Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

CHILLING: Biden Predicts Nuclear Armageddon

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
October 7, 2022 1:35 pm

CHILLING: Biden Predicts Nuclear Armageddon

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1024 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

October 7, 2022 1:35 pm

Yesterday President Biden stated the threat of nuclear "armageddon" is the highest it's been in 60 years. Biden pointed to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 as the last time the world has faced such danger with regard to nuclear war. Jordan and the Sekulow team discuss the President's statements as well as assess the current situation in Russia and Ukraine as Putin's war continues into its 8th month. This and more today on Sekulow.


Chilling news today on Sekulow as President Biden predicts a nuclear armageddon. We'll talk about that with former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Alright folks, welcome to Sekulow. This is some serious stuff because the President of the United States, and this President specifically, President Biden, I fear could walk us down right into this path of a military conflict of the likes we've never seen. And he's telling Democrat donors this. So, you know, again, this is almost something, if he feels this way, when I saw this news, I was like, well, you need to do an address to the nation. If you truly feel that this is the case, this is what he had to say. He said to a group of Democratic fundraisers, quote, we have not faced the prospect of armageddon, specific term, not just nuclear warfare, but armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. He went on to say that, listen, he knows Putin fairly well, and the Russian leader was not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.

I want you to share this broadcast with your friends and family. My question for you is this. Unfortunately, my opinion is that I can see how this could unravel very quickly because of the lack of, we talked about it with Rick Grenell, we're going to talk about it with Mike Pompeo today, this lack of diplomacy, this lack of communication. Supposedly, we have communicated to the Russians what we would do if they use a tactical nuclear weapon. But when you read this comment from Biden, this statement from Biden, this is also from last night, he said, quote, I don't think there's any such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon, which I don't know how you easily use, but easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with armageddon.

No off ramp for us. No way to say, okay, the world would take this step. No, he jumps right to nuclear armageddon, which to me is troubling because when you see how the foreign policy failures, look at North Korea, rocket after rocket, after ICBM, after ICBM, the Japanese people, our allies having to run and hide underground. You see the actions of the Chinese Communist Party. You see the actions again of Iran. You see, and then of course, go to Russia, specifically, where he's saying not only do I believe he would use the weapon, but if he does, I don't see a way of using one and us not getting into an armageddon nuclear situation. Now I want to take your calls on this 1-800-684-3110 because I think there's only two ways to look at it. One is that this is for political purposes, you know, try to edit almost, you know, and in a way, I think they are also looking for a way and I really do believe this. How can we get involved in Ukraine more?

Not just by sending money and weapons, but with aircraft and, you know, a direct conflict with Russia, even if it's not boots on the ground, but it's, you know, planes in the sky. So there's that aspect and then there's just bluster, but again, there's an active conflict going on in the world and it does feel, whether or not he's right about this being a nuclear armageddon, he does not give the United States in that statement any kind of off ramp. So I want to take your calls on it 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. A lot of people already calling it already. So right when we come back to the first break, we will get to your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. We'll bring in a West Smith and Andy O'Connell as well to analyze this situation. Let me also remind you at ACLJ Action, we've launched a new, this is again, another rule. There's an interim final rule. This is on the Department of Veteran Affairs that we're asking you to sign it and write a comment. They have to reply to every single comment by the administration. So let's make sure we utilize the tool that we have provided. Doesn't cost you a thing.

It takes you a couple minutes of your time. We've got it ready for you at ACLJ Action, but we do always encourage you to add a few sentences of your own. This is to stop Veterans Affairs and the VA hospitals from becoming abortion clinics, which is what the Biden administration is trying to turn them into. And they're bragging about it. They're talking about how they've already done abortions at the VA.

This is new. So go to That's and put in your comment. We've got it set up for you.

Take advantage of it. Alright, welcome back to Secula. Just to set the stage for you again, because I'm not trying to be alarmist for alarmist's sake. This is real. I was at an event yesterday and everyone was talking about this because President Biden comes out. He's at this political fundraiser, but obviously they have reporters in the room. People talk about what remarks they have.

So it's not on camera. I do think, by the way, that if he does believe this, he needs to address the nation on camera, like tonight. Because you can't make these kind of statements at a fundraiser that are so direct, so specific, and so in times.

Literally. So he goes, he says specifically that we have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. And it said, and this is also what makes me mad actually as an American, because when you're dealing with, if you think Putin's a madman, if he's calculated, whatever you think of him, or if there's a little mix of both there now, you've got to, you always have to think of what's the best interest for our country too. Like, yes, we don't want to see what's happening to Ukrainians, but we've got to protect Americans as well. And we should be the first priority for the President of the United States if he really does believe, quote, I don't think there's any such a thing as the ability to use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.

