September 24, 2025 • 50 mins
The United Nations holds its 80th General Assembly session in New York City this week and President Trump delivers a groundbreaking speech on day one - urging the international organization to live up to its potential.
Guests:
Daniel Baldwin | Chief White House Correspondent, One America News Network
Caleb Byrd | Senior Litigator, Younts Law
Tom Jordan | Radio Host, The Tom Jordan Show
Lt. Col. David Flippo (ret.) | Veteran, U.S. Air Force & Candidate, Nevada's 4th Congressional District
Guests:
Daniel Baldwin | Chief White House Correspondent, One America News Network
Caleb Byrd | Senior Litigator, Younts Law
Tom Jordan | Radio Host, The Tom Jordan Show
Lt. Col. David Flippo (ret.) | Veteran, U.S. Air Force & Candidate, Nevada's 4th Congressional District
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Welcome to the Real Story. I'm your host Riley Lewis,
and thank you for joining us eighty years. It's been
nearly eighty years to the day since the United Nations
was established in San Francisco, California, and the United Nations
General Assembly is currently holding its eightieth session in New
(00:33):
York City. Delegations from all one hundred and ninety three
member states are in attendance, along with many prominent heads
of state from all over the planet, including of course,
President Trump, making this session a significant global event. It
also comes during a very tumultuous time in the world,
(00:53):
with multiple wars actively being waged, such as the war
between Russia and Ukraine the war between Israel and Hamas,
putting the organization itself into a very precarious position, and
that brings us to the reasons why the UN was
ever founded to begin with. This international body was founded
(01:15):
back on October twenty fourth of nineteen forty five for
the sole purpose of preventing future global conflicts from erupting
and also to promote cooperation between countries, and according to
its own founding charter, its primary purposes include maintaining international
(01:35):
peace and security, fostering collaboration among nations on critical issues
like economic development and delivering humanitarian aid to those in need,
and addressing global challenges by providing this platform for dialogue, discussion,
and collective action. What's more, it was designed to replace
(01:57):
the League of Nations which came and was created after
World War I and which failed to prevent the outbreak
of World War II. And while the world hasn't seen
the outbreak of a third global conflict since the Yuan
was founded, thankfully by the way, some devastating conflicts have
erupted in the years after its founding. Whether it's the
(02:20):
genocide in Rwanda in the nineteen nineties, or the terrorist
attacks on September eleventh of two thousand and one and
the subsequent war on Terror that followed, or this ongoing
conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the largest military affair to
hit Europe since World War II. The UN has severely
struggled to actually maintain peace in reality now. The reasons
(02:44):
for that situation are numerous and complicated, but this fact
itself raises some pretty important questions. For example, is the
Yuen still relevant today in twenty twenty five? Is the
organization itself even worth preserving and if so, how can
(03:06):
the organization and all of its affiliate groups, from UNESCO
to the World Health Organization be more effective in bringing
peace to the planet. In essence, it's really a question
of whether or not global governance is the best solution
to preventing war, bolstering peace, fostering global cooperation, and addressing
(03:29):
the world's most pressing problems. And all of these questions
are at the center of this week's session, which began
on Tuesday. Now, one of the other main issues at
hand this week is also whether or not the UN
is really living up to its full potential. It's a
question that President Trump also addressed during a speech on Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
On that first day. Take a look.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
That being the case, what is the purpose of the
United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential. I've always
said it, it has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it's
not even coming close to living up to that potential
for the most part, at least for now, all they
seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter
(04:16):
and then never follow that letter up. It's empty words,
and empty words don't solve war. The only thing that
solves war, and wars is action.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Action.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Action, indeed very well said, because we all know that
talk is cheap and it doesn't really save lives, does it.
It also doesn't stop bullets from being fired, it doesn't
deliver humanitarian aid to people in need, it doesn't bring
economic development to people living in poverty, and it certainly
doesn't protect people's basic human rights things like freedom of speech. However,
(04:56):
here's the twist. Words, when paired with action, can actually
make all the difference in achieving and maintaining piece, as
shown by some of the most prominent figures in human history.
Just think about President Ronald Reagan for a moment. President
Reagan was effectively able to end the Cold War by
(05:16):
calling on Mikhail Gorbachev to dismantle the Berlin Wall, and
those powerful words, coupled with bold, strong actions, actually brought
about peace in the world. So now, with so many
conflicts happening simultaneously, the UN is facing some major challenges.
(05:37):
Challenges to its mission, challenges to its member states, challenges
to its ideals, and challenges to its practical ability to
bring countries together. It's a pivotal moment for the organization,
and only time will tell if it proves to be
relevant in today's era.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
This whole body was.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Based on a simple eye idea that collective action, not words,
is what's really needed to save mankind. And while this
is certainly true, whether or not the UN is the
best vehicle for that collective action still remains to be seen.
But here with his thoughts, insights, and analysis, is Daniel Baldwin,
(06:20):
the Chief White House correspondent right here at One American
News Network. Daniel, thank you for being here.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Sir, Thanks so much. Riley.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
So, what a huge event going on in New York
City right now, and I have a lot of thoughts
and questions for you. Let's start with some of your
key takeaways from what we saw during President Trump's speech
on Tuesday.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
Well, it was a really rude wake up call for
the United Nations, and I think one of the more
pertinent takeaways was, as you mentioned, you sort of talked
about the UN's guiding and founding purpose. It was laid
out in its charter in nineteen forty five, and that's
to deliver and maintain internet.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
National peace and security.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Riley. That's what the UN was founded to do, right,
So it was quite disturbing to hear President Trump talk
about the fact that he's ended seven major global wars
and conflicts and he didn't even get a phone call
from the United Nations to help. That's disgraceful, that's disturbing
(07:22):
considering the UN's founding mission and core purpose is to
do the exact thing that President Trump has done in
his first term, which is to deliver overarching piece and
major global conflicts which were considered very difficult to end,
such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and Azerbaijan and Armenia. These are long lasting conflicts that
(07:45):
the President ended. The U n didn't help him, The
UN didn't even offer to help. Instead, the President ended
it with action, not strongly worded letters. So I think
that in and of itself, Riley, it needs to be
a very rude wake up call as to what purpose
does the UN serve if it's not even going to
(08:06):
offer the President of the United States help in his
peacemaking mission. Because if they're not going to do that,
you have to ask yourself, what purpose does it serve
to give the UN our money? What purpose does it
served at all? And I think that's sort of the
point the President was making yesterday.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Completely and to piggyback on that, Daniel, just from what
you observed yesterday, and as things are still actively unfolding,
how do you think the rest of the Member States
and the media more importantly received that message from President Trump?
Speaker 5 (08:34):
The media is not going to change the way they
view of him, and I'm not even sure if the
other countries will. But I do think this was a
wildly effective denunciation and repudiation of the foreign policy of
the last four years, right because the President opened up
his speech and he sort of outlined the mess that
he inherited from the prior administration. Global chaos, wars raging everywhere,
(08:57):
right Riley, and he talked about that he needs to
go on to the world stage and re establish American strength,
American deterrence, peace through strength, and he talked about some
of his successes in doing so, hitting Iran's nuclear facilities,
making sure that narco terrorists in the southcom Region of
Responsibilities know if they're going to peddle narcotics into the
United States, they're going to be blown to smithereads. So
(09:19):
he's talking about how you can only bring about peace
and security when the world respects your strength, and they
has it for the last four years, and currently he
was making the point that nobody respects the UN, at
least the bad actors on the world stage.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
They certainly don't. And he was sort of giving them advice.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
And it's kind of like a parent sitting a child
down that's been acting out and giving them a very
rude wake up call, Riley, just saying, like, your behavior
is not acceptable and it's not up to the standard to.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Which I expect.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
And quite frankly, their actions or alleged actions, with the escalator,
the teleprompter not working, the audio game playing that they
were making when the President was speaking, it's insulting, to
say the least. And I can tell you that the
White House is quite furious with how that went down
as well.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Oh, I believe it.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Who knows what really was going on there, But I
think that the broader picture here, the point that you're
really alluding to, it's actually kind of an empowering message
coming from the White House. President Trump isn't knocking their capability.
He's disappointed in them for not living up to the
standard they should be at which they're totally capable of.
So as far as I'm concerned. I know there are people,
especially in Europe, who are upset and they're chastising President Trump,
(10:33):
and they're you know, turning away and they don't want
to hear it. But it's actually true. First of all,
and number two, it should be an empowering message, not
a disenfranchising one, because he's saying, you have all the
tools that you need, so stop talking about fixing the
world and come out there, Daniel and fix it.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
The world is fixed by doers, right, and that's something
that the President has always said. He's like, I don't
want to hear you talk about doing something. One I
see you actually go out and do it. And is
sort of the things that he was pointing to was
the UN one hundred and forty two nations endorsing the
UN General Assembly's resolution to sort of take tangible.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
States steps to recognize a.
Speaker 5 (11:09):
Two state solution between the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. He
was saying, first and foremost, you don't reward terrorists for
what they did on October seventh and not complying and
releasing the hostages. Secondly, a lot of these European nations
like to talk tough about ending the Russia Ukraine war,
Yet they're going out and buying more fossil fuels from
Russia than the financial aid that they're actually giving to
(11:31):
a country like Ukraine. I saw study Riley saying that
EU imports of Russian fossil fuels totaled about twenty one
billion euros in the third year of the war, and
the financial aid that they gave to Ukraine was less
than nineteen billion euros. And that's the point that the
President's making, is like, why am I going to hammer
them with sanctions when they're still just going to.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Make a profit way you buying their oil.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
That's weak behavior, and that's a crucial point to understand.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
And I think the President's just tired of them.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Yelling about sanctions and sanctions and then them hypocritically going
to Russia and continuing to fund the war by buying
oil from them.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
And that's just another point.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
And obviously, the President highlighted that uncontrolled mass migration was
the biggest political issue in modern times, and he highlighted
how the UN was actually funding the border invasion, and
he said it was completely unacceptable the behavior in that regard.
