September 26, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – Will Congress Say Yes to the NOPE Act?
Seg 2 – A First Amendment Addendum?
Seg 3 – Does Israel Stand Alone?
Seg 4 – Israel's Insoluble Problem
Seg 2 – A First Amendment Addendum?
Seg 3 – Does Israel Stand Alone?
Seg 4 – Israel's Insoluble Problem
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away. It
was freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello and welcome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to
Coast Curtsey of the Radio American Network from a flagship
station in the nation's capital, WWRC in Washington, DC. I am,
as always your host, Mark Angelides. Now, as far as
the news stories that have dominated the week, initially we
saw President Trump lay down the lore at the United Nations,
(00:57):
calling out all the member states over the so called
green energy agenda, the mass uncontrolled immigration that has so
beset Western nations. And all this amid the bag drop
of three prominent nations Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom
all declaring that they want to recognize and as of
(01:17):
yet undefined Palestinian state. And while these geopolitical happenings should
be top of each news hour. What was it that
really dominated? Yes, you've guessed that it was Jimmy Kimmel
and his on again, off again relationship with ABC Disney.
After being suspended indefinitely allegedly under pressure from the FCC,
(01:41):
Jimmy Kimmel is back on the airwaves, albeit a little
more contrite and to a slightly smaller audience. And yet
something sticks out, and that's that the legacy media is
still pushing the idea that Donald Trump and Brendan Karr
of the FCC is behind the whole thing, and not,
(02:02):
in fact, the affiliates who've refused to bring back the
late night show host to their waiting audiences. So for
now he's back in roughly seventy five percent of the markets.
But hot on the heels of that, it's a new
piece of proposed legislation spearheaded by certain Democrats in Congress
(02:24):
that promises to reinforce the First Amendment. But the question
is will moore words create less clarity. We're going to
examine all that and a whole lot more on today's show. Now,
Please remember a Liberty Nation Radio is sponsored by Liberty
Nation dot Com. You can access podcasts, breaking news analysis,
and a range of biting and brilliant shows to whetry
(02:44):
appetite for freedom and your fondness for the great American Constitution.
And you're here on Liberty Nation Radio head Coast to
Coast on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark
Angelide's and we're very fortuned to have with today a
Liberty Nations Editor at Large, mister James Fight. Thanks here, Jim.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Nice to be here, Mark, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
So. Jim covers everything on Limited Nation dot com of
a congressional bent to constitutional bent. He's a wealth of
knowledge and how the processes work and don't work through
the wholes of power. And there's a there's a particular
bill that I want to upcoming bill that I want
to discuss today, Jim, and that is the the Nope Act.
(03:27):
I enjoy it as much for its brevity of name
as I do for anything else, but the Nope Act,
that's n Ope. Give us an overview, Jim, what is it?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, yeah, I love the name too. It's a So
the Nope Act is not an actual bill that we
have a text for yet. I mean, they haven't actually
introduced it. So there's there's a lot of potential here.
But the the long form, the form of the name
is the No Political Enemies Act, which that sounds good,
that sounds benign, yep, as these often do. And so
(04:00):
the argument that they're they're making here this this is
a primarily Democrat back to bill. Uh. It's well allegedly
will be introduced by Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut and
Jason Crowe of from Colorado in the House. And uh.
But so this is this is kind of a backlash
to the firing of Jimmy Kimmel, is what it really is.
(04:24):
And so their idea is, too, to extend the safeguards
of free speech to to media outlets and and uh
and and other organizations, uh so that they're protected as
well as individuals, and and to keep to keep any
any president they say, Republican or Democrat, to keep any
(04:44):
presidential administration from which I'm you know, we'll see, but
to keep them from being able to target and weaponize
the any branch of the executive government, like weaponizing the
d j and the FBI, which it sounds oddly familiar,
doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
That does Indeed, so the funny thing is that now
I've really really dug into this. Now, I also I
don't have, as they say, I don't have a dog
in this fight. And this is not a dog fighting
show either for that matter, because I love dogs. But
I've dug so deeply into this Jimmy Kimmel situation that
(05:19):
they're basing this posed legislation on. And I don't see
anyway in which government can make a difference in this,
nor can I see a way why it should. Because
so so I'm gonna I walk everybody through this. I know,
(05:40):
jim you've read my stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
We're gonna peel back the layers.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
We're going to peel back the layers and get a
big old onion in there. It's the onions, sir, full
metal jacket quote. Anyway, So what happened here was you
had Jimmy Kimmel go off on a monologue saying that
(06:07):
MAGA Republicans tried to cover up the fact that the
alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk was not one of their own, Okay.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Kind of. I mean I could see you making the
argument that he didn't say necessarily that they're saying he was,
or that that he wasn't necessarily saying that he was
a mega person. That he would just hands what the
definition of is right exactly, Yeah, it's that's the that's
the that's the feel you get. But I mean his
exact wording. I guess there's a little wiggle run.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
So what happened was after that, first, I don't know,
denunciation of the you know, a mega extremists he sees them.
Next Star, which is the broadcast that carries a b
ABC shows across a range of geograph areas, they said that, hey,
(07:05):
this is not conduced to this kind of stuff. It's
not conducd to what we once spread out to our
diverse range of audience. And apparently also Sinclair, which also
does these things, have the same words for ABC. And then,
as we found out later, apparently Jimmy Kimmel was going
(07:28):
to double down and refuse to on his next broadcast.
But anyway, Next Star said that they would not be
willing to carry that show anymore, which would affect obviously
their advertising their bottom line.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
That phrame, Oh for sure. That's dozens of networks, by the.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Way, dozens dozens of network I mean, I think if
you count up next Door on Sinclair. You're probably talking
thirty to thirty percent of every penny they get is
going to be through those markets. And oh, Jimmy Kimmel,
whose ratings were worse than Stephen Colbert already, and Stephen
(08:06):
Colbert was losing his network forty million a year as
we found out, they decided to get rid of him.
Now where does the government come into Sorry, long story,
too short here, too long for the short story. Brendan
car chair of the FCC. He put out a warning
to ABC saying basically, they've got to do something. Now,
(08:29):
why would he do that? Would he do that because
he loves the president so much and he thought, Hey,
somebody's insulting people that are tangential to the president. Well no,
and so I dug really far into this, and so
there's in the So the SEC was created in nineteen
thirty four under FDR Right, and it's got a series
(08:52):
of rules that have certainly been amended over over time.
I think it was an outgrowth of the Radio Communications
I guess that'd be an agency under it. But then
it became the FCC, and so they have if somebody
on one of their broadcast channels. Now people obviously criticize it,
(09:14):
like they say, well, why aren't we getting the same
treatment for Fox News? Why aren't we getting the same
thing for CNN. Well, they're not broadcast, right, They're cable,
and so what they have for broadcast is if there
is a crime or a catastrophe. Now this is paraphrase,
but if there's a crime or catastrophe, you're not allowed
to give false information about crime or catastrophe. If this
(09:39):
is the rule, yes, if it could result in public harm.