So we're telling the Russians, let me go to Wes Smith right away. Wes, I mean, that seems like a message to Putin, not like a threat, but more like, listen, if you do this, we're going to be mutually assured destruction, the world will end, there's no way around it. Yeah, what is so alarming and inappropriate about this is that you're right, he is implying that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by Russia in Ukraine will result in a nuclear response by the United States. That is the implication of what he's saying, that we will go to that escalation. You know, when he doesn't have a teleprompter, he tends to blurt out whatever is on his mind. But this is careless talk, it is dangerous, and you're correct, Jordan. If he meant it, then he needs to be telling a joint session of Congress or an Oval Office address, you know, to the American people.

If you don't mean it, then please don't say it. Maybe it was an attempt at deterrence, you know, he likes to burnish his tough guy image. But what it implies is that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield somewhere in Ukraine will result in a nuclear response by the United States.

Hopefully that is not the case. We care about Ukraine. They are not a member of NATO. We do not have a defense treaty with them. They're not under the protective US nuclear umbrella. And so to say this implies that we are actually changing what the nuclear policy of the United States has been since the 1950s. 1-800-684-3110.

I'll ask you this, folks. I mean, how serious do you take these words from President Biden? Do you believe this is the case, that we could actually see large-scale nuclear warfare, an Armageddon-type situation?

1-800-684-3110. Anyway, you can't put all the blame on Biden because obviously Putin is the one who is the aggressor. But there's been serious diplomatic failures all along this path.

Not to mention, I think, strategic failures. You see how the North Koreans are acting. You see how, and again, how that's affecting our allies in that region who are gearing up and also running more military drills than ever before. You see the Chinese Communist Party. Then you've got what's going on with Russia and then what's going on with Iran. And then, of course, OPEC moves, which bolstered Russia as well. And you do have to, again, you can talk about all the strategic.

We'll talk about Mike Pompeo as well. But also, where's the reality? I think that's what we're all trying to figure out is what is the reality of this moment right now? We can talk about how we got there. We can talk about what to do next. But are we really at this point?

And that's why I'm asking you too. I want you to weigh in. 1-800-684-3110. Let me go to the phones. Rebecca in Texas online. Hey, Rebecca. Thanks for taking my call. We're good.

Thanks. I was just curious, wouldn't it be up to the Republicans to stop this madman? I mean, obviously, he's out of his mind. Who is going to stop him?

Which madman is the question you're talking about there? I think, you know, again, the Republicans have very little power here. Even if they take back – and again, I don't want to suppress, by the way, the turnout of the vote – the House and the Senate. But the President has the most leeway here. I mean, you can act, and all you have to do is notify Congress within 30 – I mean, we all know it now because of the way the news works and social media, the Internet connectivity.

But, you know, they can take military action for up to 60 days just by notifying Congress. I mean, I'll go – Andy, Biden makes that point, which, listen, there's a lot of Americans who may have remembered from their childhood what it was like with the Cuban Missile Crisis. We've all seen the videos of the – if a nuclear weapon's coming, go hide under a desk, as if that would somehow prevent nuclear fallout. But we're also dealing with nuclear weapons at a – just a reminder – at a very different level than what we're dealing with in 1960, and maybe a Russia that is not quite as strategic in the way they were thinking during the Cold War.

Yeah, Jordan, you're absolutely right. You know, I was 14 years old and living in Brevard County, Florida, which is where Cape Canaveral is, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. And I remember missiles on the beach on the Atlantic Ocean and seeing them poised toward Cuba as a child of 14 years old. And that was Armageddon because the President Kennedy had given a clear warning, you – we are going – you put nuclear missiles in Cuba 70 miles from the United States, Key West, we're going to come after you, and there's going to be a Holocaust of nuclear war. Truly Armageddon, the last days. When President Biden makes such irresponsible statements as he makes to a campaign fundraiser, we have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Number one, he doesn't understand and know history because that was the possibility of Armageddon, and that means the end days, the latter days, the destruction of the world, the end of time, and that is not the situation I hope that we have. And if it is the situation that exists, I agree with you, Jordan, a fundraiser in a New York apartment of a rich Democratic donor should not be the place where the President of the United States announces that. He should tell the people of the United States. Wes, I mean, just to walk people through too, because we talked a lot about the Russian nuclear arsenal, these weapons that they claim to have, and we – again, I'm sure intelligence knows, I'm sure Mike Pompeo knows, I'm not sure you can share that with us on the broadcast, but he's going to be on later, and I think his insight will be very important.

Let's go to our arsenal as well. I mean, these are world-ending type of weapons. On a scale that even people see the imagery out of World War II, it's not the same. You know, the bombs we dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed a large part of those two cities, relatively small cities at the time. The weapons we have in our arsenal and the weapons the Russians have in the arsenal are capable of taking out entire large cities like New York City and complete regions of the United States.