But if they continue to do this and behave this way, Riley,
(12:32):
and they don't live up to their standard. And we
know that they irked and that's putting it very lightly.
The White House, with how they behaved with the escalator
and the audio and the prompter, it's worth asking the question,
is our involvement in the un worth it? And I
think that's something the President will have to grapple with
(12:54):
if they continue to not live up to their standard.
But it was a harsh wake up call, Riley, a
harsh one, and it was a needed one as well.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I completely agree with that. And this next question. We
don't have all the answers to this. It costs for
some speculation, but you brought it up, Daniel, and it's
really worth considering. We have to ask ourselves. Number one, Yes,
has this organization outlived its usefulness for us? We created it,
We were one of the original founders of it. It
was created in San Francisco eighty years ago, so we
(13:23):
were an integral part of this. This organization wouldn't be
here without us. However, it brings us to a question.
Now President Trump has set the stage, identified the problems,
and given them solutions.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
So the question.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Is isn't enough to really bring about that behavioral change
that we all want to see that I don't know,
but I want to get your thoughts about that, Daniel.
Do you think things are going to change moving forward?
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Let me tell you this, Riley, I'm just not going
to be holding my breath. It's kind of like just
repeated behavior.
Speaker 5 (13:57):
Someone says they're not going to do something, and then
they do it again, and they say they're not going
to do it, and then they do it again, and
then they say they're not going to do it. You're
just not going to believe them at a certain point.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
But again, I.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
Actually really liked your analysis the way you laid it
out of The President identified the problem, he showed them
the problem, he identified the solution. He explained to them
how to do the solution and live up to their potential.
But that doesn't mean they're going to do it. This
has been a repeated behavior from the European Union and
the European excuse me, the United Nations. And I'm not
(14:27):
sure if it's going to change anytime soon. But I
do think the most disturbing part is the one thing
that I walked away with and it quite infuriated me,
was learning that they're founding mession mission and message was
to deliver and.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Maintain international security and peace.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
And they couldn't be bothered, Riley to pick up the
phone and even offer to help the President deliver peace
in some of these global conflicts and wars. That is shameful,
It is disgraceful. They should be barrassed. They should be
embarrassed for their behavior when it comes to that, because,
quite frankly, it's completely unacceptable that they couldn't even be
(15:09):
bothered to pick up the phone.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
It's insulting. It's completely insulting.
Speaker 5 (15:13):
So I forgive me if I'm just not too hopeful
that they're going to change anything at this point.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
I agree, there's no excuse we have. We're talking about
millions of lives on the line. These are not just
abstract ideas. These are real conflicts, real issues, real people
who are at risk. So I completely agree. Shameful is
a perfect way to put it. And like you, I'm
not super optimistic, but I am hopeful in the end
that things could be better and President Trump has given
them everything they need to go out and act, so
(15:41):
only time will tell. But having said that, Daniel, thank
you for being here today and giving us your insights
into what's happening right now.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
Always fun Riley, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Coming up next, Ryan Westley Ruth, he would be assassin
who was accused of trying to take President Trump's life
in twenty twenty four, has been convicted. More details about
his court appearance this week and his future sentencing hearing.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
After the break. Welcome back to the real story.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Today's next topic is a very curious one and it
all centers around Ryan Wesley Ruth and who exactly is
Ryan Wesley Ruth. He's the fifty nine year old man
who allegedly tried to assassinate then candidate Donald Trump at
the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida,
on September fifteenth, twenty twenty four. It was a major story,
(16:48):
garnering international attention for several days and weeks after the fact.
And now there's been a major update about the saga,
an intriguing one to say the least, so to that point,
a federal jury in Florida delivered a swift guilty verdict
against him on all five charges stumming from the incident
this week. And for those who don't remember all the
(17:11):
details of what really happened just picture this. Ruth, who
bizarrely represented himself in court, was accused of staking out
President Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach, building what
prosecutors called a sniper's nest near the sixth Green, complete
with an SKS rifle equipped with a scope and an
(17:33):
obliterated serial number. He never fired a single shot. However,
the evidence painted a very disturbing picture, with cell phone
data showing him lurking in the area for weeks beforehand
Burner phones reportedly used to buy the weapon and even
searches for President Trump's rallies, local traffic cameras, and even
(17:55):
flights to Mexico as part of this apparent getaway plot.
Then come back to Tuesday of this week, and the
jury took less than three hours to convict him of
the following attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, assaulting
a federal officer, and firearms violations. As a convicted felon,
(18:17):
and Ruth's defense his plea to the jury, he claimed
there was no intent because he didn't fire a single shot.
On top of it all, Ruth's own daughter said the
trial was rigged after it was over, but with thirty
eight witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, including video surveillance and
(18:38):
bank records, the fact seem ironclad. Now Here with his
legal analysis is Caleb Byrd, a senior litigator at Yun's Law. Caleb,
thank you for joining me.
Speaker 6 (18:51):
Thank you so great to be back with you.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Absolutely, it's been way too long, So thank you for
joining us and for a very very interesting story. I mean,
I just don't know what to make of this. The
facts are disturbing. What we know about Ryan Wesley Ruth
this convicted would be assassin equally disturbing. But let's start
with the conviction itself. Do you think that he was
(19:14):
appropriately charged for this plot?
Speaker 6 (19:18):
So it certainly looks like it. You know, anytime you
have a crime like this that's being prosecuted, one of
the things you're taught as a young attorney a young
prosecutor building a case is you charge everything that you
have probable cause for and that you have the ability
to keep in sustainable conviction. And so this is one
(19:40):
of those where it's broken out a little bit into
multiple different acts. With the attempted assassination, the possession of
firearm is broken into a couple of different acts and
then the assault of the police officer as well. But
I would say this was really really good practice from
the federal process sects in this case, who obviously was
(20:03):
very targeted, and the way they charged it. They had
a very clear plan and they executed it very well.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Okay, understood.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Now, one thing that's also very curious to me. I
just have to ask you about this as well, Caleb,
what do you make of Ruth's defense to the jury?
Speaker 6 (20:18):
I think in so it's important to understand exactly what
he's talking about here. He was charged with the attempted assassination,
and so when when you see an attempt, it means
that you were attempting to do a specific crime, right,
So in this case, it was the attempt to assassinate
a presidential candidate. Attempts are very very interesting under the law.
(20:42):
The reason they're so interesting is because necessarily, because you
have the attempt, you don't have you don't always have
an executed crime, right. So these become very intensive. And
one of the things that makes them so complicated is
that the attempt is a specific intent crime. A specific
(21:04):
intent crime is the highest intent level under the law.
It means that you actually purposed and intended to do
a specific criminal act. So not only does the prosecutor
have to show the attempt, for example, the planning, but
they also have to show that you specifically intended to
commit the underlying crime and all the elements of that crime.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
You know, not to get too far down on a
side path here, but in your experience, how difficult is
it in a court of law to prove somebody's real intent.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
It can be very very difficult, specifically with attempted crimes
because of the heightened level of intent. But and this
is part of what the federal prosecutors relied upon here.
You don't actually have to have a shot fired in
this case to prove attempt. What you can do is
you can take all the surrounding facts and circumstances to
prove intent during the trial, to show that he couldn't
(22:00):
have had any other intent, that he did this because
he intended to commit the underlying crime. And so that's
what the federal prosecutors did here. It's a very very
legally nuanced argument that you've got to hit all the
wickets just right on to get through. But it does
seem factually like given everything that he was doing. They
(22:23):
were able to show that he had almost he had
literally built a sniper's nest in order to carry out
this attempted assassination. And when you take all those little
facts and you piece them together over an entire trial,
it is possible to lay out the specific intent. But
it's very difficult to do and it has to be
(22:43):
done very intentionally with proper planning.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Understood. Thank you for that, by the way.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
So looking to the sentencing hearing then, I believe it
will be in December. What can we expect to see
there and what do you think he's facing in terms
of prison time?
Speaker 6 (22:58):
So it's going to be really interesting to see. The
federal government has guidelines for how these sentences are determined,
and what's going to happen next is they're going to
do what's called a pre sentencing report. That pre sentence
report is going to take every single thing he has
been convicted of. It's going to take all of his priors,
and it's going to take into account certain the defense
(23:22):
will have an opportunity to prevent matters in extenuation and mitigation,
and so all that will be taken into account, and
then it will ultimately be decided by the judge. Now, importantly,
once you get these sentencing guidelines that are done in
the precedencing report, the judge is not required to stick
to the guidelines, but if the judge deviates from the guidelines,
(23:45):
the judge has to explain her reasoning for why she
does not think the guidelines are appropriate in this case.
From my back of the napkin math that I've been
able to do based on what he has been convicted of.
And now again this is without the benefit of a
pre sentenceee report, which I'm sure they're working on, You're
probably looking at a minimum of somewhere between fifteen to
(24:07):
twenty years up to a potential lifetime imprisonment, particularly given
the assassination attempt carries with it a lifetime imprisonment. So
you know, there's a very wide range that the judge
has at her disposal, particularly given his age of fifty nine.
Are there going to be potential mental health issues that
(24:28):
come out? What's the mitigation going to potentially look like?
But I would estimate conservatively you're probably looking at fifteen
to twenty to life.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Okay, understood, Thank you for that, by the way, Just
a horrific situation. Obviously, thank god that it was thwarted
because it seems very clear what the intent here, just
to you know, the common eye, right, it seems very
obvious what was being tried here. But it'll be really
interesting to see what happens out that hearing. So when
that happens, we'll be sure to cover it. And in
the meantime, Caleb, thank you for doing this today, and
(24:59):
thank you for your insight into this matter.
