Rory O'Neill with the latest on U.S. strikes on Venezuela

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, the controversy over the boat strike continues. Representative Jim Hymes,
who's the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, weighing
in on this on Face the Nation yesterday. I think
it's really important that people see what it looks like
when the full force of the United States military has
turned on two guys who are clinging to a piece
of wood and about to go under. We act as

(00:20):
if they're just little innocent fellows that fell over on
a boat out there fishing. Now, these guys are criminals. Okay,
they're running drugs, and you know what, You get on
a boat and you start doing this, how many videos
do you have to see before you second think about
getting on a boat and doing drug runs. Seriously, I mean,
you're basically asking for it. The United States has declared

(00:42):
this war on drugs, not officially through Congress, but the
president campaigned on going after this craziness and he's not stopping.
Republican Senator Tom Coddon says, well, these survivors were trying
to flip the boat over, and you know, get rid
of the evidence.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
It looked at one point like they were trying to
flip the boat back over. A presentably of rescues, cargo
and continue their mission exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
Well, you know, Pete Haggseth, our Secretary War says, we're
not stopping.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
And we'll keep killing them so long as they're poisoning
our people with narcotic amen.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
High five there, mister Pete haig Seth joining us now,
Roy and Eil for a little bit more on this
Good morning sir, welcome in Happy Monday.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
Whether or not we get the video of that second
strike is really where the pressure point is right now.
The Secretary set up with the weekend while speaking in
California that they are reviewing the footage. They don't want
to release anything that they don't want me public like
means and methods and that kind of thing. But the
President has said he's all right with this video being

(01:38):
shared with the public.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
Look, if we're going to get after these people are
ringing drugs around us and killing Americans, then you know,
so be it. Where does this go from here?

Speaker 2 (01:48):
Now?

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Are they Are they going to keep pressing this until
Congress gets involved? I mean, the President has the right
to do this, and hegg Seth and the Admiral are
all about it. So I just I really don't get
the pushback and the crazy and all of that.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
Well, one issue is the restrike, right, whether or not
the second strike on the boat was justified. Some have
said it's a war crime, Democrats have said it's a
war crime. But that second strike, and really we heard
very different opinions depending on that initial at the end
of your last name, D or R as to what
exactly is shown in that second video. Is it two

(02:23):
guys barely clinging to a piece of debris or is
it two guys trying to write a capsized boat with
the drugs on it and trying to get back in
the game. And I think that's why we all want
to see this video to get a better understanding of
exactly what kind of condition they were in when they
ordered that restrike.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
Well, I'm not losing a lot of sleep over this one.
I'll give you that, all right.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Roy.

Speaker 1 (02:42):
Also a big discussion today with the Supreme Court. One
of the cases they're looking at, should children born in
the United States become citizens even if their parents are
in this country illegally. I guess what do they call those.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
Anchor babies or babies exactly? So that's sort of the Yeah,
that's one nickname for them.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
And look, this has been the long This dates back
to the fourteenth Amendment coming out of the end of
the Civil War, that a person born in the US
has birthright citizenship automatically made a citizen of the United States.
And President Trump back in January signed an executive order
essentially ending that policy. Question is a can they do

(03:25):
it with an executive order? That's a little dodgy, but
it does bring up this larger question. And the court
may say, you know, essentially it's almost written out exactly
that way in the fourteenth Amendment.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
It's a little bit foggy, But.

Speaker 3 (03:38):
For the past century, this is how we've been interpreting
the Constitution to mean that if you're born here, you're
an American.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
Yeah, that's a tough put there. In my mind, I
see both sides on this. Okay, let's say we agree
with all that and it moves forward. The court rules
that if you're born here, you're a US citizen. No
matter who gave birth to you, you're a US citizen.
But whoever gave Bertia has not gone through the process.
That doesn't automatically at this point give them the right

(04:06):
to stay here since they've got the anchor baby does
it well?

Speaker 2 (04:09):
Now, well, right, and then that's the argument that gets made. Right.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
And now, look, if you're here and you're on vacation
and you're six months pregnant, then you have an early
birth that maybe and you're here legally because you're just
on vacation or whatever, that's one kind of issue. But
if you're coming here, you know, eight and a half
months pregnant, just to have the baby here in the
States to get all the benefits, you know, that might
be interpreted in a different way when they're trying to
ask whether or not that parent can stay with the

(04:34):
new American child because otherwise, you know, you like, there's
the parent leave and now we're all responsible for this
young American baby, and you know, those are some of
the issues. Look, the court is more likely to rule
on the fact that the president doesn't have a power
to end this policy by executive order.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
So they're not I don't This is me a non
lawyer predicting.

Speaker 3 (04:52):
I don't think they're going to rule on the merits
and this argument or debate that we're having right now.
They're going to say, no, a president can't end the
Fourteenth Amendment by his signature. If you want to change it,
go ahead and change it, make another amendment, but a
president can't do it on a whim.

Speaker 1 (05:05):
Yeah. I think that's probably where they're going to end
up as well. Thank you, Roy, I appreciate your update
this morning.