They are much more powerful, unbelievably more powerful than they were then. You know, deterrence is not President Biden's strong suit. He goes from being too weak to overkill by trying to be too strong, and he keeps saying things that are not accurate. And it's okay if it's a funny gaffe, you know, that we just sort of shake our heads at, but when it's a gaffe or a misstatement that, you know, defies U.S. policy and impacts national security, that's a totally different thing. You know, back when President Trump was the President, people on the left frequently would state how worried they were that Donald Trump had the nuclear codes. When Biden says things like he did last night, I worry about this geriatric President having the nuclear codes because the White House, about twice a week, has to come out and walk back what President Biden has said. You can't walk back the launch of a nuclear missile. And his loose talk, his misstating U.S. policy, his failure to deter Vladimir Putin.

I mean, at the beginning, think about it. He talked about a minor incursion would be acceptable. He told Vladimir Putin what we would and what we would not do if he invaded Ukraine. And what's troubling is that Biden still doesn't understand what went wrong. He still doesn't seem to understand the impact of his misstatements and how his verbal missteps cause confusion among our allies.

This one last night causes fear among the American people, and inadvertently it encourages our enemies. Yeah, I mean, and the lack of an offering, the idea that, okay, if they use this smaller scale tactical weapon, which, again, I still think that the world has to see, okay, how would we respond? Supposedly we've told the Russians how we respond, but if this is the way we're responding, which is the only response is that we end up in an Armageddon, that's not very strategic to protect Americans.

No, it's not. I mean, you're saying to Putin, you use a tactical nuclear weapon in connection with the Ukrainian situation, and he's saying, I don't think there's any such thing as to use that by Putin and not end up in Armageddon. In other words, I'm telling you that you do that, and we are in a full-scale nuclear war that brings the end of the world and the end of time. And remember, this is what they said about President Trump, that he would cause nuclear chaos and somehow, again, would not be responsible. Now we have a U.S. President walking us right down the path and not giving our adversaries a way out. And what, again, is in the interest, number one of us, I wish this President put us first. And Ukraine can be important, but you've got to think, if you're talking about nuclear Armageddon, protect Americans first. Maybe he's too distracted by Hunter's legal problems.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We're talking about nuclear Armageddon because our President of the United States is telling Democrat donors to prepare for nuclear Armageddon and making the comment that if Putin uses one of these tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, he doesn't see any way out other than Armageddon. So that's great, coming from the leader of the free world.

If he, honest to God, believes this, he needs to be speaking to all of us. Put the politics aside for a moment. If this is what his intel is telling him, if this is where he believes is going, I mean, people need to prepare.

You can't just freak people out who kind of follow the news, though I will tell you, when you start talking nuclear Armageddon, I don't care how partisan your friend is or how other. This is what people were talking about and are talking about if these topics come up. I mean, you don't want to have to think about these topics. And you've got a lot going on with your day. You might listen to us in your car, you're watching us online, but you've got this. You're taking kids here, grandkids this way, you've got this appointment, that appointment, and then all of a sudden you've got the threat of nuclear Armageddon on the top of everything else, with inflation, with uncertainty, trying to come out of the COVID crisis, trying to come out of all these, you know, you think about the January 6 hearings, and you compare that to nuclear Armageddon, and all the time spent on that, but, you know, is there enough time being spent on, and is it just that people don't believe President Biden?

Which, that's where he's got to make the choice. Was this luster to a Democrat campaign audience, or is this honestly what you believe? Do you really think this is what, the path that we are on? Now, we had a big ACLJ victory in South Dakota. I do want to mention this in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. We actually were brought in to represent the state, so deputized to represent the state. The case involved, and we beat Planned Parenthood on behalf of South Dakota, so a great ACLJ life victory.

And I want to explain just quickly, and we'll get back to your calls on the nuclear Armageddon. We'll have it up at as well. So the case started because Planned Parenthood challenged a South Dakota state regulation that said that a woman considering abortion must first visit a pregnancy health center before consenting to an abortion. Planned Parenthood challenged this. Now, I will tell you, under Roe vs. Wade, this would have been a real, you know, full legal battle. Couldn't be all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, so an informed consent case is what South Dakota was saying.

Now, we're in a post-Dobbs world. Roe vs. Wade has been overturned. So we won this case without having to go to court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the injunction against the South Dakota law. Again, so we filed all the filings that we needed to do, but this shows you the positive, one of the positive impacts of the Dobbs case is at the scrutiny level that anything involving abortion used to be like strict scrutiny.

So very tough to overcome in a very high hurdle. Now, it's just like anything else. I mean, you can, states can highly regulate it, put in whatever regulation they want at this time. And so this South Dakota law about going to get consent is, no longer has to be this massive constitutional crisis legal battle, but it's an ACLJ victory. Go to to learn more about it. We appreciate Governor Noem bringing us in, her team, the Solicitor General there, the AG's office there as well, standing up for life. They were ready to fight it, by the way. If we had to fight it in court, we were going to be fighting it in court and ready to go. But again, this is a victory for life, and it's a defeat for Planned Parenthood at the hands of your American Center for Law and Justice. As a reminder, they may be a billion-dollar-a-year abortion industry, but you can win and you can beat them in court. I want to go back to the phones.