Speaker 6 (25:02):
Thank you for having me back. It's always a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Coming up next.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Kamala Harris's book was released on Tuesday, and she blamed
not winning the last election on not having enough time
on the campaign trail. I guess four years wasn't really
enough more details right after the break.
Speaker 7 (25:33):
You know, I was at that Philadelphia rally the night
before and I was sitting behind your husband, Doug and
Maya and your family, and I remember hugging them and
them telling me we got this. I felt so good
going into election day, and then I read in the
book that you did too. I went into election day
thinking you were gonna win. So did you?
Speaker 4 (25:55):
So?
Speaker 7 (25:55):
I mean, it was a very tight race, but ultimately,
if you have to pin it down to one thing,
what was the primary reason. Do you think that you lost?
Speaker 8 (26:07):
There are many factors I think that played into the
outcome of that election, but I think probably one of
the biggest in my mind is we just didn't have
enough time. We didn't have enough time. We didn't have
enough time for real.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Welcome back to the real story, and welcome to the
twilight zone where up is down and down is up.
In all seriousness, though, that was Kamala Harris telling the
hosts of The View that she lost the twenty twenty
four presidential election because there just wasn't enough time in
an interview on Tuesday, her first with them since the election,
(26:42):
and it comes on the exact same day there a
new book, One hundred and seven Days, was released to
the public, and it was quite a revealing statement to make.
Considering that she had four long years in office, four
years to sell herself as a viable candidate to the
American people, it still became the first candidate in nearly
one hundred years to not flip a single county.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Across the entire country.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
What was also very very revealing here was her following
statement about what she thinks really happened in the election.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Take a look you know.
Speaker 8 (27:18):
I mean, one of the reasons I wrote the book
is this is unprecedented. Think about this, that there is
a race for president of the United States. The current
sitting president is running for reelection. Three and a half
months from the election, he decides not to run. The
(27:39):
sitting vice president then takes the mantle running against a
former president of the United States who had been running
for ten years, with one hundred and seven days until
the election. And by the way, another piece of what
is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race, it
(28:01):
is the closest presidential race in the twenty first century
in tumps of the Elk.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
All Right flag on the play, because these are the
real facts. In the twenty twenty four election, President Trump
won every swing state. He won the popular vote, he
earned three hundred and twelve votes in the electoral college,
while Harris only earned two hundred and twenty six votes
in the electoral college. Compare that to say, the election
(28:29):
of two thousand, which came down to just five hundred
and thirty seven votes In the state of Florida. George
Bush garnered two hundred and seventy one electoral votes, with
Al Gore garnering two hundred and sixty six, and that
proved to be one of the closest presidential elections in
all of US history, and also the closest one in
(28:50):
this century. And by the way, this isn't difficult to
figure out. All of this information is well documented and
publicly available, leaving one to wonder what's really going on here?
Is this an attempt to save face, Is it a
bad case of memory loss, Is it a descent into madness,
(29:12):
or just a classic case of denial. That's for our
next guest to decide, and he joins us now. So
here with his thoughts is Tom Jordan, the radio host
for the Tom Jordan Show. Tom, thank you for being here,
and I'm sorry I had to subject you to that footage.
Speaker 9 (29:31):
It sounds like very much the Twilight Zone. Just as
you said, I'm really stunned at some of her comments
that she has made.
Speaker 10 (29:37):
I mean, think about it.
Speaker 9 (29:38):
She said, I only had one hundred and seven days
to run for office, but Donald Trump had ten years
to run her office. As you pointed out earlier, she
was in office for four years. He had every opportunity
to make her case why she would be a viable candidate.
I don't think she's you know, they're very good at
rewriting history. Have you noticed that recent times, like the
kind of port many different occasions, you know, when it
(30:01):
comes to the twenty sixteen election, when it comes to
Donald Trump's claims in twenty twenty on basically the foundation
of our country, their rewriting history. Well, she's doing it
almost in real time because what her election loss was
not even a year ago. So I think a lot
of people have a pretty clear memory of what really
transpired back on November fifth of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Well, it brings us to this just the question at
the center of this whole story, and I alluded to
it earlier. So I want your thoughts. Is it memory loss?
Is she trying to say face? Is she just in denial?
Does she think the American people are that forgetful or
maybe just you know, not paying attention. What do you
think's really going on here? Tom, Because the fact is
she's just completely wrong.
Speaker 9 (30:43):
She's very wrong. She's one hundred percent correct. But she's
just doing what she's always done. She is she's lying.
It's not true. That is what she has been doing
for much of her career. I used to cover her
back in California.
Speaker 10 (30:56):
No different.
Speaker 9 (30:57):
It's the same Kamala Harris as we saw back then
that we have today here. But the other thing, I
think she believes still and she's smart. She went to
her very favorable media outlet, you know, the ones like
ABC and The View to talk about this. But she,
I think is more mistaken that things are as they
were a couple of years ago in terms of the
(31:19):
public's willingness to believe every word that comes through her mouth,
and the media landscape has changed somewhat now. The view
is going to be the same you saw. The ladies
are going, oh yes, I just read.
Speaker 10 (31:30):
It all up.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
It's completely ridiculous, just like the most unseerious individuals I
think I've ever seen in my whole life. Tom, I
just I can't believe this is real.
Speaker 9 (31:38):
It's it's yeah, you're right, it's absurd. And they're just
like if Donald Trump was to say, you know, this
was the closest election ever in history, they would push back,
and she actually flied out says an untruth there, and
they're all in agreement. I thought you were going to win.
I couldn't believe you didn't. Here's the reality of the situation.
Kamala Harris wasn't rejected as president because of a bad
(31:59):
running made because she only had her one hundred and
seven days, or because she didn't put pressure on Joe
Biden enough to drop out of the race. She was
rejected simply because voters saw through the facade which is
Kamala Harris, her total lack of authenticity. She's got a
very shallow understanding of issues in the real world as
(32:20):
they sit there, especially in Capitol Hill in Washington, d C.
But shadow understanding what Americans really want in their lives.
She's totally focused on identity politics, her inability to articulate
a coherent vision for the country. The Americans don't want
that any longer. They want a real leader, and she
(32:41):
forgets that. She thinks that people are still going to
fall for the same inauthentic lines as she's been mumbling
and bubbling about for the past four years.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Tom, you just you hit the nail right on the head.
It's not about policy, it's not about word salads. It's
not about really disguising what was really going on with
Joe Biden and his obvious cognitive decline office. It's about
the fact that you can't even be truthful with yourself
or with the American people. That is just the lowest
of the low as far as I'm concerned. If you
(33:09):
can't even be honest with yourself and your own shortcomings
about why you lost that election, then you don't deserve
to be the commander in chief of this country. It's
just plain and simple time, That's how I see it.
Just at least have the integrity and the respect for
US Americans people like you and me, to just be
honest about what happened and to acknowledge your shortcomings and
(33:30):
to move on.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
It's that simple.
Speaker 10 (33:33):
You know.
Speaker 9 (33:33):
She is interesting because she also was telling ABC that
the real villain and all of this, who was that?
Who do you think? It's Donald Trump? He's the villain.
She's accusing him of lies. She's lying right now, lies
and vengeance, vengeance. They've been recycling these lines for years
(33:55):
upon years, and they're no longer I think believable. Too
much of the country. It was being vengeful right now.
It seems like it's her coming back after a loss
in blaming Donald Trump once again for this. You know,
it's very interesting too, because I'm sure you heard that,
you know, Harris Kamalosi admitted that she didn't pick Pete
Buddha Judge as vice president because peering a black woman
(34:19):
with a gay man was too risky. So she's blaming
her bigotry on bigots who wouldn't vote for them because
their biggots. So she decided to be a bigot herself
by not picking a gay man, and basically is what
her line of thinking, her argumentation. I but the core
of that is identity politics again, yes, identity politics boxing
(34:43):
her in. She becomes this prisoner of the very ideology
that she herself champions. You know, where he is her
courage If she truly believes in identity politics, why don't
you go all in on it, because you're not courageous.
And these things that she's putting out there about all
these names new so, you know, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buddha Judge,
Joe Biden kind of bad mouthing them, blaming others for
(35:05):
really her inadequacy as a candidate. Josh shapiro spokesperson came
out and said, this is utterly ridiculous what she was
saying about what truly happened in her campaign and the
reasons for her failure. I think Democrats are looking at
Kamala Harris now more as a liability, and I don't
think that's going to help her whatever she decides to
do next. I think she's made enemies now on both
(35:28):
sides of the Aisle.
Speaker 10 (35:28):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
Completely agreed. What a great way to put it, Tom,
So thank you for being here again. I'm sorry I
had to subject you to those video clips, but I
really appreciate your time today and thank you for elucidating
what's really going on here.
Speaker 9 (35:40):
Absolutely, I always appreciate you, RODDI thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
Coming up next, an Air Force veteran in congressional candidate
joins us to discuss the latest updates on the Russia
Ukraine War, as well as the Trump administration's ongoing efforts
to end it. More details after the break. Welcome back
(36:12):
to the real story. So let's talk about the ongoing
updates about Russia and Ukraine for just a moment, a
war that is now in its fourth year. Tensions have
actually been rising between Russia and NATO countries in recent
days after Russia violated the airspace of both Poland and Estonia.
So just last week, picture this for a moment, Poland
(36:35):
reported that some twenty Russian drones had entered their airspace
but were quickly shot down by NATO jets. On Friday,
Estonia also reported three Russian May thirty one fighter jets
in their airspace for roughly twelve minutes before being escorted
out by Italian fighter jets. This then led to NATO
(36:58):
on Tuesday, war running Russia that it would use every
necessary military and non military tool in its tool belt
to defend itself and condemned Moscow for not only violating
Polish and Estonian airspace, but also for their increasingly irresponsible behavior.
