this point.
Speaker 10 (41:43):
Absolutely so. It really kind of kicked into high gear
when Trump won the twenty sixteen election, and you have,
you know, just the loss of decorum, respect and decency
shown here by Robert de Niro at the twenty eighteen
you know, the ever so subtle attack on Trump at
the twenty eighteen Tony Awards.
Speaker 11 (42:02):
I'm gonna say one thing Trump, So just that's his
official political position right now.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
That's about it.
Speaker 10 (42:17):
Yeah, he's becoming like the character Travis Buckley from Taxi Driver,
but instead of talking to himself in the mirror, he's
running around screaming at Trump supporters. I mean, it's just
he is wild, he's off the rails. But the Trump
presidencies have really helped expose to how just repulsive these
people are. Again, not all of them, many of them.
Here's Hannah Enbinder accepting an award for Best Supporting Actress
(42:40):
for the show Hacks. How ironic, But let's play that sot.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Finally, I just want to say, I just want to say, finally,
go birds, guys, and free Palestine.
Speaker 10 (42:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
Yeah. Look, oh, I mean I don't think there's any
real deeper thought here than just that. It seems like
these people think just in terms of talking points. But
I do sincerely wonder is there any kind of real
goal they're trying to achieve here or is this really
just for show?
Speaker 10 (43:12):
You know, I honestly think it's it's just for.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
Show, Like, are they really trying to accomplish anything or
solve any real problems just why.
Speaker 10 (43:18):
I think they might delude themselves into believing the art,
but the no, I mean, they're not. And you know,
all this talk about you know, first of all, if
you want to go and use your platform to you know,
talk about you know, Palestine, Gaza, okay, fine, sure, But
to denigrate law enforcement, federal US law enforcement is disgusting,
and then to get cheered for it is even more disgusting.
(43:41):
And you know, it's it's it's just it's unacceptable. And
the way this happens and they spew this absolute propaganda,
but then they don't say a single word.
Speaker 4 (43:53):
Not one person.
Speaker 10 (43:54):
Said anything about the biggest political assassination in my lifetime,
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Not one person had the
spine to stand up and say that what happened to
Charlie Kirk was wrong and political violence is unacceptable. Instead,
they just fan the flames and the cherry. On top
(44:17):
of this whole sham of an award show is Stephen
Colbert got the award for Best Late Night Talk Show Host,
but he doesn't have a late night talk show. Ironically,
this is the Emmys were hosted by CBS Paramount. CBS
paramount was the company that fired or canceled his show,
(44:38):
So it's kind of like a yes, you were the
virtue signaler in chief, so here's a golden trophy. Sorry,
we had to like over your show, which by the way,
lost forty to fifty million dollars every time absolutely year
for the last five years.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
Well, I'll agree with you here completely. These award shows
are shams, absolutely, And yes, I respect the idea that
it's a free country. So if you want to take
a political position, so be it. That's that's your choice
to make as a free American. However, what really haunts
me here, something you've just alluded to is the breakdown
of decorum in modern American society. Instead of coming out
and saying, you know, with all due respect to the
(45:12):
current president, I think that we are not doing things
the way we should be doing or I oppose this
certain policy, it's just profanity foul language posturing from people
who do have some real sway over the direction of
the country. What do you make of this breakdown of
decorum in modern America?
Speaker 10 (45:29):
Well, it's just it's really sad to see Riley, and
I mean it's amplified by you know, academia, by the
media just just everywhere you look. And so you know,
and this is another you know, if we could play
the Stephen Colbertsott, which doesn't really age well for him,
but just another example of the the lack of respect
(45:49):
shown for a sitting president. And that's you know, again,
just to highlight.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
It, sure real quick.
Speaker 12 (45:55):
We know the biggest TV star of the last year
is Donald Trump. And we all know the Emmys mean
a lot to Donald Trump because he was nominated multiple
times for Celebrity Apprentice, but he never won. I tell
you this, if he had won an Emmy, I bet
he wouldn't have run for president.
Speaker 1 (46:13):
Okay, so final thoughts for you, Chris. What's the real
takeaway for us here?
Speaker 10 (46:18):
Well, the Emmys used to have you know, back in
two thousand they had twenty two million viewers. Now they
have seven point four million viewers. So people are tuning
out because you know, people like me use movies as
an escape from politics and you know, all that stuff.
It's something that I want to enjoy without that all
of that being shoved in my face. So again, Hollywood,
(46:41):
if you want people to start watching your award shows again,
make the award shows about the films, about good quality
products and not about your hatred for Ice or for
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (46:50):
Very well said and a really great point to end
on today, So Chris, thank you for that.
Speaker 10 (46:55):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (46:56):
Coming up next on today's edition of Real Good News,
we paid tribute to Elliott, one of the extremely talented
musicians who was in the prominent folk rock group The
Mamas and the Papas, as she was born on this
day in nineteen forty one. More details about her life after.
Speaker 4 (47:11):
The break, Watch an live on cloudtv dot com and
see what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and
watch One America News Network wherever you go, visit klowd
tv dot com. Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Welcome back to the Real Story. We'd like to dedicate
today's edition of Real Good News to Cass Elliott, as
today is her birthday. Unfortunately, this world lost cast in
nineteen seventy four, and in doing so lost one of
the greatest musical artists of an entire generation. Cass was
(48:03):
a timeless talent and was from the very beginning, starting
off in theater first before moving to folk music, and
before her rise to stardom in the band The Mamas
and the Papas. She got her feet wet with groups
like The Big Three and the Mugwumps. California Dreaming was
famously her first giant commercial success with The Mamas and
(48:25):
the Papas, and this song skyrocketed them to the top
of the cash Box year End Hot one hundred list
and then the Billboard Year End Hot one hundred list
in nineteen sixty six, changing the whole musical scene in
just one moment. Now. Some other hits of THEIRS included
songs like Monday Monday Dedicated to the One I Love
(48:46):
and Creek Alley Now. After some internal conflict caused the
group to disband unfortunately, she pursued her own solo career,
releasing major anthems like make Your Own Kind of News
and Baby, I'm Yours. She was a larger than life
figure with this magnetic personality and truly undeniable musical talent.
(49:11):
In fact, Rolling Stone once dubbed her the Queen of
Los Angeles pop society, and that moniker really fit her well.
She ran in major circles with many major musicians of
the time as well, including people like Jimmy Hendrix, Joni Mitchell,
Janis Joplin and even the Beach Boys. She was extremely accomplished,
(49:34):
with four albums to her name with The Mamas and
the Papas, plus five solo records, as well as herston
and the nighttime television in the late nineteen sixties on
popular shows and even her own prime time specials. She
had countless accolades all throughout her career and was posthumously
inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in
(49:55):
nineteen ninety eight. Then fast forward to twenty twenty two
and she was given a star on the Hollywood Walk
of Fame. So she was really larger than life in
so many different ways, and according to her own website quote,
everything about her was big, her talent, her heart, and
(50:15):
her legacy. So from all of us here at the
Real Story, happy birthday, casts, and thank you for making
your own kind of music and sharing it with all
of us. And that concludes today's broadcast. We truly hope
you enjoyed it, and remember we always want to hear
from you, so please email your feedback and any new
(50:37):
stories you'd like us to cover to the Real Story
ATANAN dot com and follow us on social media at
the Real Story. An so until we meet again, God
bless you, God bless our troops, and God bless America.
Speaker 4 (51:00):
Watch o AN live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go. Visit k l
o w d tv dot com Today. That's k l
o w d tv dot com Today.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.