So to learn more about that, go to, and we'll have more about that as well. We're going to try to have Governor Noem on next week on the broadcast as well, so tune in for that. Let me go to David in Ohio on Line 1. Hey, David.

Hey, how are you doing? Thank you for taking my call. Thanks for calling. I appreciate all the work you do for the unborn kids and stuff too.

Thank you. I wanted to say, I guess I question the competency of Biden to respond to a nuclear attack, and I guess the condition of our military right now because of the vaccine mandates, how that affected everything, and how would that affect our response? Well, I think – okay. One, I think he's already taken us down a dangerous path. So I think that the strategy, David, the whole team he has around the Jake Sullivans of the world, they weren't good with dealing with Iran. That's not a country that has the weapons yet. So dealing with Russia, I don't think they know how to deal with Putin himself, the strategy in place. I think they're a bit trigger-happy, to be honest with you, because Washington needs a war.

Now, what do I say about that? I don't mean Republicans want a war, not all Democrats want a war, but the industry. You know, President Trump replenished the military, so we were spending with our defense contractors, but we don't have – until Ukraine started, we were ending wars.

So unfortunately, there is an industry, very powerful in the United States, that benefits. And listen, in one place they play a very important role. We want to have the best weapons. We want to have the best security and the best military. On the other hand, they got used to decades of war, so we are constantly buying new missiles, constantly – just to replenish – new bombs, new equipment.

And I think we're in one of those situations. But that's very different to, like, going to war in Iraq versus Saddam Hussein. Going to war versus the Taliban in Afghanistan is a whole lot different, Wes, than going to war with Russia. And it's not about – I'm not talking about their battlefield.

If you put our troops versus their troops, we win easily. But that's not what we're talking – that is not the reality of what this war – and that's what – I mean, President Biden's not trying to – if he believes this, he's also not hiding that. I think what he's saying is, yeah, they may not be great on the battlefield, which is what he said, but they've got the weapons to, you know, lead us to Armageddon.

Yeah. I mean, the President has said a lot of things that are cringe-worthy, but this one impacts every American and every person in the world. This is dangerous, dangerous loose talk.

This is far more than a gaffe, you know. And when you are the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world, we expect you to be measured, to be judicious, and to at some point, you know, project strength and yet keep your enemy guessing. And he seems incapable of doing that. There is a way to deter Vladimir Putin from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It's not foolproof.

It's not 100 percent guaranteed. But you do that through projecting strength and to letting Putin know that if he were to do this, that it would be ruinous for Russia, but it would be personally devastating for him personally. And you can send that message without going to this idea of a nuclear threat. And as you said earlier, and I said, it bears repeating, you know, if he means that, he doesn't need to be telling Democratic donors in a private residence in New York City, which is where it took place. You need to go on television tonight from the Oval Office and tell people the threat we're up against.

If he does not believe that, he never, ever should say anything like this. Let me go to Mark in Colorado on Line 3. Hey, Mark.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. I don't believe that we are under threat. This whole thing is irrational. Why would we really care if Russia took the eastern part of Ukraine? I mean, is it really worth going to nuclear war over? It's not worth going to nuclear war over. There's nothing much worth going to nuclear war over. I mean, for instance, we recognize a genocide in China, Andy, just quickly. No one's talking about nuclear war with China. No, of course not. It's not to say that you can't do things to try and prevent Russia from human rights abuses, from waging a war of aggression.

That's fine to care about. We have all these international institutions to handle that. And I think where Mark is, I mean, to some extent, I hope he's right that we're not there, but at the same time, if our President believes we're there and Putin believes we're there, so both adversaries believe we're there, then you can... I mean, it's like you should be preparing people to... Are we going to open up the nuclear fallout shelters or rebuild new ones?

I guess very quickly. We'll continue to take your call. Second half hour coming up, Mike Pompeo is going to be joining us.

1-800-684-3110. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, folks, so of course we've been talking about... I think when you talk about any major issues, when you have the leader of the United States, President Biden, telling a group of people, while there's people there to report on it, no one's saying that he didn't say this. It's a very direct, specific script that he believes that if Vladimir Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield in Ukraine, quote, I don't think there's any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with armageddon. So we have no off-ramps, we have no other way to respond if Putin takes that step, except for in times, mutually assured destruction. He also went on to say that he doesn't think we've not faced the prospect of armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

That was 1962. And that was very serious. But you either have to believe this and he needs to be addressing all of us, or this is some kind of political blessing. We're going to talk to Mike Pompeo, who's coming up next, Senior Counsel for Global Affairs. We'll get right into this with him. We'll take your calls as well at 1-800-684-3110 because you have to take this very seriously if this is the thinking of this administration.