(37:20):
That then brings us to President Trump's appearance at the
United Nations General Assembly eightieth session this week on Tuesday,
when he and true President Trump don't take spit off anybody,
fashion told reporters he thought NATO countries should shoot down
Russian aircraft to enter their airspace. Then, also on Tuesday,
(37:42):
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told Hanno Pevker, the Estonian
defense minister, that the US stands firmly with all NATO
allies and that any violation of NATO airspace is unacceptable. However,
some other parties in the equation are currently wondering if
shooting down Russian aircraft is justified, or more importantly, what
(38:06):
it might lead to for the war between Russia and Ukraine. Ultimately,
the decision lies with NATO commanders, but NATO did say
it would respond to Russia's actions in their own time
and their own way. Now, some people out there believe
the actions by Russia to be a sort of pushing
of the envelope to see just how far Ukrainian allies
(38:28):
will really go in response to any aggression or incursions
or escalations. And of course, for the record, Moscow allegedly
denies all responsibility from what we can tell. So now
all parties are waiting with bated breath to see who
will make the next move. And now our next guest
today is here to weigh in on the situation. So
(38:51):
here with his insights and reaction is Lieutenant Colonel David Flippo,
a veteran of the US Air Force and a congressional
candidate who's running to Repers in Nevada's fourth congressional district. Lieutenant,
thank you for being here today.
Speaker 10 (39:04):
Sir, Hey, how you doing, Riley?
Speaker 1 (39:06):
Thanks for having me doing very well and just confused.
I have a lot of questions about this development that's
going on in this really horrific war, a conflict that
I think is just pointless. I think it could have
been preventable, but it wasn't. Here we are this huge
refugee crisis and displacement going on in Europe. They're largest
war since World War Two, and NATO and Russia are
(39:29):
getting closer and closer and closer together and people are
wondering what that might mean and what it could lead to. So,
just as it stands, Lieutenant, what is your current interpretation
of the things we're seeing with shooting down jets and
aircraft from Polish and Estonian airspace?
Speaker 10 (39:46):
Yeah? Absolutely, So you know, you have to draw the
line somewhere.
Speaker 11 (39:50):
I was stationed up in Alaska, you know, part of
the ADAS operation up there.
Speaker 10 (39:55):
The Russians come close to our line.
Speaker 11 (39:58):
They stay in the international airspace and cramble jets, and
they're all they're doing there is is testing to see
what our employability is and our resolve. NATO needs to
get together and figure out how they are going to.
Speaker 10 (40:13):
Respond to these Russian incursions.
Speaker 11 (40:15):
So you know, what I'm understanding is that they actually
went about twelve miles inside of Estonian airspace.
Speaker 10 (40:23):
They're testing US, they're.
Speaker 11 (40:24):
Testing the employability of NATO, they're testing the Resolve, they're
testing the command and control And what you're seeing right
now is and we're public about it. It's all over
the news, the Secretary General of NATO and you know,
saying the things that he's saying. Well, all of that
is intel that Russia is using to understand how the
command and control operates.
Speaker 10 (40:46):
And are these countries.
Speaker 11 (40:49):
Like Poland, Romania and Estonia, are they going to be
able to operate autonomously and make decisions autonomously or is
there a command control control structure that is delaying that action.
Speaker 10 (41:02):
So all that's got to be ironed out. Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania,
they're all relatively new to the NATO.
Speaker 11 (41:08):
In fact, when I was in Iraq in two thousand
and three, I had Estonians, Latfeians and Lithuanians.
Speaker 10 (41:16):
In my command going into Iraq.
Speaker 11 (41:19):
So it's very interesting because they were trying to, you know,
start that relationship with NATO even back in two thousand
and three. So here we are now with Russia coming
across and just testing Estonia, testing NATO, testing what I
resolve is and how we're going to do it and
(41:40):
what to Trump's point. Trump's point is there has to
be consequences. You have to have that line, and if
there's not consequences, they're going to continue doing it. So
they are going to have to be firm and strong
with their position, and if that means shooting down an
aircraft that is violating the airspace of Estonia or any
NATO country, that has to be set in stone.
Speaker 1 (42:02):
You know, I don't think anybody in Washington or beyond
wants to see any more escalation as far as President
Trump goes. We want peace on the ground, but we
also have some very difficult situations to deal with here.
And you're right that there has to be a line
drawn somewhere.
Speaker 7 (42:17):
Right.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
You can't just let Putin provoke and push and do
whatever he wants without consequence. You're setting a very dangerous precedent.
But there is another question baked into that cake as well, sir,
which is this, how far should Ukraine's allies, including NATO
member countries go in trying to deter any future Russian aggression?
Speaker 11 (42:37):
Yeah, if you're talking about NATO countries and the Art
Article five back on one stack on them all.
Speaker 10 (42:43):
Yes, those are things that have to be figured out.
Speaker 11 (42:47):
Right, if they aren't already, they already should have policy
on this. So everything that we do with Estonia or
Romania pull in any of these airspaces that are part
of NATO, we have to be willing, uh, you know,
to accept those consequences.
Speaker 10 (43:04):
Now, I think you know.
Speaker 11 (43:05):
And everybody knows here that we wouldn't even be in
this Ukraine situation if it went for President Biden and
his weak leadership and the failure for him to draw
that line. Right, So now we now we have this
situation that we're now in. President Trump is doing the
right thing as a leader to to set that line
and tell NATO, look, you've got to draw the line,
(43:27):
and you've got to make decisions quickly, and you're gonna
have to You're gonna have to act otherwise they're going
to continue doing this.
Speaker 1 (43:34):
You know, one thing that's interesting, President Trump, We've been
talking about this today in the show because I haven't
seen any real action from the UN and trying to
end this conflict. And the whole organization was created to
prevent conflicts like this one from happening.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
So that's a.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Whole other conversation, sir, but it does bring me to
my follow up point for you. So, President Trump, he's
met with Putin, he's met with Zelenski multiple times, He's
identified the problems. He's been pushing for peace even before
he came back into office. It's been his like life's work,
just trying to save lives. He talks about all the
time in plain English in the Oval Office and beyond.
(44:13):
And yet the war still continues. So when your expertise, sir,
what do you think it might take to finally end
this war, get to a cease fire, and then from
there get to lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 11 (44:26):
Well, you know, I think what President Trump has done
is he has stopped seven wars from happening right now,
just since he's in office, you know, with Secretary Rubio
and Trump taking action and doing those things. I think
what's going to happen with Ukraine is we're going to
have to get tough on Russia. Economically, We're going to
have to cut off that pipeline of fuel into Europe.
(44:47):
We're gonna have to stop trade, We're going to have
to do some sanctions on Russia. Because I think the
only thing they again, it goes back to being tough
and putting that.
Speaker 10 (44:56):
Line and having consequences.
Speaker 11 (44:58):
And if Russia is going to continue you to do
this and continue to attack Ukraine and go into other
NATO countries and try to test us, there's got to
be consequences to that. And I think economically is the
way we get to Russia and we bring Russia back
to the table, and I think that that is the
avenue that will go to end this war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
Okay, now, just to sort of throw a hypothetical out
there for a moment, because I think it's one worth
considering in our final minute with you. So let's say
we move forward with more economic sanctions, we try to
push India and China to stop buying oil from Russia.
What happens should sanctions fail to bring Putin back to
the table. What's the next best alternative to that option?
Speaker 11 (45:40):
Well, I think that might be up to Putin, right,
So you know, let's see what he continues to do.
But they are failing economically, and we can hurt them economically,
and I believe we can put a stop to this economically,
but it's going to take. Like you'd mentioned, they're not
just NATO stopping the oil flow from Russia, India and
(46:00):
China as well.
Speaker 10 (46:01):
China might be a tough sell, but if we can
get Indie on board and really hit Russia where it
hurts in their procketbook, we can put an end to this.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Understood, and thank you for your insights and your time today,
and best of luck on the campaign trail as well
for you, sir, and thank you of course for your
service to this great country.
Speaker 10 (46:20):
Thank you, Riley, I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Coming up next, NASA announces its first new class of
astronauts since twenty twenty one, with the intent to explore
the Moon and even possibly Mars and beyond. More details
about it right after the break. Welcome back to the
(46:56):
real story. When British explorer George Mallory was asked why
he wanted to explore Mount Everest, he simply stated, this
because it is there. This simple phrase was profoundly impactful
for many, many people all over the planet, and in fact,
as an example, even JFK referenced those words in a
(47:18):
speech that he gave to announce that the United States
of America would put men on the moon. Unfortunately, we
all know he would not live to see that happen. However,
he was integral to the morale that sparked that event happening,
and ever since then many others have used that to
reach even further.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
Now.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
Mars has long been in the sights of many who
long for more space exploration, including Tesla founder Elon Musk,
one of the most outspoken advocates for establishing residents on
the Red planet. So on today's edition of Real Good News,
we'd like to share that NASA has introduced its newest
round of astronauts on Monday of this week with the
(48:01):
sole intent to explore the Moon and possibly even Mars.
Ten scientists, engineers, and test pilots were inducted from over
eight thousand applicants, and for the very first time ever,
there were more women in the class than men, which
is interesting to say the least. Now, the class will
(48:23):
undergo two years of training before becoming eligible for spaceflight,
which gives Elon plenty of time to figure out how
to get us to the Red planet Now. Secretary Sean Duffy,
acting Administrator for NASA, said that one of the people
from the class could very well be the first person
to ever set.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Foot on Mars.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
He also emphasized the importance of the US landing on
the Moon once again to win the second space race
in a video posted to NASA's YouTube channel.
Speaker 12 (48:52):
Let's take a look, President Trump and I have a mission.