Public harm is the keyword. Now, that's debated over in
courts all the time, public harm. But that's the first part.
So if it does qualify that if there is, and
there is, obviously there was a crime, try Coat being murdered,
was there a lie of false information about that? Pretty much?
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Right?
Speaker 2 (10:03):
I think we can all agree that Jimmy Kimmel's labeling
of the situation was dishonest.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Yeah, And I'd point out real quick that even though
I kind of I'm not really coming to a defense,
but I did want to point out that the verbatim
quote that he made could be argued that he wasn't
necessarily saying that. I want to point out he didn't
argue that he wasn't saying that, So you know, there
you go.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Yeah, that kind of sums it up, doesn't it. But
then so if there's the public harm thing, which could
be as per the the FC serials, it could be
something that could lead to some kind of unrest or
violence or things. Now, we've seen that the US is
a tinder box about certain things over you know, like
(10:52):
somebody dying. We've seen this in twenty twenty. The whole
country went up in flames. Now, so was there a
chance that lying about the murder of somebody could cause unrest?
Absolutely unless the very people who are likely going to
sue Donald Trump admit that political violence and unrest and
writing only comes from the political left. Unless they're willing
(11:14):
to admit that in court, I don't see how they
really have a case on it, because otherwise they'd have
to admit that. Well, yes, but the right wouldn't do it,
you know, they'd have to admit that otherwise there is
a risk of public harm. And so that is why
Brendan Carr would have reached out and spoke. Now I
disagreed that he should have done it public I think
(11:35):
that was a terrible, terrible move. I think that that
was just a such a bad mistake. But did he
have the responsibility under and you can agree or disagree
with the with the regulations for the SEC, but did
he have responsibility under the current regulations of the SCC
to at least notify ABC that, as he said, we're
(11:56):
going to have to do some work if you don't
do something about this. The answer to that clearly yes, right.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, I agree. Well, and like you said that, it
looks like Kimmel was going to double down.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, We're going to carry on talking about this and
the noepack after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
And we're back on Liberty Nation Radio. Remain your host,
Mark Angeladies, and Jim Fight remains Jim Fight continuing our
conversation on the upcoming NOPE Act and what happened with
Jimmy Kimmel and ABC. So earlier in the show we
were just talking about we've gone through how all the
SEC regulations and why Brendan Kahr, whether he did it
(12:48):
right or not, had a responsibility to at least reach
out to ABC and probably shouldn't have done it.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Publicly.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Now, with all that in mind, let's bring that back
to the Nope Act.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Jim. Yeah, So, so despite all of what we've discussed,
the congressional Democrats behind this bill well and much of
the progressive left. I mean, this is the narrative that's
being spun right now is Jimmy Kimmel was only fired
because the Trump administration targeted them, and ABC was like,
oh oh, and they caved, and you know, they didn't
(13:22):
want they didn't want that smoke. But uh but anyway, so, yeah,
so this this act, there's a lot of potential here.
As like I said, we don't have an actual bill
already in place. So what we have is a series
of sound bites basically reaffirming our constitution and laws prohibiting
the president from weaponizing government against people who disagree with
(13:42):
the administration. That sure sounds good. I don't I don't
know what's going to downd out to actually be though,
right it's somehow it's going to neuter the FCC. That's
the only thing. I mean, it would have to. I
don't know that it actually statutly could.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
But yeah, well, the FCC, as we discussed earlier in
the show, the rules of the FCC state that somebody
should have reached out from the FCC to ABC on
what they were doing. So neutering that, I mean, it
would make it if you're new to the FCC, you've
(14:21):
got everything then becomes basically cable news, which is not
a bad is either not a bad thing or or
it is a bad thing, depending on your position. But
what they're essentially talking about is gutting the teeth of
an agency.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
I think, yeah, pretty much, which is I mean, it's
kind of an odd It strikes me as an odd
position for the for the statist party to do.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
If they very much. So yeah, I mean I all
for it. You know, it's a government makes that.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
It makes me think of that meme with Willem Dafoe
as he was he was playing in the Spider Man movie.
He played the Green Goblin.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
I'm something of a statist myself.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Yeah, yeah, it was like someone scientists myself. It was like, yeah, right,
I knew you'd know the meme, you know, so yeld.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
My meeting knowledge right. The d o J, the FBI,
the I r.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
S, all of these agencies cannot be used to silence
people for criticizing the government. With the constitutionally protected speech.
And that sounds awesome. The problem is the people. I mean,
these are the same people that were behind the I
R s targeting conservative outlets, you know, under the the
(15:37):
previous administration and the Facebook files, the Twitter papers.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Yep, that was a direct involvement, direct requests from the
administration even in the White House to take down material. Yeah,
that but nary a peep, one might say, neary a
peep from the same people who are now saying this.
And I wonder just if the if here's a deal
(16:07):
for them, here's the deal for them. The people are
putting this together. Do you think they take it? Jim,
I'll take it, yes or no answer. You can have
this legislation, it kicks in as soon as there's a
democratic president's in office. Do you think they would take
that deal?
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Not a chance.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
So that kind of gives you the idea right now.
The question is so this this no pact and I appear,
isn't that already the first Amendment?
Speaker 3 (16:34):
That's that's the interesting thing is that that is everything
they point about or they point out about protecting free
speech and the government shouldn't be allowed to persecute you
for your speech. You should have the right to disagree
with the government. That is the First Amendment. So mechanically,
that's the big question. Mechanically, what are they going to
put in the legislation that changes the status quo? Uh?
(16:57):
And is that going to somehow better protect that constitutional
liberty of free expression? And if only Congress, and I'll
say this in a very non partisan way, uh, this
goes for Republicans and Democrats. But if only Congress were
half as good at protecting the Constitution as they are
(17:18):
coming up with clever names.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, that that that expensive old Affordable
Care Act, right, Yeah, that's didn't turn out to be
so affordable. But yeah, see, you've got this situation. It's
it's it's it's an add on to the First Amendment
that really only does what the First Amendment says anyway,
(17:41):
and I wonder if it's not a convoluting of the
first moments. There are a lot of people who would say,
for example, and here's another meme, I'll throw one back
to men with a time machine. They go back and
they meet the founding files and say, right, the second Amendment,
like I'm an idiot five year old yep, you know,
to really clarify things, and it's not. I don't think
(18:03):
adding more words to something would necessarily make it any clearer.
So you've got you've got the First Amendment, and then
you add this. It's going to bolster the first Amendment,
is it? Or is it just going to confuse things?