And they got us here, by the way. If this is really what they believe that we're at this point, it is all at the hands of Joe Biden. Yes, Vladimir Putin took the step to start a war of aggression that was wrong. But to escalate to this point, to nuclear armageddon, is a failure of diplomacy, a failure of leadership, a failure of international institutions like the UN and the Security Council, like NATO to some extent. If the only other option if someone takes this bad action is destruction of everyone in the world, you're not protecting. You would think with all these Ivy League educated advisors, they'd have some better strategy. But why do they want to walk us into this kind of conflict too? I mean, think about that.

Pocketbook. It's the sick thing about this. On the one hand, they're predicting the end of the world. On the other hand, it's a big boost to the military industry, not the armed forces themselves and the brave men and women who serve. But to say, oh, we need more missiles, we need more of this.

And also to distract you. Do you care as much about the economy or the stock market or even inflation if you're worried about nuclear holocaust? So continue to take your phone calls at 1-800-68-431.

Mike Pompeo is joining us in the next segment of the broadcast. I do want to again remind you, we had a big ACLJ victory. I know that when you're talking about nuclear armageddon, you could be pretty distracted from other issues. But this was a big victory against Planned Parenthood. We were brought in by South Dakota, deputized to represent the state of South Dakota against Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood challenged an informed consent law that required women who were seeking an abortion to first go and visit a pregnancy health center before making the decision to have the abortion. Planned Parenthood didn't like that because more people with an ultrasound or walk through where their stage of pregnancy at, the less people actually want to go through an abortion. So they challenged it. Now in the pre-Dobs world, I would tell you this would be a full fight, could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. But because of the victory in overturning Roe vs. Wade, this has significantly changed the federal, how federal courts are viewing these issues involving life.

So the court vacated the injunction against the law, canceled the oral arguments. We won. South Dakota won, Governor Noem won, the legislature there, the SG's office, the Attorney General, they've been great to work with.

And we're trying to get Governor Noem on next week. This was a great victory. It was a directly against Planned Parenthood. So your support of the ACLJ at work, defending life. You can always go to as well to stand up for life. But I do want to encourage you today to go to ACLJ Action. because we're fighting back against turning the VA hospitals into abortion clinics. That's what the Biden administration, unfortunately they're bragging about. Hey, we're doing abortions here now. And it's against the federal law. Put your comment in.

We have the tool in place at When we come back, Mike Pompeo on these statements from President Biden about nuclear armageddon. Welcome back to Sekio, folks. We're joined by our senior counsel for global affairs and the timing couldn't be better. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary Pompeo, I want to get to China in a minute. But I want to lead off with a question just directly because the reporting on President Biden's remarks to this Democrat fundraiser where he says if there's a use of a tactical nuclear weapon by Putin, he doesn't see any way around armageddon. And just my direct question to you, is that really the only option is nuclear holocaust if Putin takes that kind of step? Jordan, these remarks were both odd in terms of where they were made, how they were made, and exactly what he said.

No, it's certainly not the only option. And for a President to use that language, frankly, it's seemingly kind of just wandering randomly in front of a group of donors is deeply dangerous. That's not been reported. Vladimir Putin certainly read that. Those around Vladimir Putin read that. Leaders around the world have read that our President's talking about that in this way. And the other thing that's odd, Jordan, is he uses like the passive voice as if he doesn't have any role in this.

He's the President of the United States of America. To say that there's no other option, that this is just as if he is a passive victim of this, is deeply dangerous. And frankly, reflective of the weak Biden foreign policy for the first 20 months of their administration. No, there are many other ways this can proceed. But most importantly, there's a lot of work to do today to make sure that Vladimir Putin doesn't use that nuclear weapon. And supposedly they've said, they've communicated to the Russians, I guess there's one diplomatic channel, they've said this is what would happen if you do this.

But then he goes to this group of donors. To your point, I mean, if he honestly believes this, and his team believes this is where we could be potentially heading, don't you think he should be addressing all of us right now? Like right now? This minute? I mean, if this is how serious it is?

Of course. If President Biden believes that this is the precipice that we sit on, and that there is very little that the United States can do to prevent it from going badly, and that the ramifications are as deep and as troubling and as unavoidable as he described, he should have been on TV the moment he came to believe that, speaking to the nation, speaking to the world about the seriousness of the moment that we are in. But frankly, I think this was just another example of President Biden just off the cuff, just kind of wandering around, just speaking, just extemporaneously saying things that no President has said in a fundraising event who didn't say it, at least from the White House podium, but more importantly, to your point, to the nation from the Oval Office in an evening presentation in the way that every serious event has been handled by every President of the United States for decades and decades. Yeah, I think it makes it really tough for people to balance how serious they should take it. I mean, on the one hand, we know it's serious when we're dealing with Russia, and it's serious if they use any kind of nuclear weapon, even if it's a tactical nuclear weapon. And it's certainly an escalation. But then to say, you know, to jump to Armageddon, it's a huge jump. And I know our audience, I mean, they're tuning in in droves because they're trying to figure out this balance, okay?