America leads on Earth. We're going back to the Moon
in this time. When we plant our flag, we stay.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Truly amazing. Now, all astronauts in the new class were
described as exceptional, and I personally know that I can't
wait to see what comes from them next and for
America and really for our role in the history of
space exploration and space travel. Now that concludes today's broadcast.
We truly hope you enjoyed it, and remember we always
(49:31):
want to hear from you, So please email your feedback
and any new stories you'd like us to cover to
the Real Story at oann 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.
Welcome to the Real Story. I'm your host Riley Lewis,
and thank you for joining us eighty years. It's been
nearly eighty years to the day since the United Nations
was established in San Francisco, California, and the United Nations
General Assembly is currently holding its eightieth session in New
(00:33):
York City. Delegations from all one hundred and ninety three
member states are in attendance, along with many prominent heads
of state from all over the planet, including of course,
President Trump, making this session a significant global event. It
also comes during a very tumultuous time in the world,
(00:53):
with multiple wars actively being waged, such as the war
between Russia and Ukraine the war between Israel and Hamas,
putting the organization itself into a very precarious position, and
that brings us to the reasons why the UN was
ever founded to begin with. This international body was founded
(01:15):
back on October twenty fourth of nineteen forty five for
the sole purpose of preventing future global conflicts from erupting
and also to promote cooperation between countries, and according to
its own founding charter, its primary purposes include maintaining international
(01:35):
peace and security, fostering collaboration among nations on critical issues
like economic development and delivering humanitarian aid to those in need,
and addressing global challenges by providing this platform for dialogue, discussion,
and collective action. What's more, it was designed to replace
(01:57):
the League of Nations which came and was created after
World War I and which failed to prevent the outbreak
of World War II. And while the world hasn't seen
the outbreak of a third global conflict since the Yuan
was founded, thankfully by the way, some devastating conflicts have
erupted in the years after its founding. Whether it's the
(02:20):
genocide in Rwanda in the nineteen nineties, or the terrorist
attacks on September eleventh of two thousand and one and
the subsequent war on Terror that followed, or this ongoing
conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the largest military affair to
hit Europe since World War II. The UN has severely
struggled to actually maintain peace in reality now. The reasons
(02:44):
for that situation are numerous and complicated, but this fact
itself raises some pretty important questions. For example, is the
Yuen still relevant today in twenty twenty five? Is the
organization itself even worth preserving and if so, how can
(03:06):
the organization and all of its affiliate groups, from UNESCO
to the World Health Organization be more effective in bringing
peace to the planet. In essence, it's really a question
of whether or not global governance is the best solution
to preventing war, bolstering peace, fostering global cooperation, and addressing
(03:29):
the world's most pressing problems. And all of these questions
are at the center of this week's session, which began
on Tuesday. Now, one of the other main issues at
hand this week is also whether or not the UN
is really living up to its full potential. It's a
question that President Trump also addressed during a speech on Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
On that first day. Take a look.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
That being the case, what is the purpose of the
United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential. I've always
said it, it has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it's
not even coming close to living up to that potential
for the most part, at least for now, all they
seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter
(04:16):
and then never follow that letter up. It's empty words,
and empty words don't solve war. The only thing that
solves war, and wars is action.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Action.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Action, indeed very well said, because we all know that
talk is cheap and it doesn't really save lives, does it.
It also doesn't stop bullets from being fired, it doesn't
deliver humanitarian aid to people in need, it doesn't bring
economic development to people living in poverty, and it certainly
doesn't protect people's basic human rights things like freedom of speech. However,
(04:56):
here's the twist. Words, when paired with action, can actually
make all the difference in achieving and maintaining piece, as
shown by some of the most prominent figures in human history.
Just think about President Ronald Reagan for a moment. President
Reagan was effectively able to end the Cold War by
(05:16):
calling on Mikhail Gorbachev to dismantle the Berlin Wall, and
those powerful words, coupled with bold, strong actions, actually brought
about peace in the world. So now, with so many
conflicts happening simultaneously, the UN is facing some major challenges.
(05:37):
Challenges to its mission, challenges to its member states, challenges
to its ideals, and challenges to its practical ability to
bring countries together. It's a pivotal moment for the organization,
and only time will tell if it proves to be
relevant in today's era.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
This whole body was.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Based on a simple eye idea that collective action, not words,
is what's really needed to save mankind. And while this
is certainly true, whether or not the UN is the
best vehicle for that collective action still remains to be seen.
But here with his thoughts, insights, and analysis, is Daniel Baldwin,
(06:20):
the Chief White House correspondent right here at One American
News Network. Daniel, thank you for being here.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Sir, Thanks so much. Riley.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
So, what a huge event going on in New York
City right now, and I have a lot of thoughts
and questions for you. Let's start with some of your
key takeaways from what we saw during President Trump's speech
on Tuesday.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
Well, it was a really rude wake up call for
the United Nations, and I think one of the more
pertinent takeaways was, as you mentioned, you sort of talked
about the UN's guiding and founding purpose. It was laid
out in its charter in nineteen forty five, and that's
to deliver and maintain internet.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
National peace and security.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
Riley. That's what the UN was founded to do, right,
So it was quite disturbing to hear President Trump talk
about the fact that he's ended seven major global wars
and conflicts and he didn't even get a phone call
from the United Nations to help. That's disgraceful, that's disturbing
(07:22):
considering the UN's founding mission and core purpose is to
do the exact thing that President Trump has done in
his first term, which is to deliver overarching piece and
major global conflicts which were considered very difficult to end,
such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and Azerbaijan and Armenia. These are long lasting conflicts that
(07:45):
the President ended. The U n didn't help him, The
UN didn't even offer to help. Instead, the President ended
it with action, not strongly worded letters. So I think
that in and of itself, Riley, it needs to be
a very rude wake up call as to what purpose
does the UN serve if it's not even going to
(08:06):
offer the President of the United States help in his
peacemaking mission. Because if they're not going to do that,
you have to ask yourself, what purpose does it serve
to give the UN our money? What purpose does it
served at all? And I think that's sort of the
point the President was making yesterday.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Completely and to piggyback on that, Daniel, just from what
you observed yesterday, and as things are still actively unfolding,
how do you think the rest of the Member States
and the media more importantly received that message from President Trump?
Speaker 5 (08:34):
The media is not going to change the way they
view of him, and I'm not even sure if the
other countries will. But I do think this was a
wildly effective denunciation and repudiation of the foreign policy of
the last four years, right because the President opened up
his speech and he sort of outlined the mess that
he inherited from the prior administration. Global chaos, wars raging everywhere,
(08:57):
right Riley, and he talked about that he needs to
go on to the world stage and re establish American strength,
American deterrence, peace through strength, and he talked about some
of his successes in doing so, hitting Iran's nuclear facilities,
making sure that narco terrorists in the southcom Region of
Responsibilities know if they're going to peddle narcotics into the
United States, they're going to be blown to smithereads. So
(09:19):
he's talking about how you can only bring about peace
and security when the world respects your strength, and they
has it for the last four years, and currently he
was making the point that nobody respects the UN, at
least the bad actors on the world stage.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
They certainly don't. And he was sort of giving them advice.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
And it's kind of like a parent sitting a child
down that's been acting out and giving them a very
rude wake up call, Riley, just saying, like, your behavior
is not acceptable and it's not up to the standard to.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Which I expect.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
And quite frankly, their actions or alleged actions, with the escalator,
the teleprompter not working, the audio game playing that they
were making when the President was speaking, it's insulting, to
say the least. And I can tell you that the
White House is quite furious with how that went down
as well.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Oh, I believe it.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Who knows what really was going on there, But I
think that the broader picture here, the point that you're
really alluding to, it's actually kind of an empowering message
coming from the White House. President Trump isn't knocking their capability.
He's disappointed in them for not living up to the
standard they should be at which they're totally capable of.
So as far as I'm concerned. I know there are people,
especially in Europe, who are upset and they're chastising President Trump,
(10:33):
and they're you know, turning away and they don't want
to hear it. But it's actually true. First of all,
and number two, it should be an empowering message, not
a disenfranchising one, because he's saying, you have all the
tools that you need, so stop talking about fixing the
world and come out there, Daniel and fix it.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
The world is fixed by doers, right, and that's something
that the President has always said. He's like, I don't
want to hear you talk about doing something. One I
see you actually go out and do it. And is
sort of the things that he was pointing to was
the UN one hundred and forty two nations endorsing the
UN General Assembly's resolution to sort of take tangible.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
States steps to recognize a.
Speaker 5 (11:09):
Two state solution between the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. He
was saying, first and foremost, you don't reward terrorists for
what they did on October seventh and not complying and
releasing the hostages. Secondly, a lot of these European nations
like to talk tough about ending the Russia Ukraine war,
Yet they're going out and buying more fossil fuels from
Russia than the financial aid that they're actually giving to
(11:31):
a country like Ukraine. I saw study Riley saying that
EU imports of Russian fossil fuels totaled about twenty one
billion euros in the third year of the war, and
the financial aid that they gave to Ukraine was less
than nineteen billion euros. And that's the point that the
President's making, is like, why am I going to hammer
them with sanctions when they're still just going to.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Make a profit way you buying their oil.
Speaker 5 (11:52):
That's weak behavior, and that's a crucial point to understand.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
And I think the President's just tired of them.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Yelling about sanctions and sanctions and then them hypocritically going
to Russia and continuing to fund the war by buying
oil from them.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
And that's just another point.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
And obviously, the President highlighted that uncontrolled mass migration was
the biggest political issue in modern times, and he highlighted
how the UN was actually funding the border invasion, and
he said it was completely unacceptable the behavior in that regard.
But if they continue to do this and behave this way, Riley,
(12:32):
and they don't live up to their standard. And we
know that they irked and that's putting it very lightly.
The White House, with how they behaved with the escalator
and the audio and the prompter, it's worth asking the question,
is our involvement in the un worth it? And I
think that's something the President will have to grapple with
(12:54):
if they continue to not live up to their standard.