I do wonder if what's better off as a recla
maybe just restating, hey, this is the first Amendment. I mean,
(18:26):
the Constitution is a marvel of a document in.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Ways there's there's there's another option too here is that
this is just pure virtue signaling and it will have
no real practical affection.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Oh you mean you mean like Congress itself. Jim. We're
going to keep an eye on this on the pages
of liberty Nation dot com. Please do go and check
out Jim's writing. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
And you're back on Libutination Radio. Head Coach Coast on
the Radio America Network, our MENUA host Mark Antheli's We're
very fortunate to have with US Libertin Nations National Security
correspondent mister Dave Patson to talk about the recent developments
in the recognition of a Palestinian state. Thanks for being here, Dave,
Thank you. Mark, happy to be with you. So, Dave,
let's for people who've studiously and probably wisely avoided the news.
(19:51):
This week we've had Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia
come together to recognize a I guess, the right for
a Palestinian state, which further pushes the idea of two
state solution forward. What does that evolve from the three
parties that what are they saying?
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Well, I think that it's a recognition of a mythology.
Actually yes, I mean, let's face it, where is Palestine?
Can you send letters to its capital? Can you send
letters to its president or its leader, its primary leader?
I mean you have to send twelve separate letters to
(20:36):
all of the factions who think they represent Palestine. This
is madness. It clearly didn't work back when Jimmy Carter
was thinking about this, and it's not likely to work
now there's just no such thing as a Palestinian state.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Right, So I guess what thein sorry, the UK, So
I get them confused because they spend the British money.
You get the UK, Australia and Canada and a lot
of it, a lot of it. What they're saying is
that there should be the existence of a Palestinian state. Now,
(21:19):
there's been throughout since the nineteen forties, there's been areas
that are for Palestinians, but there's been a big series
of wars right that have essentially back and forth the
territory there, and you end up with the situation that
we have today.
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Is that well, yeah, I mean, you know, there was
some some chance of it in nineteen sixty seven, but
Israel was invaded by Syria, Jordan and Egypt, so that
kind of put a pow on that idea then.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
And again in.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Nineteen seventy three, I think that gold mayor might have
entertained at least some sort of a region for the Palestinians,
but of course they decided to cause a ruckus then
and that kind of went away. And it just seems
as though the Palestinian side has no cohesive way of
(22:20):
thinking about themselves, except they want to be a Palestinian state.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Okay, what does that mean?
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Well, you don't have anybody who can agree on what
a Palestinian state looks like, and especially none of its
neighbors wants to give up land to accommodate such a place.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Well, it's funny that you mention that, because during the
heights of I guess what many people would call the
Gaza crisis, and it certainly is a terrible situation on
the ground there so many of its neighboring countries and
we're not taking any Palestinians in. And I believe I
might have this wrong, but I believe the reason was
(22:57):
because they wouldn't know who were terrorists.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Oh, so they should stay in Israel, so that israelis
well know who are terrorists.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
You can kind of see their point. You know, why
take them in if you don't know who they are?
I mean, sure, the Western nations have been doing just
that since about twenty fifteen with the migrant crisis. Yeah.
So you're in this situation where you have three and
they are important world leaders, Mark Harney, Anthony Albanize and
(23:29):
Secure stamer and they've basically decided that this is what
this is what we want for the Palestinian people. It's
a state that exists I presumably side by side with Israel. Now,
just let's do a little thought experiment here. Isn't that
(23:50):
what the terrorists on October seventh wanted?
Speaker 4 (23:55):
Well, it's difficult to divine what the terrorists on in
October seventh really wanted from what they said. What they
wanted was to kill as many as is Really as
they possibly could and take hostages. That's what they said
they wanted.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Right, So, well that that ruins my thought experiment because
you gave such a detailed answer. But let's continue with
the whole process of the point I was trying to make.
So you've got terrorists, actual terrorists, and they're engaging in
terrorism to achieve their aim of either A, A and
(24:34):
B killing as many as radies as they possibly could,
but also to they're doing it for Palestine liberation, as
they say, isn't what's just happened. Isn't this almost a
gift to amass to say that you know you've done this,
and because of what you've done, because of what Israel's
(24:55):
done in retaliation, we are now going to support the
very thing that put you on this murder's path in
the first place.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Yeah, it does seem a bit it's a serpentine logic
to at best. But look at it from Israel's perspective. Okay,
they agree to a to state now, and in fact
they're able to carve out some portion of geography for
the neighboring Palestinian state. Now they have an organized Palestinian
(25:32):
state designed specifically to destroy Israel on its border, and
now it has all of the wonderful aspects of the country.
They get foreign aid, they get all kinds of deference.
I don't think that's a great idea for Israel, and
I don't think Israel thinks it's a great idea either.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Yeah, what were Benjamin Natanyahu's first reactions to this? I
think it was negative.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
I would really and I think that what I just
said was pretty much his point of view. And it's true.
I mean, the Palestinian state would be set up for
the sole purpose of destroying Israel because that's what they believe.
That's they grow up believing it, they grow old believing it,
(26:22):
and they die believing it.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Yeah, there's some who might say that's a misrepresentation or hyperbole.
That that really is what Hamas wants, and Hamas is
the ruling party there as it were.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
How about, just as let's continue the thought experiment. How
about if Netanyahu said, Okay, we have a condition for
developing a Palestinian state. You guarantee us that Hamas is
destroyed to the very last person that they will raised
(27:00):
their ugly hydra head again, and we'll consider a second
Palestinian state.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
Way do you think that's going to go. Well, they'll say, well,
we can't do that.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Well, then we can't.
Speaker 4 (27:15):
We could agree to a Palestinian state because if as
long as Hamas is any kind of a functioning organization,
as long as HAMAS has one AK forty seven, Israelis
are in jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Yes, Why I think most people don't realize that while
Hamas is focused primarily on Israel, it is a terror
organization with a huge amount of let's say, sympathetic links,
support and pipelines around the world, and they could vary
very easily. If they're in position of being, as you say,
(27:53):
with all the deference due to an actual state, they
could very easily start exporting that if they fell, their
interests would be best served by applying terroristic pressure in
other countries.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
As long as Hamas is a viable institution, as long
as there's one Hamash person who wants to kill Israelis,
Israel is in jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Yes, it's a very stern warning. I guess, isn't it
for what could possibly happen. Now we're gonna be back
with Dave after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelites.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain Mark Angeleaders
and Dave Patson remains Dave Patson, Liberty Nations National Security correspondent.
So Dave, thanks for sticking around. We were talking earlier
in the show about what it means that the UK,
Canada and Australia decided to not so much acknowledge that
a there should be a two state solution and that
(29:00):
Palestine deserves Palestinian's deserve a state, but really they're trying
to push the ball forward on that and coming into
what would you say, like a congruence with a lot
of other nations. Now there are two really notable nations
that are not backing this kind of rhetoric at the
(29:22):
moment Number one is obviously Israel, which we've discussed from
an Israeli perspective, it's a really it's a terrible idea
to have an actual state on your doorstep that wants
to destroy you, assuming that that Hamas would have something
to do with that state, which they probably would, because
how kids out of somebody's hamas or harmas sympathetic, It's
(29:45):
almost impossible. I think there's also, and this is the
most important, the United States. So the United States hasn't
gotten on that train under President Donald Trump. What's your
take on that, Well, I think.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
It's unlikely that President Trump will get on this train.