They get the reporting, and they're like, you know, what should I be doing right now? And I think if he keeps it at, oh, that was a statement to Democratic donors, like you said, that's not an address to the nation. If you really honestly felt that way, I don't care about your partisan politics. You should be telling everybody that. But I do want to turn to, you're also, you're a distinguished fellow with the Hudson Institute. You did this video series directly to the Chinese people, and it got the attention of the Chinese Communist Party. They got it in the letter.

It was like their version of a cease and desist. So tell people about this series. So I felt like it was important to make sure that, as we talked about the risk of the Chinese Communist Party, that the Chinese people knew that we loved them and were with them, and that we understood that not all of them wanted to take Taiwan, destroy Hong Kong, to torture Uyghurs in the West. And so I put together this little series. We've done two of them so far. I think there are three or four more. They're short.

They're a couple, three minutes. And they speak directly to the Chinese people about where they find themselves and how it is the United States is prepared to assist them. And, boy, I tell you, this irritated the Chinese Communist Party greatly.

We got a letter that was sent to the Hudson Institute from the embassy, the Chinese embassy in the United States, basically saying shut up. And then citing a poll that said that the Chinese people are happy. And it turns out this poll was conducted by a person at Harvard who'd been a former member of the Chinese Communist Party, as best we can understand. I assure you, Jordan, 90 percent of the Chinese people are not happy with their leadership. And I can also assure every one of your listeners that much like the ACLJ is staying in the fight and never gives up on this issue that matters so much to America.

The Hudson Institute and me, we're going to stay at it informing both the Chinese people and, most importantly, the American people about how we can continue our freedom and our liberty here at home. Yeah, I mean, the second part of this that's troubling is that the poll that, just to make it clear for you, the poll that the Chinese Communist Party, through their embassy in Washington, cites in their letter saying, you know, stop doing these videos, is a Harvard poll. And then you look at the pollster and they've got direct ties to, as a former member of the Chinese Communist Party, saying they have 90 percent approval. I mean, even that number.

Like, no government has 90 percent approval, even in a free and fair country. And Harvard stands behind that? I mean, that's pretty shocking. You know, it's a good question. I haven't heard if Harvard has responded to this or not.

I suspect that Harvard will be very quiet. Look, it kind of reminds me of some of the Democrat polling. They probably took a sample that didn't quite represent all of the Chinese people.

They may well have found 10 and got nine to say what they wanted them to say. But make no mistake about it. The work that America needs to do to protect itself includes making clear that we're not against the Chinese people, that we are only trying to preserve and protect the things that matter to us. And when you see Harvard, someone connected to Harvard, put out a poll talking about something that is ludicrous on its face, it tells you how much this touched a nerve inside the Chinese Communist Party and therefore how true it must be that 90 percent of the people aren't in fact happy with them.

You've got a new piece up at Harvard should answer for legitimizing the Chinese Communist Party. Back to this issue with President Biden's statements on this nuclear armageddon. We've seen a lot of comments coming in to folks watching the broadcast, listening to the broadcast. How serious do you think they should take this statement? Like we said, it's one thing to make this statement meandering to an audience of donors, and if he doesn't do it, address the nation. But just from what you know about the situation, are we really potentially at that point of a nuclear armageddon, or could they by bad policies walk us into that point? I think that is absolutely true. I think American weakness encourages Vladimir Putin to take actions that he doesn't think we'll respond to in a way that will impose real costs on him.

We've talked about this I think a couple times, Jordan. This is all about the perception of risk in the head of Vladimir Putin, and the risk he's concerned about is his continued existence, his continued leadership, and then his effort to make greater Russia. And so as America falters or wanders around at fundraisers or makes statements and has people walk back what the President said, we enhance the likelihood that Vladimir Putin will think, well, I can just do this. I can use a battlefield or tactical nuclear weapon in a way, and I can gain the upper hand when my military has failed. I think, Jordan, this is a serious moment.

There's no doubt about that. I think what it requires is continued American resolve, continuing to push forward and provide the Ukrainians what they need. The more we demonstrate that we are not going to permit Vladimir Putin to push us around, to bully us, the less likely it is he will ultimately conclude that using a nuclear weapon will prove advantageous for him. As always, Secretary Pompeo, we appreciate this. The timing couldn't have been more perfect to have you on today to discuss this, but I think people are.