But it was a harsh wake up call, Riley, a
harsh one, and it was a needed one as well.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I completely agree with that. And this next question. We
don't have all the answers to this. It costs for
some speculation, but you brought it up, Daniel, and it's
really worth considering. We have to ask ourselves. Number one, Yes,
has this organization outlived its usefulness for us? We created it,
We were one of the original founders of it. It
was created in San Francisco eighty years ago, so we
(13:23):
were an integral part of this. This organization wouldn't be
here without us. However, it brings us to a question.
Now President Trump has set the stage, identified the problems,
and given them solutions.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
So the question.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Is isn't enough to really bring about that behavioral change
that we all want to see that I don't know,
but I want to get your thoughts about that, Daniel.
Do you think things are going to change moving forward?
Speaker 4 (13:47):
Let me tell you this, Riley, I'm just not going
to be holding my breath. It's kind of like just
repeated behavior.
Speaker 5 (13:57):
Someone says they're not going to do something, and then
they do it again, and they say they're not going
to do it, and then they do it again, and
then they say they're not going to do it. You're
just not going to believe them at a certain point.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
But again, I.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
Actually really liked your analysis the way you laid it
out of The President identified the problem, he showed them
the problem, he identified the solution. He explained to them
how to do the solution and live up to their potential.
But that doesn't mean they're going to do it. This
has been a repeated behavior from the European Union and
the European excuse me, the United Nations. And I'm not
(14:27):
sure if it's going to change anytime soon. But I
do think the most disturbing part is the one thing
that I walked away with and it quite infuriated me,
was learning that they're founding mession mission and message was
to deliver and.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Maintain international security and peace.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
And they couldn't be bothered, Riley to pick up the
phone and even offer to help the President deliver peace
in some of these global conflicts and wars. That is shameful,
It is disgraceful. They should be barrassed. They should be
embarrassed for their behavior when it comes to that, because,
quite frankly, it's completely unacceptable that they couldn't even be
(15:09):
bothered to pick up the phone.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
It's insulting. It's completely insulting.
Speaker 5 (15:13):
So I forgive me if I'm just not too hopeful
that they're going to change anything at this point.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
I agree, there's no excuse we have. We're talking about
millions of lives on the line. These are not just
abstract ideas. These are real conflicts, real issues, real people
who are at risk. So I completely agree. Shameful is
a perfect way to put it. And like you, I'm
not super optimistic, but I am hopeful in the end
that things could be better and President Trump has given
them everything they need to go out and act, so
(15:41):
only time will tell. But having said that, Daniel, thank
you for being here today and giving us your insights
into what's happening right now.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
Always fun Riley, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Coming up next, Ryan Westley Ruth, he would be assassin
who was accused of trying to take President Trump's life
in twenty twenty four, has been convicted. More details about
his court appearance this week and his future sentencing hearing.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
After the break. Welcome back to the real story.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Today's next topic is a very curious one and it
all centers around Ryan Wesley Ruth and who exactly is
Ryan Wesley Ruth. He's the fifty nine year old man
who allegedly tried to assassinate then candidate Donald Trump at
the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida,
on September fifteenth, twenty twenty four. It was a major story,
(16:48):
garnering international attention for several days and weeks after the fact.
And now there's been a major update about the saga,
an intriguing one to say the least, so to that point,
a federal jury in Florida delivered a swift guilty verdict
against him on all five charges stumming from the incident
this week. And for those who don't remember all the
(17:11):
details of what really happened just picture this. Ruth, who
bizarrely represented himself in court, was accused of staking out
President Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach, building what
prosecutors called a sniper's nest near the sixth Green, complete
with an SKS rifle equipped with a scope and an
(17:33):
obliterated serial number. He never fired a single shot. However,
the evidence painted a very disturbing picture, with cell phone
data showing him lurking in the area for weeks beforehand
Burner phones reportedly used to buy the weapon and even
searches for President Trump's rallies, local traffic cameras, and even
(17:55):
flights to Mexico as part of this apparent getaway plot.
Then come back to Tuesday of this week, and the
jury took less than three hours to convict him of
the following attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, assaulting
a federal officer, and firearms violations. As a convicted felon,
(18:17):
and Ruth's defense his plea to the jury, he claimed
there was no intent because he didn't fire a single shot.
On top of it all, Ruth's own daughter said the
trial was rigged after it was over, but with thirty
eight witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, including video surveillance and
(18:38):
bank records, the fact seem ironclad. Now Here with his
legal analysis is Caleb Byrd, a senior litigator at Yun's Law. Caleb,
thank you for joining me.
Speaker 6 (18:51):
Thank you so great to be back with you.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Absolutely, it's been way too long, So thank you for
joining us and for a very very interesting story. I mean,
I just don't know what to make of this. The
facts are disturbing. What we know about Ryan Wesley Ruth
this convicted would be assassin equally disturbing. But let's start
with the conviction itself. Do you think that he was
(19:14):
appropriately charged for this plot?
Speaker 6 (19:18):
So it certainly looks like it. You know, anytime you
have a crime like this that's being prosecuted, one of
the things you're taught as a young attorney a young
prosecutor building a case is you charge everything that you
have probable cause for and that you have the ability
to keep in sustainable conviction. And so this is one
(19:40):
of those where it's broken out a little bit into
multiple different acts. With the attempted assassination, the possession of
firearm is broken into a couple of different acts and
then the assault of the police officer as well. But
I would say this was really really good practice from
the federal process sects in this case, who obviously was
(20:03):
very targeted, and the way they charged it. They had
a very clear plan and they executed it very well.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Okay, understood.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Now, one thing that's also very curious to me. I
just have to ask you about this as well, Caleb,
what do you make of Ruth's defense to the jury?
Speaker 6 (20:18):
I think in so it's important to understand exactly what
he's talking about here. He was charged with the attempted assassination,
and so when when you see an attempt, it means
that you were attempting to do a specific crime, right,
So in this case, it was the attempt to assassinate
a presidential candidate. Attempts are very very interesting under the law.
(20:42):
The reason they're so interesting is because necessarily, because you
have the attempt, you don't have you don't always have
an executed crime, right. So these become very intensive. And
one of the things that makes them so complicated is
that the attempt is a specific intent crime. A specific
(21:04):
intent crime is the highest intent level under the law.
It means that you actually purposed and intended to do
a specific criminal act. So not only does the prosecutor
have to show the attempt, for example, the planning, but
they also have to show that you specifically intended to
commit the underlying crime and all the elements of that crime.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
You know, not to get too far down on a
side path here, but in your experience, how difficult is
it in a court of law to prove somebody's real intent.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
It can be very very difficult, specifically with attempted crimes
because of the heightened level of intent. But and this
is part of what the federal prosecutors relied upon here.
You don't actually have to have a shot fired in
this case to prove attempt. What you can do is
you can take all the surrounding facts and circumstances to
prove intent during the trial, to show that he couldn't
(22:00):
have had any other intent, that he did this because
he intended to commit the underlying crime. And so that's
what the federal prosecutors did here. It's a very very
legally nuanced argument that you've got to hit all the
wickets just right on to get through. But it does
seem factually like given everything that he was doing. They
(22:23):
were able to show that he had almost he had
literally built a sniper's nest in order to carry out
this attempted assassination. And when you take all those little
facts and you piece them together over an entire trial,
it is possible to lay out the specific intent. But
it's very difficult to do and it has to be
(22:43):
done very intentionally with proper planning.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Understood. Thank you for that, by the way.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
So looking to the sentencing hearing then, I believe it
will be in December. What can we expect to see
there and what do you think he's facing in terms
of prison time?
Speaker 6 (22:58):
So it's going to be really interesting to see. The
federal government has guidelines for how these sentences are determined,
and what's going to happen next is they're going to
do what's called a pre sentencing report. That pre sentence
report is going to take every single thing he has
been convicted of. It's going to take all of his priors,
and it's going to take into account certain the defense
(23:22):
will have an opportunity to prevent matters in extenuation and mitigation,
and so all that will be taken into account, and
then it will ultimately be decided by the judge. Now, importantly,
once you get these sentencing guidelines that are done in
the precedencing report, the judge is not required to stick
to the guidelines, but if the judge deviates from the guidelines,
(23:45):
the judge has to explain her reasoning for why she
does not think the guidelines are appropriate in this case.
From my back of the napkin math that I've been
able to do based on what he has been convicted of.
And now again this is without the benefit of a
pre sentenceee report, which I'm sure they're working on, You're
probably looking at a minimum of somewhere between fifteen to
(24:07):
twenty years up to a potential lifetime imprisonment, particularly given
the assassination attempt carries with it a lifetime imprisonment. So
you know, there's a very wide range that the judge
has at her disposal, particularly given his age of fifty nine.
Are there going to be potential mental health issues that
(24:28):
come out? What's the mitigation going to potentially look like?
But I would estimate conservatively you're probably looking at fifteen
to twenty to life.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
Okay, understood, Thank you for that, by the way, Just
a horrific situation. Obviously, thank god that it was thwarted
because it seems very clear what the intent here, just
to you know, the common eye, right, it seems very
obvious what was being tried here. But it'll be really
interesting to see what happens out that hearing. So when
that happens, we'll be sure to cover it. And in
the meantime, Caleb, thank you for doing this today, and
(24:59):
thank you for your insight into this matter.
Speaker 6 (25:02):
Thank you for having me back. It's always a pleasure.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Coming up next.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Kamala Harris's book was released on Tuesday, and she blamed
not winning the last election on not having enough time
on the campaign trail. I guess four years wasn't really
enough more details right after the break.
Speaker 7 (25:33):
You know, I was at that Philadelphia rally the night
before and I was sitting behind your husband, Doug and
Maya and your family, and I remember hugging them and
them telling me we got this. I felt so good
going into election day, and then I read in the
book that you did too. I went into election day
thinking you were gonna win. So did you?
Speaker 4 (25:55):
So?
Speaker 7 (25:55):
I mean, it was a very tight race, but ultimately,
if you have to pin it down to one thing,
what was the primary reason. Do you think that you lost?
Speaker 8 (26:07):
There are many factors I think that played into the
outcome of that election, but I think probably one of
the biggest in my mind is we just didn't have
enough time. We didn't have enough time. We didn't have
enough time for real.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Welcome back to the real story, and welcome to the
twilight zone where up is down and down is up.
In all seriousness, though, that was Kamala Harris telling the
hosts of The View that she lost the twenty twenty
four presidential election because there just wasn't enough time in
an interview on Tuesday, her first with them since the election,
(26:42):
and it comes on the exact same day there a
new book, One hundred and seven Days, was released to
the public, and it was quite a revealing statement to make.
Considering that she had four long years in office, four
years to sell herself as a viable candidate to the
American people, it still became the first candidate in nearly
one hundred years to not flip a single county.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Across the entire country.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
What was also very very revealing here was her following
statement about what she thinks really happened in the election.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Take a look you know.
Speaker 8 (27:18):
I mean, one of the reasons I wrote the book
is this is unprecedented. Think about this, that there is
a race for president of the United States. The current
sitting president is running for reelection. Three and a half
months from the election, he decides not to run. The
(27:39):
sitting vice president then takes the mantle running against a
former president of the United States who had been running
for ten years, with one hundred and seven days until
the election. And by the way, another piece of what
is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race, it
(28:01):
is the closest presidential race in the twenty first century
in tumps of the Elk.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
All Right flag on the play, because these are the
real facts. In the twenty twenty four election, President Trump
won every swing state. He won the popular vote, he
earned three hundred and twelve votes in the electoral college,
while Harris only earned two hundred and twenty six votes
in the electoral college. Compare that to say, the election
(28:29):
of two thousand, which came down to just five hundred
and thirty seven votes In the state of Florida. George
Bush garnered two hundred and seventy one electoral votes, with
Al Gore garnering two hundred and sixty six, and that
proved to be one of the closest presidential elections in
all of US history, and also the closest one in
(28:50):
this century. And by the way, this isn't difficult to
figure out. All of this information is well documented and
publicly available, leaving one to wonder what's really going on here?
Is this an attempt to save face, Is it a
bad case of memory loss, Is it a descent into madness,
(29:12):
or just a classic case of denial. That's for our
next guest to decide, and he joins us now. So
here with his thoughts is Tom Jordan, the radio host
for the Tom Jordan Show. Tom, thank you for being here,
and I'm sorry I had to subject you to that footage.
Speaker 9 (29:31):
It sounds like very much the Twilight Zone. Just as
you said, I'm really stunned at some of her comments
that she has made.
Speaker 10 (29:37):
I mean, think about it.
Speaker 9 (29:38):
She said, I only had one hundred and seven days
to run for office, but Donald Trump had ten years
to run her office. As you pointed out earlier, she
was in office for four years. He had every opportunity
to make her case why she would be a viable candidate.
I don't think she's you know, they're very good at
rewriting history. Have you noticed that recent times, like the
kind of port many different occasions, you know, when it
(30:01):
comes to the twenty sixteen election, when it comes to
Donald Trump's claims in twenty twenty on basically the foundation
of our country, their rewriting history. Well, she's doing it
almost in real time because what her election loss was
not even a year ago. So I think a lot
of people have a pretty clear memory of what really
transpired back on November fifth of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
Well, it brings us to this just the question at
the center of this whole story, and I alluded to
it earlier. So I want your thoughts. Is it memory loss?
Is she trying to say face? Is she just in denial?
Does she think the American people are that forgetful or
maybe just you know, not paying attention. What do you
think's really going on here? Tom, Because the fact is
she's just completely wrong.
Speaker 9 (30:43):
She's very wrong. She's one hundred percent correct. But she's
just doing what she's always done. She is she's lying.
It's not true. That is what she has been doing
for much of her career. I used to cover her
back in California.
Speaker 10 (30:56):
No different.
Speaker 9 (30:57):
It's the same Kamala Harris as we saw back then
that we have today here. But the other thing, I
think she believes still and she's smart. She went to
her very favorable media outlet, you know, the ones like
ABC and The View to talk about this. But she,
I think is more mistaken that things are as they
were a couple of years ago in terms of the
(31:19):
public's willingness to believe every word that comes through her mouth,
and the media landscape has changed somewhat now. The view
is going to be the same you saw. The ladies
are going, oh yes, I just read.
Speaker 10 (31:30):
It all up.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
It's completely ridiculous, just like the most unseerious individuals I
think I've ever seen in my whole life. Tom, I
just I can't believe this is real.
Speaker 9 (31:38):
It's it's yeah, you're right, it's absurd. And they're just
like if Donald Trump was to say, you know, this
was the closest election ever in history, they would push back,
and she actually flied out says an untruth there, and
they're all in agreement. I thought you were going to win.
I couldn't believe you didn't. Here's the reality of the situation.
Kamala Harris wasn't rejected as president because of a bad
(31:59):
running made because she only had her one hundred and
seven days, or because she didn't put pressure on Joe
Biden enough to drop out of the race. She was
rejected simply because voters saw through the facade which is
Kamala Harris, her total lack of authenticity. She's got a
very shallow understanding of issues in the real world as
(32:20):
they sit there, especially in Capitol Hill in Washington, d C.
But shadow understanding what Americans really want in their lives.
She's totally focused on identity politics, her inability to articulate
a coherent vision for the country. The Americans don't want
that any longer. They want a real leader, and she
(32:41):
forgets that. She thinks that people are still going to
fall for the same inauthentic lines as she's been mumbling
and bubbling about for the past four years.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Tom, you just you hit the nail right on the head.
It's not about policy, it's not about word salads. It's
not about really disguising what was really going on with
Joe Biden and his obvious cognitive decline office. It's about
the fact that you can't even be truthful with yourself
or with the American people. That is just the lowest
of the low as far as I'm concerned. If you
(33:09):
can't even be honest with yourself and your own shortcomings
about why you lost that election, then you don't deserve
to be the commander in chief of this country. It's
just plain and simple time, That's how I see it.
Just at least have the integrity and the respect for
US Americans people like you and me, to just be
honest about what happened and to acknowledge your shortcomings and
(33:30):
to move on.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
It's that simple.
Speaker 10 (33:33):
You know.
Speaker 9 (33:33):
She is interesting because she also was telling ABC that
the real villain and all of this, who was that?
Who do you think? It's Donald Trump? He's the villain.
She's accusing him of lies. She's lying right now, lies
and vengeance, vengeance. They've been recycling these lines for years
(33:55):
upon years, and they're no longer I think believable. Too
much of the country. It was being vengeful right now.
It seems like it's her coming back after a loss
in blaming Donald Trump once again for this. You know,
it's very interesting too, because I'm sure you heard that,
you know, Harris Kamalosi admitted that she didn't pick Pete
Buddha Judge as vice president because peering a black woman
(34:19):
with a gay man was too risky. So she's blaming
her bigotry on bigots who wouldn't vote for them because
their biggots. So she decided to be a bigot herself
by not picking a gay man, and basically is what
her line of thinking, her argumentation. I but the core
of that is identity politics again, yes, identity politics boxing
(34:43):
her in. She becomes this prisoner of the very ideology
that she herself champions. You know, where he is her
courage If she truly believes in identity politics, why don't
you go all in on it, because you're not courageous.
And these things that she's putting out there about all
these names new so, you know, Josh Shapiro, Pete Buddha Judge,
Joe Biden kind of bad mouthing them, blaming others for
(35:05):
really her inadequacy as a candidate. Josh shapiro spokesperson came
out and said, this is utterly ridiculous what she was
saying about what truly happened in her campaign and the
reasons for her failure. I think Democrats are looking at
Kamala Harris now more as a liability, and I don't
think that's going to help her whatever she decides to
do next. I think she's made enemies now on both
(35:28):
sides of the Aisle.
Speaker 10 (35:28):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
Completely agreed. What a great way to put it, Tom,
So thank you for being here again. I'm sorry I
had to subject you to those video clips, but I
really appreciate your time today and thank you for elucidating
what's really going on here.
Speaker 9 (35:40):
Absolutely, I always appreciate you, RODDI thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
Coming up next, an Air Force veteran in congressional candidate
joins us to discuss the latest updates on the Russia
Ukraine War, as well as the Trump administration's ongoing efforts
to end it. More details after the break. Welcome back
(36:12):
to the real story. So let's talk about the ongoing
updates about Russia and Ukraine for just a moment, a
war that is now in its fourth year. Tensions have
actually been rising between Russia and NATO countries in recent
days after Russia violated the airspace of both Poland and Estonia.
So just last week, picture this for a moment, Poland
(36:35):
reported that some twenty Russian drones had entered their airspace
but were quickly shot down by NATO jets. On Friday,
Estonia also reported three Russian May thirty one fighter jets
in their airspace for roughly twelve minutes before being escorted
out by Italian fighter jets. This then led to NATO
(36:58):
on Tuesday, war running Russia that it would use every
necessary military and non military tool in its tool belt
to defend itself and condemned Moscow for not only violating
Polish and Estonian airspace, but also for their increasingly irresponsible behavior.