As you put it, he has a relationship with Netanyahu.
I think he agrees with Netan Yahoo that any sort
of a Palestinian state that borders that neighbors Israel is
really an existential threat to Israel.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Once you let that.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Idea percolate and become real.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
Now again, Israel is faced with a real Palestinian state
that really is cohesive in its desire to destroy them.
Have you ever ever heard a single Palestinian leader say yes,
I think I think Israel should be a country, and
(30:46):
I agree that they should be a legitimate entity and
we would see a way to have peace with them.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Have you ever heard that?
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Well, no, but I have heard from the River to
the Sea, which would essentially negate the existence of any
Israeli nation, wouldn't they.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Yeah, that is that's that's sort of a clue. I
think you know as you're looking at this, that there's
very little chance that there would be a benevolent Palestine
on the borders of Israel. And Israel has fought this
battle since nineteen forty seven, and if you're they're going
to be pretty hard to convince otherwise, you.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Know, Dave, you and I are big fans of the
wonderful author James Clavel, Yes, who wrote for those of
you who are not totally familiar with them, he wrote
the Taipan Book, which was of the Asian Saga. The
book series there and there's Showgun. There's a big TV
show made of Showgun now, which is it's surprisingly good,
(31:48):
surprisingly good. The lead actors in that are fantastic. But
the last book in the Asian Saga by James Clavel
was called Whirlwind. Obviously Dave knows this. I'm just giving
this exposition for our audience here, and it was about
the It was about nineteen seventy nine in Iran, and
that the downfall and the rise of the Islami state
(32:13):
that we see today. And the last couple of pages
in that, Dave, and you'll remember this one guy. I
think he's a Musa hadein of some descriptions. He's wandering
off with his horse or his donkey, and he's thinking
to himself that and this how he puts it, that
these foreigners, these Westerners, they're willing to give so much
(32:38):
for one single life that there's no way they can
ultimately beat us, because that, I guess you'd call it,
what would you say? That reverence for even a single
life doesn't mean anything in the greater cause of things
for us, and so we'll always win. And that was
written about nineteen it's written after nineteen seventy nine, of course,
(33:00):
but I think that holds very very true for right now,
that if there are and what's happening, that's how Hamas
really prosecutes their war against the Israelis. They don't care
about a single life and an individual life. The Hamas terrorists,
they use civilians, women, children, non combatants as human shields.
(33:24):
They put them in places that are likely to get
bombed because they're storing weapons caches there, and then they
weep about it to a friendly media and say, look
at the horrible things they're doing. They're aiming at these
buildings where there are women and children that they've put
there specifically to elicit sympathy, and so they're willing to
(33:45):
sacrifice all the lives they can in their cause, whereas
most Western I think all Western nations view as this
is the wrong thing to do. But it does put
Israel in a very tricky city situation, doesn't it the
Because unless they're willing to engage in that kind of
(34:08):
war brutality, brutality, and some would say that they already are.
But of course, really they could just carpet bomb. If
they really want to just kill all the past lines,
they can just carpet bomb Rafa, for example. But unless
they're willing to engage in that kind of war fighting,
is there any way that they can actually get rid
(34:31):
of hamas roodent branch. It's going to be very difficult.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
I mean, there's no question about that.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
But at the same time, I think that there's this
interesting dynamic between Israel and the United States as long
as President Trump and the United States National Security Team
does not come out specifically and say stop doing this,
you can't do this anymore. They're going to provide the weapons,
(35:00):
whereby Israel can in fact start to clean out Hamas
to the very last person. And yes, you're right. I mean,
remember the Western ethos for a for want of a
better term, during World War Two, we were perfectly happy
to carpet bomb Dresden, we use two nuclear bombs on
(35:25):
Japan because at the time, the sign of the times
was that if you don't do this, you will have
this terrible, terrible cancer with you forever and will cost
you hundreds of thousands of people. And to your point, yes,
they don't care. I mean, they are in fact a
death cult. And it's there's just they act like one.
(35:49):
They be they talk like a death cult, and so
you have to look at them that way. And in
the end, it's very you know, it's it's really awful
to say, but we've got more bullets than you've got people.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yes, well, by we, I presume you mean the Israel
with the support of the United States. Yeah, it's I
don't see any way out of a tragic situation. And
but I do see it continuing almost indefinitely, because how
do you how do you defeat an ideology, even one
(36:27):
that's predicated on even one so so bad that it's
predicated on the death of another of another people. I
don't see how you you route that out because it's
it's not And we should really talk about this, like
what kind of effect this announcement that UK, Australia and
Canada are supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, Like
what kind of effect that would have on the wider
(36:49):
Arab world around Israel? Because there were there were a
few years ago, there was there were signs of progress
with the Abraham of Courts that I think would really
be I really thought that there was something happening there
that could bring everything together. But it's her Mass exists
because it has the support of its neighboring states. I mean,
(37:13):
we've seen this, you know, the leadership of her Mass.
They go off to other countries where they get put
up in top hotels and treated like royalty, only to
come back and continue waging war until so what did
I guess My question is what kind of what are
(37:35):
the the other Arab states around the area are they
thinking that this benefits them or are they thinking deep down?
And I suspect this is true to some level, that
they're also terrified of her mass being in control of Palatins,
that they might want a Palastini, the state for Palestinian people,
but the idea that her mass could, you know, pull
(37:57):
back and pretend that it's not her mass and then
end up intil of an actual country. Aren't they a
little bit frightened by that? Because I think they.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
I think they are.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
And that's why you have Egypt saying don't bring Palestinians
into Egypt, Jordan says don't bring Palestinians into Jordan. I
think that's exactly why. It's very interesting. I was at
a conference not too many years ago, and I point
the I was talking with the ambassador one of the
(38:26):
Arab countries, the air ambassador to the EU, and I said,
I don't understand what's going on here, because here you
have the United Arab Emirates, you have Cutter, you have Kuwait,
and they have all these big building programs. Why don't
you invite Palestinians down to be guest workers in all
these programs? And she looked at me and she said, oh,
(38:48):
if if they left Palestine, the Israelis would take their land.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
What.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
You know.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
But that's what that's their thought process.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
Yeah, and I.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
Think that that's kind of the mythology that they like
you this victim ethoughts that they like to project of
how poor me, and yet they're the ones who actually
are helping to promulgate the problems that are going on
in the region.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
Dave Patterson, thanks every so much for dealing with us,
and that's all we have time from this week's edition
on Libtination Radio Coast Coast on the Radio American Network.
I've been your host, Mark Angelidi's I'd like to thank
our guests today, mister James Fight and Dave Patterson. Then,
of course extend my sincerest thanks to you the listeners
who take the time each and every week to tune
in and join us here on the show. Please do
(39:40):
remember Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation.
In this presentation is no endorsement
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away. It
was freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Hello and welcome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to
Coast Curtsey of the Radio American Network from a flagship
station in the nation's capital, WWRC in Washington, DC. I am,
as always your host, Mark Angelides. Now, as far as
the news stories that have dominated the week, initially we
saw President Trump lay down the lore at the United Nations,
(00:57):
calling out all the member states over the so called
green energy agenda, the mass uncontrolled immigration that has so
beset Western nations. And all this amid the bag drop
of three prominent nations Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom
all declaring that they want to recognize and as of
(01:17):
yet undefined Palestinian state. And while these geopolitical happenings should
be top of each news hour. What was it that
really dominated? Yes, you've guessed that it was Jimmy Kimmel
and his on again, off again relationship with ABC Disney.
After being suspended indefinitely allegedly under pressure from the FCC,
(01:41):
Jimmy Kimmel is back on the airwaves, albeit a little
more contrite and to a slightly smaller audience. And yet
something sticks out, and that's that the legacy media is
still pushing the idea that Donald Trump and Brendan Karr
of the FCC is behind the whole thing, and not,
(02:02):
in fact, the affiliates who've refused to bring back the
late night show host to their waiting audiences. So for
now he's back in roughly seventy five percent of the markets.
But hot on the heels of that, it's a new
piece of proposed legislation spearheaded by certain Democrats in Congress
(02:24):
that promises to reinforce the First Amendment. But the question
is will moore words create less clarity. We're going to
examine all that and a whole lot more on today's show. Now,
Please remember a Liberty Nation Radio is sponsored by Liberty
Nation dot Com. You can access podcasts, breaking news analysis,
and a range of biting and brilliant shows to whetry
(02:44):
appetite for freedom and your fondness for the great American Constitution.
And you're here on Liberty Nation Radio head Coast to
Coast on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark
Angelide's and we're very fortuned to have with today a
Liberty Nations Editor at Large, mister James Fight. Thanks here, Jim.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Nice to be here, Mark, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
So. Jim covers everything on Limited Nation dot com of
a congressional bent to constitutional bent. He's a wealth of
knowledge and how the processes work and don't work through
the wholes of power. And there's a there's a particular
bill that I want to upcoming bill that I want
to discuss today, Jim, and that is the the Nope Act.
(03:27):
I enjoy it as much for its brevity of name
as I do for anything else, but the Nope Act,
that's n Ope. Give us an overview, Jim, what is it?
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well, yeah, I love the name too. It's a So
the Nope Act is not an actual bill that we
have a text for yet. I mean, they haven't actually
introduced it. So there's there's a lot of potential here.
But the the long form, the form of the name
is the No Political Enemies Act, which that sounds good,
that sounds benign, yep, as these often do. And so
(04:00):
the argument that they're they're making here this this is
a primarily Democrat back to bill. Uh. It's well allegedly
will be introduced by Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut and
Jason Crowe of from Colorado in the House. And uh.
But so this is this is kind of a backlash
to the firing of Jimmy Kimmel, is what it really is.
(04:24):
And so their idea is, too, to extend the safeguards
of free speech to to media outlets and and uh
and and other organizations, uh so that they're protected as
well as individuals, and and to keep to keep any
any president they say, Republican or Democrat, to keep any
(04:44):
presidential administration from which I'm you know, we'll see, but
to keep them from being able to target and weaponize
the any branch of the executive government, like weaponizing the
d j and the FBI, which it sounds oddly familiar,
doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
That does Indeed, so the funny thing is that now
I've really really dug into this. Now, I also I
don't have, as they say, I don't have a dog
in this fight. And this is not a dog fighting
show either for that matter, because I love dogs. But
I've dug so deeply into this Jimmy Kimmel situation that
(05:19):
they're basing this posed legislation on. And I don't see
anyway in which government can make a difference in this,
nor can I see a way why it should. Because
so so I'm gonna I walk everybody through this. I know,
(05:40):
jim you've read my stuff.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
We're gonna peel back the layers.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
We're going to peel back the layers and get a
big old onion in there. It's the onions, sir, full
metal jacket quote. Anyway, So what happened here was you
had Jimmy Kimmel go off on a monologue saying that
(06:07):
MAGA Republicans tried to cover up the fact that the
alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk was not one of their own, Okay.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Kind of. I mean I could see you making the
argument that he didn't say necessarily that they're saying he was,
or that that he wasn't necessarily saying that he was
a mega person. That he would just hands what the
definition of is right exactly, Yeah, it's that's the that's
the that's the feel you get. But I mean his
exact wording. I guess there's a little wiggle run.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
So what happened was after that, first, I don't know,
denunciation of the you know, a mega extremists he sees them.
Next Star, which is the broadcast that carries a b
ABC shows across a range of geograph areas, they said that, hey,
(07:05):
this is not conduced to this kind of stuff. It's
not conducd to what we once spread out to our
diverse range of audience. And apparently also Sinclair, which also
does these things, have the same words for ABC. And then,
as we found out later, apparently Jimmy Kimmel was going
(07:28):
to double down and refuse to on his next broadcast.
But anyway, Next Star said that they would not be
willing to carry that show anymore, which would affect obviously
their advertising their bottom line.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
That phrame, Oh for sure. That's dozens of networks, by the.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Way, dozens dozens of network I mean, I think if
you count up next Door on Sinclair. You're probably talking
thirty to thirty percent of every penny they get is
going to be through those markets. And oh, Jimmy Kimmel,
whose ratings were worse than Stephen Colbert already, and Stephen
(08:06):
Colbert was losing his network forty million a year as
we found out, they decided to get rid of him.
Now where does the government come into Sorry, long story,
too short here, too long for the short story. Brendan
car chair of the FCC. He put out a warning
to ABC saying basically, they've got to do something. Now,
(08:29):
why would he do that? Would he do that because
he loves the president so much and he thought, Hey,
somebody's insulting people that are tangential to the president. Well no,
and so I dug really far into this, and so
there's in the So the SEC was created in nineteen
thirty four under FDR Right, and it's got a series
(08:52):
of rules that have certainly been amended over over time.
I think it was an outgrowth of the Radio Communications
I guess that'd be an agency under it. But then
it became the FCC, and so they have if somebody
on one of their broadcast channels. Now people obviously criticize it,
(09:14):
like they say, well, why aren't we getting the same
treatment for Fox News? Why aren't we getting the same
thing for CNN. Well, they're not broadcast, right, They're cable,
and so what they have for broadcast is if there
is a crime or a catastrophe. Now this is paraphrase,
but if there's a crime or catastrophe, you're not allowed
to give false information about crime or catastrophe. If this
(09:39):
is the rule, yes, if it could result in public harm.
Public harm is the keyword. Now, that's debated over in
courts all the time, public harm. But that's the first part.
So if it does qualify that if there is, and
there is, obviously there was a crime, try Coat being murdered,
was there a lie of false information about that? Pretty much?