I was at an event last night with a lot of finance folks, and they were talking one thing about the stock market, and they said it's one thing to talk about the stock market, it's another for this nuclear fallout. Who cares? Again, we always appreciate it. I want people to go to to see your new piece, Harvard Should Answer for Legitimizing the Chinese Communist Party. Our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo, thanks for joining us today with that insight. Folks, we'll continue to take your phone calls on this at 1-800-684-3110.

We come back from this next break. We're going to hit a couple other topics. We're going to hit the Hunter Biden topic that's in the news. Again, it's all based off reporting. There hasn't been actual action as of time while I'm on the broadcast with you, as I'm talking to you right now, of any kind of legal action or indictment, but it certainly appears that at least what they're reporting is that there would be enough if they decide to indict.

They still have prosecutorial discretion. Let's talk about a little of that. A little bit of Yeezy as well on life. And I want to take this moment when we're talking about a life as well to recognize one of our senior counsels at the ACLJ, our attorney Walter Weber, who I've known my entire life, and he has been dedicated to the fight for life. And he's receiving a huge award from the Christian Legal Society, the William Bentley Ball Award for Life and Religious Liberty.

He's receiving it today in California. And so from all of us at the ACLJ, congratulations, Walter. And I'm just so glad he got to see in his career, not just the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, but this new opportunity. And I will tell you, folks, he is the best of the best in this field, in this world, and when it comes to writing briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can take the words of the justices themselves of how great he is. So well-deserved reward, and I hope he enjoys being in California today.

And certainly that's Walter Weber from our team at the ACLJ. And let me encourage you, as we talk about life for a minute there, as well at That's We've got a way for you to get involved in that attempt by the Biden administration to override current law, which prohibits the VA from being an abortion clinic, into turning VA hospitals into abortion clinics. But we need you to speak up. Go to

Doesn't cost you a thing, but we've got the tool ready for you to get your comment in. ACLJAction. Welcome back to SEC Hill.

We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. I do want to get to a couple more topics. A lot to talk about today. Obviously the most serious topic because the President in this closed-door Democrat fundraiser, and by the way, there's no denial about the statement that we are on the precipice of a nuclear armageddon. And that the only option if Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon is armageddon.

He sees no other way. Again, that's one thing to talk to your donors to try and get them to donate money to say we need to support you. But also, if you really believe that, I'll go to my brother Logan who's joined us and does the Secular Brothers podcast with me. Secretary Pompeo said it's a primetime address.

Here's our plan to get out of it because no one wants it. A lot of people text me when news breaks. That happens quite a bit. More people than probably ever texted me late last night about this, mainly going, is this real? Did he really say this? Could this possibly be what we're saying here? And we know that what this does is stoke a lot of fear. It stokes war. And people are concerned, as they should be, if your President is saying things like this.

We were talking about it in the prep meeting. It does hit you in the gut quite a bit to go, is this actually going to be the reality of the next few years? Is this what supporting the war in Ukraine, is this what this means for America? It wouldn't have been worth it, honestly.

That's a steep price. I'll say it. I'm not afraid to say it because there's so much if you say anything about Ukraine. We had a call saying Crimea is not worth nuclear destruction of the world.

It's bad. We're not going to war with China, and we say they're committing genocide, that they're actually committing a Holocaust. No one's saying we're going to get into nuclear war with China. Why are we so casually walking into nuclear war with the Russian Federation?

You do have to wonder, because I want to get to this story, if it's because of all the bad stories. The economy is just blustered to freak everyone out. It also kind of beat the drum for war, which also is good for the economy.

You don't want to be that guy, but it does sound like that. Yeah, Washington makes tons of money off of... Look, go out to Northern Virginia on your way up to Dulles Airport. You'll see everybody who manufactures weapons.

Listen, I like them. I want them to manufacture the best weapons for us and our allies. At the same time, I feel like they're feeling like, oh, we haven't been spending enough. We need to- The wars are over. The wars are over. We replenished our military under Trump, so they got that.

But then it's kind of like, what's the impetus? Do we need another 1,000 missiles? Now, some of this to Ukraine, but those are pretty small-scale compared to what we're talking about here when we're talking about nuclear Holocaust. But is it potentially because his son's about to be indicted? I mean, so that story breaks, too. In mainstream news. This was on The Today Show this morning. All this Hunter Biden stuff that used to be banned.

You couldn't even tweet. Even The Today Show, pretty soft news, had to address it. They didn't address it long, but they did say, reporting out of NBC News, it was not Fox News, NBC News, that there's enough conduct that he could be charged for both tax fraud and I guess it's a gun purchase fraud because he didn't mark that he had a drug dependence. I don't know how serious that one is. I don't know if you go to jail for that, but- Probably not. Tax fraud, you do.