(37:20):
That then brings us to President Trump's appearance at the
United Nations General Assembly eightieth session this week on Tuesday,
when he and true President Trump don't take spit off anybody,
fashion told reporters he thought NATO countries should shoot down
Russian aircraft to enter their airspace. Then, also on Tuesday,
(37:42):
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told Hanno Pevker, the Estonian
defense minister, that the US stands firmly with all NATO
allies and that any violation of NATO airspace is unacceptable. However,
some other parties in the equation are currently wondering if
shooting down Russian aircraft is justified, or more importantly, what
(38:06):
it might lead to for the war between Russia and Ukraine. Ultimately,
the decision lies with NATO commanders, but NATO did say
it would respond to Russia's actions in their own time
and their own way. Now, some people out there believe
the actions by Russia to be a sort of pushing
of the envelope to see just how far Ukrainian allies
(38:28):
will really go in response to any aggression or incursions
or escalations. And of course, for the record, Moscow allegedly
denies all responsibility from what we can tell. So now
all parties are waiting with bated breath to see who
will make the next move. And now our next guest
today is here to weigh in on the situation. So
(38:51):
here with his insights and reaction is Lieutenant Colonel David Flippo,
a veteran of the US Air Force and a congressional
candidate who's running to Repers in Nevada's fourth congressional district. Lieutenant,
thank you for being here today.
Speaker 10 (39:04):
Sir, Hey, how you doing, Riley?
Speaker 1 (39:06):
Thanks for having me doing very well and just confused.
I have a lot of questions about this development that's
going on in this really horrific war, a conflict that
I think is just pointless. I think it could have
been preventable, but it wasn't. Here we are this huge
refugee crisis and displacement going on in Europe. They're largest
war since World War Two, and NATO and Russia are
(39:29):
getting closer and closer and closer together and people are
wondering what that might mean and what it could lead to. So,
just as it stands, Lieutenant, what is your current interpretation
of the things we're seeing with shooting down jets and
aircraft from Polish and Estonian airspace?
Speaker 10 (39:46):
Yeah? Absolutely, So you know, you have to draw the
line somewhere.
Speaker 11 (39:50):
I was stationed up in Alaska, you know, part of
the ADAS operation up there.
Speaker 10 (39:55):
The Russians come close to our line.
Speaker 11 (39:58):
They stay in the international airspace and cramble jets, and
they're all they're doing there is is testing to see
what our employability is and our resolve. NATO needs to
get together and figure out how they are going to.
Speaker 10 (40:13):
Respond to these Russian incursions.
Speaker 11 (40:15):
So you know, what I'm understanding is that they actually
went about twelve miles inside of Estonian airspace.
Speaker 10 (40:23):
They're testing US, they're.
Speaker 11 (40:24):
Testing the employability of NATO, they're testing the Resolve, they're
testing the command and control And what you're seeing right
now is and we're public about it. It's all over
the news, the Secretary General of NATO and you know,
saying the things that he's saying. Well, all of that
is intel that Russia is using to understand how the
command and control operates.
Speaker 10 (40:46):
And are these countries.
Speaker 11 (40:49):
Like Poland, Romania and Estonia, are they going to be
able to operate autonomously and make decisions autonomously or is
there a command control control structure that is delaying that action.
Speaker 10 (41:02):
So all that's got to be ironed out. Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania,
they're all relatively new to the NATO.
Speaker 11 (41:08):
In fact, when I was in Iraq in two thousand
and three, I had Estonians, Latfeians and Lithuanians.
Speaker 10 (41:16):
In my command going into Iraq.
Speaker 11 (41:19):
So it's very interesting because they were trying to, you know,
start that relationship with NATO even back in two thousand
and three. So here we are now with Russia coming
across and just testing Estonia, testing NATO, testing what I
resolve is and how we're going to do it and
(41:40):
what to Trump's point. Trump's point is there has to
be consequences. You have to have that line, and if
there's not consequences, they're going to continue doing it. So
they are going to have to be firm and strong
with their position, and if that means shooting down an
aircraft that is violating the airspace of Estonia or any
NATO country, that has to be set in stone.
Speaker 1 (42:02):
You know, I don't think anybody in Washington or beyond
wants to see any more escalation as far as President
Trump goes. We want peace on the ground, but we
also have some very difficult situations to deal with here.
And you're right that there has to be a line
drawn somewhere.
Speaker 7 (42:17):
Right.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
You can't just let Putin provoke and push and do
whatever he wants without consequence. You're setting a very dangerous precedent.
But there is another question baked into that cake as well, sir,
which is this, how far should Ukraine's allies, including NATO
member countries go in trying to deter any future Russian aggression?
Speaker 11 (42:37):
Yeah, if you're talking about NATO countries and the Art
Article five back on one stack on them all.
Speaker 10 (42:43):
Yes, those are things that have to be figured out.
Speaker 11 (42:47):
Right, if they aren't already, they already should have policy
on this. So everything that we do with Estonia or
Romania pull in any of these airspaces that are part
of NATO, we have to be willing, uh, you know,
to accept those consequences.
Speaker 10 (43:04):
Now, I think you know.
Speaker 11 (43:05):
And everybody knows here that we wouldn't even be in
this Ukraine situation if it went for President Biden and
his weak leadership and the failure for him to draw
that line. Right, So now we now we have this
situation that we're now in. President Trump is doing the
right thing as a leader to to set that line
and tell NATO, look, you've got to draw the line,
(43:27):
and you've got to make decisions quickly, and you're gonna
have to You're gonna have to act otherwise they're going
to continue doing this.
Speaker 1 (43:34):
You know, one thing that's interesting, President Trump, We've been
talking about this today in the show because I haven't
seen any real action from the UN and trying to
end this conflict. And the whole organization was created to
prevent conflicts like this one from happening.
Speaker 2 (43:48):
So that's a.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Whole other conversation, sir, but it does bring me to
my follow up point for you. So, President Trump, he's
met with Putin, he's met with Zelenski multiple times, He's
identified the problems. He's been pushing for peace even before
he came back into office. It's been his like life's work,
just trying to save lives. He talks about all the
time in plain English in the Oval Office and beyond.
(44:13):
And yet the war still continues. So when your expertise, sir,
what do you think it might take to finally end
this war, get to a cease fire, and then from
there get to lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 11 (44:26):
Well, you know, I think what President Trump has done
is he has stopped seven wars from happening right now,
just since he's in office, you know, with Secretary Rubio
and Trump taking action and doing those things. I think
what's going to happen with Ukraine is we're going to
have to get tough on Russia. Economically, We're going to
have to cut off that pipeline of fuel into Europe.
(44:47):
We're gonna have to stop trade, We're going to have
to do some sanctions on Russia. Because I think the
only thing they again, it goes back to being tough
and putting that.
Speaker 10 (44:56):
Line and having consequences.
Speaker 11 (44:58):
And if Russia is going to continue you to do
this and continue to attack Ukraine and go into other
NATO countries and try to test us, there's got to
be consequences to that. And I think economically is the
way we get to Russia and we bring Russia back
to the table, and I think that that is the
avenue that will go to end this war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
Okay, now, just to sort of throw a hypothetical out
there for a moment, because I think it's one worth
considering in our final minute with you. So let's say
we move forward with more economic sanctions, we try to
push India and China to stop buying oil from Russia.
What happens should sanctions fail to bring Putin back to
the table. What's the next best alternative to that option?
Speaker 11 (45:40):
Well, I think that might be up to Putin, right,
So you know, let's see what he continues to do.
But they are failing economically, and we can hurt them economically,
and I believe we can put a stop to this economically,
but it's going to take. Like you'd mentioned, they're not
just NATO stopping the oil flow from Russia, India and
(46:00):
China as well.
Speaker 10 (46:01):
China might be a tough sell, but if we can
get Indie on board and really hit Russia where it
hurts in their procketbook, we can put an end to this.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Understood, and thank you for your insights and your time today,
and best of luck on the campaign trail as well
for you, sir, and thank you of course for your
service to this great country.
Speaker 10 (46:20):
Thank you, Riley, I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Coming up next, NASA announces its first new class of
astronauts since twenty twenty one, with the intent to explore
the Moon and even possibly Mars and beyond. More details
about it right after the break. Welcome back to the
(46:56):
real story. When British explorer George Mallory was asked why
he wanted to explore Mount Everest, he simply stated, this
because it is there. This simple phrase was profoundly impactful
for many, many people all over the planet, and in fact,
as an example, even JFK referenced those words in a
(47:18):
speech that he gave to announce that the United States
of America would put men on the moon. Unfortunately, we
all know he would not live to see that happen. However,
he was integral to the morale that sparked that event happening,
and ever since then many others have used that to
reach even further.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
Now.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
Mars has long been in the sights of many who
long for more space exploration, including Tesla founder Elon Musk,
one of the most outspoken advocates for establishing residents on
the Red planet. So on today's edition of Real Good News,
we'd like to share that NASA has introduced its newest
round of astronauts on Monday of this week with the
(48:01):
sole intent to explore the Moon and possibly even Mars.
Ten scientists, engineers, and test pilots were inducted from over
eight thousand applicants, and for the very first time ever,
there were more women in the class than men, which
is interesting to say the least. Now, the class will
(48:23):
undergo two years of training before becoming eligible for spaceflight,
which gives Elon plenty of time to figure out how
to get us to the Red planet Now. Secretary Sean Duffy,
acting Administrator for NASA, said that one of the people
from the class could very well be the first person
to ever set.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Foot on Mars.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
He also emphasized the importance of the US landing on
the Moon once again to win the second space race
in a video posted to NASA's YouTube channel.
Speaker 12 (48:52):
Let's take a look, President Trump and I have a mission.
America leads on Earth. We're going back to the Moon
in this time. When we plant our flag, we stay.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Truly amazing. Now, all astronauts in the new class were
described as exceptional, and I personally know that I can't
wait to see what comes from them next and for
America and really for our role in the history of
space exploration and space travel. Now that concludes today's broadcast.
We truly hope you enjoyed it, and remember we always
(49:31):
want to hear from you, So please email your feedback
and any new stories you'd like us to cover to
the Real Story at oann 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.
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.