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Right?
Speaker 2 (10:03):
I think we can all agree that Jimmy Kimmel's labeling
of the situation was dishonest.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
Yeah, And I'd point out real quick that even though
I kind of I'm not really coming to a defense,
but I did want to point out that the verbatim
quote that he made could be argued that he wasn't
necessarily saying that. I want to point out he didn't
argue that he wasn't saying that, So you know, there
you go.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Yeah, that kind of sums it up, doesn't it. But
then so if there's the public harm thing, which could
be as per the the FC serials, it could be
something that could lead to some kind of unrest or
violence or things. Now, we've seen that the US is
a tinder box about certain things over you know, like
(10:52):
somebody dying. We've seen this in twenty twenty. The whole
country went up in flames. Now, so was there a
chance that lying about the murder of somebody could cause unrest?
Absolutely unless the very people who are likely going to
sue Donald Trump admit that political violence and unrest and
writing only comes from the political left. Unless they're willing
(11:14):
to admit that in court, I don't see how they
really have a case on it, because otherwise they'd have
to admit that. Well, yes, but the right wouldn't do it,
you know, they'd have to admit that otherwise there is
a risk of public harm. And so that is why
Brendan Carr would have reached out and spoke. Now I
disagreed that he should have done it public I think
(11:35):
that was a terrible, terrible move. I think that that
was just a such a bad mistake. But did he
have the responsibility under and you can agree or disagree
with the with the regulations for the SEC, but did
he have responsibility under the current regulations of the SCC
to at least notify ABC that, as he said, we're
(11:56):
going to have to do some work if you don't
do something about this. The answer to that clearly yes, right.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Yeah, I agree. Well, and like you said that, it
looks like Kimmel was going to double down.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, We're going to carry on talking about this and
the noepack after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
And we're back on Liberty Nation Radio. Remain your host,
Mark Angeladies, and Jim Fight remains Jim Fight continuing our
conversation on the upcoming NOPE Act and what happened with
Jimmy Kimmel and ABC. So earlier in the show we
were just talking about we've gone through how all the
SEC regulations and why Brendan Kahr, whether he did it
(12:48):
right or not, had a responsibility to at least reach
out to ABC and probably shouldn't have done it.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Publicly.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Now, with all that in mind, let's bring that back
to the Nope Act.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Jim. Yeah, So, so despite all of what we've discussed,
the congressional Democrats behind this bill well and much of
the progressive left. I mean, this is the narrative that's
being spun right now is Jimmy Kimmel was only fired
because the Trump administration targeted them, and ABC was like,
oh oh, and they caved, and you know, they didn't
(13:22):
want they didn't want that smoke. But uh but anyway, so, yeah,
so this this act, there's a lot of potential here.
As like I said, we don't have an actual bill
already in place. So what we have is a series
of sound bites basically reaffirming our constitution and laws prohibiting
the president from weaponizing government against people who disagree with
(13:42):
the administration. That sure sounds good. I don't I don't
know what's going to downd out to actually be though,
right it's somehow it's going to neuter the FCC. That's
the only thing. I mean, it would have to. I
don't know that it actually statutly could.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
But yeah, well, the FCC, as we discussed earlier in
the show, the rules of the FCC state that somebody
should have reached out from the FCC to ABC on
what they were doing. So neutering that, I mean, it
would make it if you're new to the FCC, you've
(14:21):
got everything then becomes basically cable news, which is not
a bad is either not a bad thing or or
it is a bad thing, depending on your position. But
what they're essentially talking about is gutting the teeth of
an agency.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
I think, yeah, pretty much, which is I mean, it's
kind of an odd It strikes me as an odd
position for the for the statist party to do.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
If they very much. So yeah, I mean I all
for it. You know, it's a government makes that.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
It makes me think of that meme with Willem Dafoe
as he was he was playing in the Spider Man movie.
He played the Green Goblin.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
I'm something of a statist myself.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Yeah, yeah, it was like someone scientists myself. It was like, yeah, right,
I knew you'd know the meme, you know, so yeld.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
My meeting knowledge right. The d o J, the FBI,
the I r.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
S, all of these agencies cannot be used to silence
people for criticizing the government. With the constitutionally protected speech.
And that sounds awesome. The problem is the people. I mean,
these are the same people that were behind the I
R s targeting conservative outlets, you know, under the the
(15:37):
previous administration and the Facebook files, the Twitter papers.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Yep, that was a direct involvement, direct requests from the
administration even in the White House to take down material. Yeah,
that but nary a peep, one might say, neary a
peep from the same people who are now saying this.
And I wonder just if the if here's a deal
(16:07):
for them, here's the deal for them. The people are
putting this together. Do you think they take it? Jim,
I'll take it, yes or no answer. You can have
this legislation, it kicks in as soon as there's a
democratic president's in office. Do you think they would take
that deal?
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Not a chance.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
So that kind of gives you the idea right now.
The question is so this this no pact and I appear,
isn't that already the first Amendment?
Speaker 3 (16:34):
That's that's the interesting thing is that that is everything
they point about or they point out about protecting free
speech and the government shouldn't be allowed to persecute you
for your speech. You should have the right to disagree
with the government. That is the First Amendment. So mechanically,
that's the big question. Mechanically, what are they going to
put in the legislation that changes the status quo? Uh?
(16:57):
And is that going to somehow better protect that constitutional
liberty of free expression? And if only Congress, and I'll
say this in a very non partisan way, uh, this
goes for Republicans and Democrats. But if only Congress were
half as good at protecting the Constitution as they are
(17:18):
coming up with clever names.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, that that that expensive old Affordable
Care Act, right, Yeah, that's didn't turn out to be
so affordable. But yeah, see, you've got this situation. It's
it's it's it's an add on to the First Amendment
that really only does what the First Amendment says anyway,
(17:41):
and I wonder if it's not a convoluting of the
first moments. There are a lot of people who would say,
for example, and here's another meme, I'll throw one back
to men with a time machine. They go back and
they meet the founding files and say, right, the second Amendment,
like I'm an idiot five year old yep, you know,
to really clarify things, and it's not. I don't think
(18:03):
adding more words to something would necessarily make it any clearer.
So you've got you've got the First Amendment, and then
you add this. It's going to bolster the first Amendment,
is it? Or is it just going to confuse things?
I do wonder if what's better off as a recla
maybe just restating, hey, this is the first Amendment. I mean,
(18:26):
the Constitution is a marvel of a document in.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Ways there's there's there's another option too here is that
this is just pure virtue signaling and it will have
no real practical affection.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Oh you mean you mean like Congress itself. Jim. We're
going to keep an eye on this on the pages
of liberty Nation dot com. Please do go and check
out Jim's writing. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
And you're back on Libutination Radio. Head Coach Coast on
the Radio America Network, our MENUA host Mark Antheli's We're
very fortunate to have with US Libertin Nations National Security
correspondent mister Dave Patson to talk about the recent developments
in the recognition of a Palestinian state. Thanks for being here, Dave,
Thank you. Mark, happy to be with you. So, Dave,
let's for people who've studiously and probably wisely avoided the news.
(19:51):
This week we've had Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia
come together to recognize a I guess, the right for
a Palestinian state, which further pushes the idea of two
state solution forward. What does that evolve from the three
parties that what are they saying?
Speaker 4 (20:13):
Well, I think that it's a recognition of a mythology.
Actually yes, I mean, let's face it, where is Palestine?
Can you send letters to its capital? Can you send
letters to its president or its leader, its primary leader?
I mean you have to send twelve separate letters to
(20:36):
all of the factions who think they represent Palestine. This
is madness. It clearly didn't work back when Jimmy Carter
was thinking about this, and it's not likely to work
now there's just no such thing as a Palestinian state.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Right, So I guess what thein sorry, the UK, So
I get them confused because they spend the British money.
You get the UK, Australia and Canada and a lot
of it, a lot of it. What they're saying is
that there should be the existence of a Palestinian state. Now,
(21:19):
there's been throughout since the nineteen forties, there's been areas
that are for Palestinians, but there's been a big series
of wars right that have essentially back and forth the
territory there, and you end up with the situation that
we have today.
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Is that well, yeah, I mean, you know, there was
some some chance of it in nineteen sixty seven, but
Israel was invaded by Syria, Jordan and Egypt, so that
kind of put a pow on that idea then.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
And again in.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Nineteen seventy three, I think that gold mayor might have
entertained at least some sort of a region for the Palestinians,
but of course they decided to cause a ruckus then
and that kind of went away. And it just seems
as though the Palestinian side has no cohesive way of
(22:20):
thinking about themselves, except they want to be a Palestinian state.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
Okay, what does that mean?
Speaker 4 (22:26):
Well, you don't have anybody who can agree on what
a Palestinian state looks like, and especially none of its
neighbors wants to give up land to accommodate such a place.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
Well, it's funny that you mention that, because during the
heights of I guess what many people would call the
Gaza crisis, and it certainly is a terrible situation on
the ground there so many of its neighboring countries and
we're not taking any Palestinians in. And I believe I
might have this wrong, but I believe the reason was
(22:57):
because they wouldn't know who were terrorists.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Oh, so they should stay in Israel, so that israelis
well know who are terrorists.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
You can kind of see their point. You know, why
take them in if you don't know who they are?
I mean, sure, the Western nations have been doing just
that since about twenty fifteen with the migrant crisis. Yeah.
So you're in this situation where you have three and
they are important world leaders, Mark Harney, Anthony Albanize and
(23:29):
Secure stamer and they've basically decided that this is what
this is what we want for the Palestinian people. It's
a state that exists I presumably side by side with Israel. Now,
just let's do a little thought experiment here. Isn't that
(23:50):
what the terrorists on October seventh wanted?
Speaker 4 (23:55):
Well, it's difficult to divine what the terrorists on in
October seventh really wanted from what they said. What they
wanted was to kill as many as is Really as
they possibly could and take hostages. That's what they said
they wanted.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Right, So, well that that ruins my thought experiment because
you gave such a detailed answer. But let's continue with
the whole process of the point I was trying to make.
So you've got terrorists, actual terrorists, and they're engaging in
terrorism to achieve their aim of either A, A and
(24:34):
B killing as many as radies as they possibly could,
but also to they're doing it for Palestine liberation, as
they say, isn't what's just happened. Isn't this almost a
gift to amass to say that you know you've done this,
and because of what you've done, because of what Israel's
(24:55):
done in retaliation, we are now going to support the
very thing that put you on this murder's path in
the first place.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Yeah, it does seem a bit it's a serpentine logic
to at best. But look at it from Israel's perspective. Okay,
they agree to a to state now, and in fact
they're able to carve out some portion of geography for
the neighboring Palestinian state. Now they have an organized Palestinian
(25:32):
state designed specifically to destroy Israel on its border, and
now it has all of the wonderful aspects of the country.
They get foreign aid, they get all kinds of deference.
I don't think that's a great idea for Israel, and
I don't think Israel thinks it's a great idea either.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Yeah, what were Benjamin Natanyahu's first reactions to this? I
think it was negative.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
I would really and I think that what I just
said was pretty much his point of view. And it's true.
I mean, the Palestinian state would be set up for
the sole purpose of destroying Israel because that's what they believe.
That's they grow up believing it, they grow old believing it,
(26:22):
and they die believing it.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Yeah, there's some who might say that's a misrepresentation or hyperbole.
That that really is what Hamas wants, and Hamas is
the ruling party there as it were.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
How about, just as let's continue the thought experiment. How
about if Netanyahu said, Okay, we have a condition for
developing a Palestinian state. You guarantee us that Hamas is
destroyed to the very last person that they will raised
(27:00):
their ugly hydra head again, and we'll consider a second
Palestinian state.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
Way do you think that's going to go. Well, they'll say, well,
we can't do that.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Well, then we can't.
Speaker 4 (27:15):
We could agree to a Palestinian state because if as
long as Hamas is any kind of a functioning organization,
as long as HAMAS has one AK forty seven, Israelis
are in jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Yes, Why I think most people don't realize that while
Hamas is focused primarily on Israel, it is a terror
organization with a huge amount of let's say, sympathetic links,
support and pipelines around the world, and they could vary
very easily. If they're in position of being, as you say,
(27:53):
with all the deference due to an actual state, they
could very easily start exporting that if they fell, their
interests would be best served by applying terroristic pressure in
other countries.
Speaker 4 (28:06):
As long as Hamas is a viable institution, as long
as there's one Hamash person who wants to kill Israelis,
Israel is in jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Yes, it's a very stern warning. I guess, isn't it
for what could possibly happen. Now we're gonna be back
with Dave after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (28:31):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelites.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio. I remain Mark Angeleaders
and Dave Patson remains Dave Patson, Liberty Nations National Security correspondent.
So Dave, thanks for sticking around. We were talking earlier
in the show about what it means that the UK,
Canada and Australia decided to not so much acknowledge that
a there should be a two state solution and that
(29:00):
Palestine deserves Palestinian's deserve a state, but really they're trying
to push the ball forward on that and coming into
what would you say, like a congruence with a lot
of other nations. Now there are two really notable nations
that are not backing this kind of rhetoric at the
(29:22):
moment Number one is obviously Israel, which we've discussed from
an Israeli perspective, it's a really it's a terrible idea
to have an actual state on your doorstep that wants
to destroy you, assuming that that Hamas would have something
to do with that state, which they probably would, because
how kids out of somebody's hamas or harmas sympathetic, It's
(29:45):
almost impossible. I think there's also, and this is the
most important, the United States. So the United States hasn't
gotten on that train under President Donald Trump. What's your
take on that, Well, I think.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
It's unlikely that President Trump will get on this train.
As you put it, he has a relationship with Netanyahu.
I think he agrees with Netan Yahoo that any sort
of a Palestinian state that borders that neighbors Israel is
really an existential threat to Israel.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Once you let that.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Idea percolate and become real.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
Now again, Israel is faced with a real Palestinian state
that really is cohesive in its desire to destroy them.
Have you ever ever heard a single Palestinian leader say yes,
I think I think Israel should be a country, and
(30:46):
I agree that they should be a legitimate entity and
we would see a way to have peace with them.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
Have you ever heard that?
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Well, no, but I have heard from the River to
the Sea, which would essentially negate the existence of any
Israeli nation, wouldn't they.
Speaker 4 (31:03):
Yeah, that is that's that's sort of a clue. I
think you know as you're looking at this, that there's
very little chance that there would be a benevolent Palestine
on the borders of Israel. And Israel has fought this
battle since nineteen forty seven, and if you're they're going
to be pretty hard to convince otherwise, you.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Know, Dave, you and I are big fans of the
wonderful author James Clavel, Yes, who wrote for those of
you who are not totally familiar with them, he wrote
the Taipan Book, which was of the Asian Saga. The
book series there and there's Showgun. There's a big TV
show made of Showgun now, which is it's surprisingly good,
(31:48):
surprisingly good. The lead actors in that are fantastic. But
the last book in the Asian Saga by James Clavel
was called Whirlwind. Obviously Dave knows this. I'm just giving
this exposition for our audience here, and it was about
the It was about nineteen seventy nine in Iran, and
that the downfall and the rise of the Islami state
(32:13):
that we see today. And the last couple of pages
in that, Dave, and you'll remember this one guy. I
think he's a Musa hadein of some descriptions. He's wandering
off with his horse or his donkey, and he's thinking
to himself that and this how he puts it, that
these foreigners, these Westerners, they're willing to give so much
(32:38):
for one single life that there's no way they can
ultimately beat us, because that, I guess you'd call it,
what would you say? That reverence for even a single
life doesn't mean anything in the greater cause of things
for us, and so we'll always win. And that was
written about nineteen it's written after nineteen seventy nine, of course,
(33:00):
but I think that holds very very true for right now,
that if there are and what's happening, that's how Hamas
really prosecutes their war against the Israelis. They don't care
about a single life and an individual life. The Hamas terrorists,
they use civilians, women, children, non combatants as human shields.
(33:24):
They put them in places that are likely to get
bombed because they're storing weapons caches there, and then they
weep about it to a friendly media and say, look
at the horrible things they're doing. They're aiming at these
buildings where there are women and children that they've put
there specifically to elicit sympathy, and so they're willing to
(33:45):
sacrifice all the lives they can in their cause, whereas
most Western I think all Western nations view as this
is the wrong thing to do. But it does put
Israel in a very tricky city situation, doesn't it the
Because unless they're willing to engage in that kind of
(34:08):
war brutality, brutality, and some would say that they already are.
But of course, really they could just carpet bomb. If
they really want to just kill all the past lines,
they can just carpet bomb Rafa, for example. But unless
they're willing to engage in that kind of war fighting,
is there any way that they can actually get rid
(34:31):
of hamas roodent branch. It's going to be very difficult.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
I mean, there's no question about that.
Speaker 4 (34:37):
But at the same time, I think that there's this
interesting dynamic between Israel and the United States as long
as President Trump and the United States National Security Team
does not come out specifically and say stop doing this,
you can't do this anymore. They're going to provide the weapons,
(35:00):
whereby Israel can in fact start to clean out Hamas
to the very last person. And yes, you're right. I mean,
remember the Western ethos for a for want of a
better term, during World War Two, we were perfectly happy
to carpet bomb Dresden, we use two nuclear bombs on
(35:25):
Japan because at the time, the sign of the times
was that if you don't do this, you will have
this terrible, terrible cancer with you forever and will cost
you hundreds of thousands of people. And to your point, yes,
they don't care. I mean, they are in fact a
death cult. And it's there's just they act like one.
(35:49):
They be they talk like a death cult, and so
you have to look at them that way. And in
the end, it's very you know, it's it's really awful
to say, but we've got more bullets than you've got people.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yes, well, by we, I presume you mean the Israel
with the support of the United States. Yeah, it's I
don't see any way out of a tragic situation. And
but I do see it continuing almost indefinitely, because how
do you how do you defeat an ideology, even one
(36:27):
that's predicated on even one so so bad that it's
predicated on the death of another of another people. I
don't see how you you route that out because it's
it's not And we should really talk about this, like
what kind of effect this announcement that UK, Australia and
Canada are supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, Like
what kind of effect that would have on the wider
(36:49):
Arab world around Israel? Because there were there were a
few years ago, there was there were signs of progress
with the Abraham of Courts that I think would really
be I really thought that there was something happening there
that could bring everything together. But it's her Mass exists
because it has the support of its neighboring states. I mean,
(37:13):
we've seen this, you know, the leadership of her Mass.
They go off to other countries where they get put
up in top hotels and treated like royalty, only to
come back and continue waging war until so what did
I guess My question is what kind of what are
(37:35):
the the other Arab states around the area are they
thinking that this benefits them or are they thinking deep down?
And I suspect this is true to some level, that
they're also terrified of her mass being in control of Palatins,
that they might want a Palastini, the state for Palestinian people,
but the idea that her mass could, you know, pull
(37:57):
back and pretend that it's not her mass and then
end up intil of an actual country. Aren't they a
little bit frightened by that? Because I think they.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
I think they are.
Speaker 4 (38:05):
And that's why you have Egypt saying don't bring Palestinians
into Egypt, Jordan says don't bring Palestinians into Jordan. I
think that's exactly why. It's very interesting. I was at
a conference not too many years ago, and I point
the I was talking with the ambassador one of the
(38:26):
Arab countries, the air ambassador to the EU, and I said,
I don't understand what's going on here, because here you
have the United Arab Emirates, you have Cutter, you have Kuwait,
and they have all these big building programs. Why don't
you invite Palestinians down to be guest workers in all
these programs? And she looked at me and she said, oh,
(38:48):
if if they left Palestine, the Israelis would take their land.
Speaker 3 (38:54):
What.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
You know.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
But that's what that's their thought process.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
Yeah, and I.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
Think that that's kind of the mythology that they like
you this victim ethoughts that they like to project of
how poor me, and yet they're the ones who actually
are helping to promulgate the problems that are going on
in the region.
Speaker 2 (39:19):
Dave Patterson, thanks every so much for dealing with us,
and that's all we have time from this week's edition
on Libtination Radio Coast Coast on the Radio American Network.
I've been your host, Mark Angelidi's I'd like to thank
our guests today, mister James Fight and Dave Patterson. Then,
of course extend my sincerest thanks to you the listeners
who take the time each and every week to tune
in and join us here on the show. Please do
(39:40):
remember Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation.
In this presentation is no endorsement
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.