Yeah. I mean, the President's son, if there is an indictment that comes down at all- And a very controversial figure. It's not like just the President's son. He's the most controversial figure outside of the actual cabinet in the White House. It has been him for the last few decades. So it's pretty interesting. I mean, they're making movies about him.

They're writing books. And again, a guy who I think a lot of people sort of laugh off. And yes, he's got a lot of demons.

I wouldn't laugh them off. But this is not a stupid guy. This is a guy who's pulling off wild business deals. When you actually look at it, sure, he was using his name to get in the door. But when you actually educate yourself and look into what he was doing, he's not this silly Roger Clinton character. He is a much stronger guy.

And we kind of write him off in that way because people see some of his demons. But I think this should be taken very seriously. Yeah, you don't get hit with major tax crimes potentially if you're not doing major deals. Major deals. Internationally gigantic deals. Highly questionable. I mean, working with some- again, if you're going to do those kinds of things, there's all these legal steps you're supposed to take. Even if you're not the son of a President. People who work in the product world with China and have to deal with all that, you have to register, you have to do this, you have to do that.

I mean, you don't just willy-nilly make deals through email usually for millions and millions of dollars with actors that appear and disappear. You have the- what's his name, Tony? Is it Babalinski?

Babalinski, yeah. So he's trying to get out there and he said he was silenced and he was his former partner's allegedly. But I think what's interesting about this, to take a step away from whether he's died or not, is that it's actually now a mainstream story.

Yeah. Whatever they tried to do to suppress it. The FBI tried to suppress the story.

Eventually it will get caught up. The culture laptop was supposedly a lie. We know that's not a lie.

And now this. Whether or not he ends up with a slap on the wrist, he could make some deal. It kind of sounds like it. I mean, these charges don't seem like the most- I never expect a lot. These charges don't seem the most extreme of the allegations we've heard. Of the wild stories we've heard, this seems like sort of the third or fourth tier allegations. But you're right, it could be a slap on the wrist. But hey, you're right, at least they're talking about it.

This discussion is happening on mainstream cable news and TV and broadcast and not just on the coordinates of the internet that allowed it. I was about to say our friend Kanye, but he's not yet our friend. I don't know Kanye. Yeah, we don't have that personal connection. I don't know Kanye. Yeah.

I mean, I'm a step away from him, but I don't know him. And it's yay. It is yay.

And he illegally changed it. I have Yeezys. Yeezys. But I guess you call them yay.

You have all the different products. I heard the correction on Fox and Frizz this morning. Yeah. Are they right? We'd like to issue a correction. Yes. We referred to him as yee.

It is in fact yay. Yeah, but when he was with Tucker, he said yay. And what I liked about this is he's a controversial figure. He makes statements- Profocator. He's a profocator. But one thing he's been more consistent on is life. And he's wearing this new necklace to actually draw attention to what we've talked about a lot, which is ultrasounds.

Take a listen to Kanye, as you probably know him better, on Tucker last night. There's a photograph on it. What is that?

It's a photograph of a baby's ultrasound. And you designed that? Yes. Why?

What does that mean? It just represents life. I'm pro-life.

Boy, so you wear it on a badge. What kind of response do you get? Amen.

I agree. I don't care about people's responses. I care about the fact that there's more black babies being aborted than born in New York City at this point. That 50 percent of black death in America is abortion. So I really don't care about people's responses.

I perform for an audience of one, and that's God. Listen, we've been talking about that forever when we talk about abortion. Even the origination of abortion. The reason why Planned Parenthood existed in the first place was eugenics to eliminate as much as possible African Americans in America. That's the truth. To target black communities.

Go look where abortion clinics are. Right. And he is obviously a very prominent figure, a guy very controversial, has had his ups and downs. He has been consistent on life even when he ran for President back in 2020. He specifically said that was one of his big platforms. The difference is it was sort of in this wild character that was happening in that moment. Yeah, we took that out of an interview.

I think Tucker, I think there's more to come tonight. It's not an easy guy to interview. He's got a lot to say in his mind. These are these guys. Their minds do not work the same way. This is an artist, but you know what? It's nice to hear someone speaking up for this.

I think you've just got to be careful. I just think some are good to a point where they've gotten to a point where they don't need more money. So this canceling idea does not matter.

You cannot cancel Kanye West. And listen, we've talked about how we need our, like, eccentric billionaires on our side. They do come with exclusivity. And a lot of people agree with him. And a lot of people really support those points of view. But he's just saying the facts.

He's just telling the facts, so it's pretty interesting. Yeah, there's more to come in that interview on Tucker. And we want people to check out Secular Brothers. The fact that he would even do Tucker. We want people to check out Secular Brothers.

That's right. New podcast up three days a week. Did one yesterday. to find all the links on where you can watch and listen. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts. Write us a review. We'd appreciate it.
Whisper: medium.en / 2022-12-25 04:39:08 / 2022-12-25 05:00:22 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime