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

BREAKING: Alleged Assassination Attempt on Putin

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
May 3, 2023 1:16 pm

BREAKING: Alleged Assassination Attempt on Putin

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1022 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


May 3, 2023 1:16 pm

Russia says President Vladimir Putin was the target of an assassination attempt by Ukraine and has a released video of the alleged attack to prove it. Is this just more Russian disinformation? Jordan and Logan discuss this and more on today's Sekulow.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Breaking news today on Sekulow after an alleged assassination attempt on Putin in Moscow. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. In the latest escalation of the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia has now put out imagery, and again this is imagery by Russia, so you have to take it with a grain of salt and kind of think about it too as you're seeing it, of a drone, and we can play the video for folks as we're talking about who are watching the broadcast, but of a drone, not a particularly large drone, going right into the Kremlin, I mean right off Red Square on the Kremlin and being shot down by their, they have an emergency like air defense system that like the White House has. So, but it gets within, I mean so close, I mean that means it's inside Moscow at a... I mean you're over the, you're over the building. Probably only it's a hundred feet maybe.

From the top? If you've seen the images of Red Square, if you've ever been there, this is a huge building if you're watching this with me right now. It's right over the dome. So when there's an explosion like that of the dome, think about it, that dome is probably not as big as the U.S. Capitol, but it's that size. It might not be, it's about that height. Maybe the big, it's the height of the actual dome. You think about that Red Square wall, that is gigantic.

So if a big explosion happens, of course though there are a lot of questions in this. How did a drone get that far into Russian airspace, that size? Why was it shot down before? Because they're saying that this is an assassination attempt. That is the Russian Federation. From Ukraine on Vladimir Putin.

You're right, it opens up a lot of those questions. It's not like you could fly this thing all the way across and not be detected. Yeah, we're going to have Tulsi Gabbard on tomorrow and I can't wait to ask about this because the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, has said he's seen the reports because we all can, like I said, we showed you the video. It's not like Russia is just claiming this happened. If this was a false flag, they exploded a device over the Kremlin.

Yeah. And a pretty significant explosion, which we haven't yet seen imagery that I can find or that our team's going to find of the aftermath. Like what was left. Now some of that would be for security purposes. We probably wouldn't want to show that either if it was like the White House or the Capitol. But at some point, if it was a big enough explosion, the news would be able to see it. Now the news is controlled there, obviously, so they wouldn't necessarily throw up a drone either to get that imagery. But when Blinken was asked about it, he said he's seen the reports, he can't validate them, but we don't know.

Here's why I think that's unacceptable. We are funding the Ukrainian war. We should be able to definitively say before Russia has a chance to utilize this to escalate the conflict, we should be able to definitively ask the Ukrainians and get a 100% answer if this was them or not. So that we can then tell the world this was not Ukraine. If we're paying for the war, they should have to be honest with us. If they will not be, then we shouldn't be funding the war.

Yeah, at least have some transparency. The Ukrainians have denied it was them. But I want the US to confirm that. I get why if your assassination attempt fails, you deny it was you. That's normal kind of how you would operate. But if you are trying to assassinate Putin, we should not be funding your war.

Because if that occurs, we don't know what happens next. Yeah. That takes a defensive battle that I think people have to deal with. A defensive battle that I think people understand. Get the Russians out of Ukraine and turns it into an offensive war. And Ukraine is already talking about going back into Crimea.

As any other country. Why are we funding an offensive war against Russia? I get defending Ukraine. But if this goes offensive, and it's why I've questioned it the entire time, why don't if Ukraine is at a point where they could go invade Crimea, why can't we just bring this conflict to an end? Stop killing people. Stop utilizing all of our US resources and depleting our military assets and say, you know what, that was a decade ago. That is not why we're fighting this fight and declare this over. But instead, we're continuing on this escalation.

I want to hear from you folks. 1-800-684-3110. Join the broadcast. That's 1-800-684-3110. This first half hour, Senator Marsha Blackburn is also going to be joining us. Welcome back to Secula.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. The Kremlin is reporting. This is the imagery we have and we can show it again as people are watching it. This is Red Square and the Kremlin, where the headquarters, of course, of the Russian President and basically the Russian executive branch of their government. And an explosion, which was, again, they are claiming was a drone sent to assassinate Vladimir Putin.

Now, there's a lot of questions we can get into further here. And it was utilized, listen, that would have been like the last line of defense. Those kind of weaponry we have on top of the White House and other government buildings in the United States as well, which is, again, a missile defense system on a small scale.

Now, when we think of drones these days, I usually think of like the Reaper drone when I think about trying to assassinate someone. And those are as big as a plane. So that would have caused a much larger on-the-ground explosion.

There would have been a lot of damage. There probably would have been even significant loss of life because there's security. There are definitely people on top of those buildings, just like there are Secret Service with guns pointed on top of the White House and the Capitol and congressional buildings. If you drive through D.C. and look closely, on top of most buildings is someone with a gun.

And on some of those buildings, we have anti-aircraft. And that's what was utilized here. The question is, is it a real video? Now, I mean, it's real in the sense that it's out there.

Is it CGI? Is it a false flag? Or is it possibly a insider who got deep enough into Russia and is firing this off? I mean, this is what Senator Chris Murphy, I just don't like the fact that the U.S. government will not come out today and definitively answer this.

If this wasn't our conflict, fine. But we are the number one financier of the Ukrainian war machine. And if we should be able to definitively come out and say, this was absolutely not Ukraine.

I don't want to hear from them. I don't want to hear from the Russians. I want to hear it from our own government because if they won't give us that answer and we don't trust them, we shouldn't trust them with our military equipment. And Russia is either creating or using this definitely to their favor in the sense of being able to do this. This is a quote that came from RT, which is a Russian kind of backed news. They said, Russia reserves the right to retaliate anywhere and anytime it deems necessary. And this was specifically in response to what they're saying. There's a drone attack on President Vladimir Putin's residence, the Kremlin. That was a quote from rt.com. So that's what they're saying. So regardless if this is real or if this is fabricated, Russia is utilizing this moment to potentially scale up this to a significant way that we probably can't even anticipate. Right. And this is Senator Chris Murphy is a Democrat from Connecticut kind of laying out what the options could be here.

Take a listen by 20. We don't have any information to understand what the nature of this attack is. It could be a Russian citizen, it could be a false flag operation, to the extent that Putin is complaining about Ukrainian, potentially Ukrainian attacks inside Russia. That's pretty fantastic, given the fact that Russia is killing civilians inside Ukraine, inside Ukraine's capital every single day.

We know that to be true. Okay, Russia doesn't deny that they are attacking Ukraine. Here you have Russia claiming this was an attack on Putin.

Ukraine saying they're not responsible. But there's also brigades, remember, within the Ukrainian kind of military structure. What is the Asov group? Remember that's the one that's been accused of being like a neo-nazi group that operates in eastern Ukraine?

Could it be an offshoot like that? That when you're at war against a bigger power, you know, those kind of groups have been brought into the, they're being trained by the United States military. And in the past we would not have had anything to do with them because of their connection to neo-nazism. So, and again, Zelensky is Jewish.

I don't think he's like directly wanting to empower neo-nazis, but they are certainly willing to utilize it. Could it be someone like that who operates in the eastern side of Ukraine, a little bit closer to the Russian border? I don't definitively have an, I would like to know if Ukraine is trying to kill Putin.

And the reason why I think our government must know that is because then we have to question if we're funding this, if we're going to keep funding this. Because we don't know what happens next after him. No one has a clear, remember they keep saying he's going to be overthrown. That has not happened.

They said he had cancer. It doesn't look like that now. Every time we've got, our own propaganda seems wrong against Putin. And it seems like this isn't a never-ending conflict. And if Ukraine is at a point where they're even thinking about invading Crimea, if Ukraine is now invading, if Ukraine is taking offensive action, shouldn't we be able to end this conflict now? Instead of going to that point? It's okay to say you're defending people. I want people to like, stop having kids get killed, stop having apartment buildings blown up. It might not be a perfect ending, but an end to a conflict never is. But that's at the point where you should be able to negotiate. Yeah. I think that a lot of Americans would probably support that because you go, okay, the people who do support the war in Ukraine are probably like, yeah, we're here to support the fact that they're being invaded.

They are not for the flip side of this. Now, again, take the assassination temp with a grain of salt because we know, look, we know they even happened from Ukraine. Because remember Ukraine claimed that there was a missile attack on an apartment building or something like that. And then we reported it.

We were doing a show live when that happened. And then within hours it came out, oh, that was actually a Ukrainian missile that went rogue. So there's a lot of myths and disinformation.

Now you love those words happening though, coming from Ukraine and from Russia. So you kind of judge everything. Now, like you said, when you start to think about what this explosion is, some of the pieces start to fall apart unless it's someone on the inside.

Because if not, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, I think we could play it again. I think we should play it for people who are just joining us. I know a lot of people are on rumble right now.

Welcome those who are joining us. I think we should play it again so you can see and sort of judge for yourself what you think. Because this is footage shot of, well, you'll see a drone fly across if you're watching and then it's taken out by a missile defense or some sort of thing like that. And it's a fairly sizable explosion over the Kremlin.

Yes. Which means if, again, some of that's light, some of it... But I mean, that caused damage if it's real. And again, I'm not 100%... Russia is also claiming there was another one. There was two drones that were 16 minutes apart. That's just the one we have footage of.

So there was like a multiple attack. I mean, again, if I can't see it, that doesn't mean it's not true. It's tough to believe the Russians on anything when it comes to this. We know they at least do this. We at least know they lie. Yes.

They would definitely be willing to either... I mean, there should be more reports. A lot of people should be able to confirm this happened. Not only is it the Kremlin, it's in the major, very busy part of Moscow, which is still operating at full speed right now. It's not like they're closed down because of the war. The Ukraine even has operated. It's wartime, but it's not everywhere. Yeah.

I mean, the traffic outside of there is intense, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So I doubt that they would just CGI it like Iran style. But what I do think is that if there's real... Is a real aftermath. And then second is the drone, if anything's left of it, they should be able to show the world if it's a US drone.

This sounds eerily like a Chinese spy balloon moment. I mean, in some ways, the way you're talking about it, it's like, we should be able to look at it. Oh, we can't find it. It's in the bottom of the ocean.

Those are the kind of things that felt like... There should be enough pieces that drone's still... Maybe not a lot, but to know who manufactured it. I don't know what's left. If you know who manufactured it, just by little pieces, you would know that.

You would then be able to know which side had it. Yeah. But we're not gonna know... Russia is saying this was an assassin. Russia's not gonna go there. The question is, we have intelligence. Are they just that bad now? I mean, they got the whole invasion wrong.

When they said it would take two days. Now we're in a long-scale war. Over a year.

It seems like it's never gonna come to an end. And now we have reports of Ukraine taking offensive action. So it does line up with what Ukraine is saying they might do.

Right. This is a moment that could be very dangerous for both sides of the situation, because what this could do is escalate it from an invasion and a territorial dispute to a full-blown war with Russia, with Ukraine versus Russia, with you claim that... I mean, look, think about it. There was... And if the US response is, we don't know, that's leaving up the option that this was real.

It was real. And think about if there was assassination attempt on our own Presidents or leaders. It's not like we don't take that stuff seriously.

Very seriously. I mean... From a foreign government. That was what was controversial just about taking out Suleimani. Yeah.

He was a military actor. You're talking about an individual assassin. You're talking about... They're saying the Ukrainian military did this. So of course, there will probably be retaliation if they are able to... One, if it's true, or two, if they can convince their own people that it's true. But see, both sides could use this too. The Ukrainians can also use this test to escalate and say, now we need to... Even though we didn't do this, we've got to escalate, because they're going to escalate. Right. Well, next segment, we got a guest coming up.

Yeah, that's right. Senator Marshall Blackburn is gonna be joining us. This... Again, because the information like this... We talk about disinformation, but there is real disinformation. There's real misinformation.

There's a whole lot of bad stuff online. And there's this whole debate in our country too. It's like, how do we have freedom of speech, which we all are... I mean, I'm a free speech.

I die on that hill. At the same time, protecting minors, which is different. And online, when you have this complete immunity for these providers and platforms. So Senator Marshall Blackburn's got a bill, legislation, to provide more power to parents. And I always support that, more parental power, so that you, the parent, have more decision-making about what your kid is fed online. So we'll talk to her about that. We'll take your calls to continue to about... We'll get back into Russia, Ukraine. Do you feel like we are being led into an escalation with our taxpayer dollars?

1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Stack Hill. Something we're always trying to figure out, especially in the United States, is protecting free speech, but also protecting our children. And one of the best ideas to do that is by empowering parents to have more decision-making about what their kids are seeing, viewing. We're talking about it in schools as well. We're joined right now by a great friend of our broadcast, great friend of the American Center for Law and Justice, one of our US senators here in Tennessee, Senator Marshall Blackburn, who has got new legislation. It's bipartisan, which means that there could be real action on this, that we could actually get this to the President's desk. It's called the Kids Online Safety Act of 2023. Senator Blackburn, welcome to the broadcast. Tell our folks what this would do.

Yes, indeed. One of the things that we have heard so much about is that there is not a toolbox, that there is not a responsibility or transparency or accountability on these tech companies to make their algorithms transparent to people so that parents can say, hey, we want to make certain that we put this content offline to our kids. And sometimes it's the kids that are saying, hey, we don't want this. We don't want to be exposed to this. So our legislation would put the burden on social media. It would establish a duty of care.

It would require them to make those algorithms transparent, to open them up for third-party research. It would establish that there has to be accountability. And if you've got a parent or a kid that reports cyberbullying sites or things that promote self-harm or suicide or put teens in touch with drug dealers or pedophiles, that they are going to have to take a responsibility on that. They are going to have to get in there and take those sites down. And we give them, we give parents a dedicated channel, and we are certain that we have put in a timeline, kind of a shot clock, if you will, that these platforms are going to have to abide by.

I like that, Senator Blackbird, the shot clock analogy. And I think what's important is the tools being accessible. And that's part of this legislation is that it's actually something parents, you don't have to be a tech expert to figure out. Because that's what I think is, there's all these backend things you can do on your iPhone and your Android, but it's kind of backend and techie.

And it's not necessarily just an easy, here, I want to check these boxes. And kind of what it says, mitigating, for instance, addictive features, which is the direct algorithm recommendations, that you could turn those off. But again, this would be up to, the parents would have to take the initial action, which I think is great for the, it's a parental rights and kind of empowering parents, but it also requires these companies to create tools that can actually be used.

That's exactly right. It requires them to build that toolbox and then to make that toolbox available to parents and kids. Because what parents will say is, we can't figure this out. There is a mom that, and by the way, this legislation is, it has one third of the US Senate already signed on as original co-sponsors. And you've got hundreds of groups, faith-based groups, religious organizations, pediatric groups, pediatric groups, psychiatric groups, educational groups, all of them are endorsing this legislation, hundreds of groups.

So we think that we can get this passed, that it will require that transparency and participation because these websites, these platforms know what they're doing. They know that they are exposing our children to things in the virtual space that we would never in a million years allow them to be exposed to in the physical space. What's interesting is someone who obviously has young kids and obviously has to monitor what they're watching. My wife and I always say that they're one step away, one click away from ruining your childhood, even on something like a YouTube on a platform. And problem is, is that some of these platforms have built kid features that don't work, as you said, or work improperly, or don't work correctly, ends up feeding them the wrong content, not even the content that the kids want.

So with this, you're able to actually hopefully really get down to it and provide something. And you have to have incentives from these companies because what you also have is that you say, YouTube, for example, you can't, if you click your content is for kids, you will natively get less money as a creator. So there's a lot of content that blurs the lines of, is this for kids or is it not for kids? What this hopefully does also incentivize those people who want to make content that is wholesome and good for kids to be able to do that, because now they know with this, they'll be able to not only protect themselves, but protect their viewers. I think this is great.

That is exactly right. And what they have chosen to do is to blur that line because when our children are on their website, they are the product. These kids are the product.

They get data mined, they get tracked, that data is then packaged and it's sold to advertisers who are then feeding back to children more of what they're looking for. That is when eating disorders, illicit behavior, illegal activity, these are things that we specify in the legislation because we know what is happening to children. We have a mental health crisis going on in this country.

We have one in every three teenage girls who has contemplated suicide. And we know that much of this is driven by what they are seeing and hearing on social on social media. And this has gone on for too long. Social media has used our children as a cash cow and it is time for it to come to an end.

Senator Blackford, we appreciate you taking time to explain this legislation to our folks. And I think that everybody understands, especially that psychiatric level of this too. It's one, losing your innocence, but two, also the idea that we know this is having negative effects on kids themselves.

They're harming themselves or harming others as well in that process. And again, it's not about banning any of these platforms. It's about making sure that parents have the ability to keep bad content away from their minor children. So we encourage folks to support the Kids Online Safety Act of 2023, because I think local word, this is key.

Senator Blackford, who I trust on these issues, wants to support the freedom and freedom of speech. We're not talking about adults here. What we're talking about is parents taking a proactive step, which in most cases they try to do.

It's pretty easy with TV, but it gets harder is when you put YouTube on your TV and you walk away for two seconds. And my daughter has come to me a couple of times in the movie, even the ad for a movie that will come up in a very kid-friendly show on YouTube and an ad for a movie that's too racy. Well, it's like a weird law of where these channels, if it's kids content, aren't tracking it. Therefore, sometimes you get served stuff that isn't even for children. It's a broken system we have to figure out because everyone understands to use these services, there's going to be advertisements and there's going to be different content.

You have to figure out, and I want those creators. They're not going away. The services, these are only going to get bigger and your kid's ability to utilize them is already probably better than your ability. Yeah, absolutely. And that's the thing. I mean, this can only go so far, but this is at least a big step in the right direction. Well, I just need a toolbox I could use. I mean, that would be the biggest part for this, an easy toolbox that I could utilize. And then it opens up, like you said, these apps to a younger audience intentionally.

But you as a parent have a lot more trust. It's not going to be perfect right off the bat, but it's something we've got to work towards. We'll be back second half hour of Sekulow coming up. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We were just joined by Senator Marsha Blackburn, who we work with a lot at the ACLJ. And we're, of course, we do this broadcast out of Tennessee, but she's able to get legislation sponsored by a third of the U.S. Senate, including Senator Blumenthal, a Democrat, that is not about censoring what you can see online or what you're able to search online. It's not even about adults. It's really about giving parents control. And I think if you're a grandparent or parent out there, if you don't have kids yet, but you're thinking about it, one of the scariest things is the internet. And it's not just on your phone or your tablet, it's in your TV now. And the shows that your kids will usually, especially the older they get, when I mean older, I mean like kindergarten age, a lot of the content they want to see is not the regular stuff on TV.

They want to see shows that are more direct to them, that they connect with better. And a lot of times our education, they're putting out good stuff. It's good content. It's actually really family-friendly content. It's the ads that come in between.

It's the video that pops up next. And as a parent, there's like a YouTube Kids and this and that, they don't really work. They almost ban too much. It feels like they don't want them to work. What this legislation would do is make it work. I think that's the point you're talking about.

I'm sure every one of these has protections. Like Facebook, you're supposed to be 16. I believe there are limitations. YouTube is trying to figure out a way to roll it in to where now the YouTube Kids channels are now part of it. Because I know that parents aren't leaving, aren't wanting to move out of the platform, but also it is a process, like you said, that it sensors out maybe too much content. Or honestly, it pushes agendas that you maybe don't want in front of your kids because YouTube Kids is fully controlled, not really by an algorithm. It's actually controlled by what YouTube thinks your kids should watch.

And as someone who started a kids channel, we started Bald Beagle, our children's education channel. There's a lot of checks and balances in there. As the creator, you get paid less money from ad content. So they're already de-incentivizing you being a... It's weird because you would think that if it was targeted... Because they can't target it. It's a different way of targeting. It's a different way of data mining. So you make less money.

It's served less and served in a different way. To get through the YouTube Kids, if you want to say, break their algorithm, very difficult. We've had one video. We've had channels with tens of thousands of views. One video made it through the YouTube Kids onto one of their features.

Very rarely does it happen. I am, again, a consumer of it. I'm a creator of it. I believe in the platform in the sense of not necessarily the politics behind it, all that, but a user-generated content.

That's why we love Rumble as well. I believe in that platform. As you said, that's where kids want their content from now. And even, like you said, Instagram, TikTok. I know as much as I'm not putting my kids on there, a lot of people are. TikTok has released TikTok Kids. Instagram has released some version that's supposed to be more kid-friendly.

That makes me the most nervous. But I know a lot of parents are doing it. So if you're doing it, at least try to create some kind of safeguard.

I really like this. And I like that it's bipartisan. Maybe it can be one thing we can agree on is you don't want your kids looking at things that are going to be harmful. It's still going to be up to the parents. They have to build in the tools for you to make it so we can actually use it.

And it's not just some toss away like, oh yeah, you can do this. And if you go into the back end of the device, sign it this way, but it's still going to be up to parents. So nothing's going to be censored. It might be censored from your minors because you chose it to be.

It's still up to you to decide. And I think this is the whole buy-in we always talk about the ACLJ. You can decide the curriculum of your local schools if you run for school board. And we've seen entire school boards be voted out because of the bad curriculum. So if parents, the more we empower parents, it's like school choice.

It's like decision-making on the apps. It doesn't take away the apps. It doesn't take away the education. It actually makes them all better. So it's good for everybody. What this legislation does is give them an incentive to get it done because they because they still want their section 230 immunity from lawsuits, from all of these kids who are suicidal and having these psychiatric issues that we are seeing impact.

I mean, we saw it impact Nashville. The psychiatric impact of what is online is real. We all know it's real. It's not a, it's not a hypothetical anymore.

It's like AI. It's not hypothetical anymore. We're gonna take your calls on that. We'll take your calls on Russia as well. And the potential for escalation with our US taxpayer dollars.

We'll be right back. Ties right into what we've been talking about with Ukraine and Russia and what this imagery out of Moscow, which Russian media is reporting was a Ukrainian drone attack, an assassination attempt on Putin. They're saying that they have a drone that was shot down right over the Kremlin and the residences, the residents of, of Putin. And if I've been to Russia a lot, you can, I don't know about today, but I, even in the past you know, 10 years ago, you could take a tour of the Kremlin just like even more so than you'd get in like a White House tour, which has to be a lot more structured to even get that tour. And you know, it's a, it's a gigantic complex. So it's bigger than the White House in that sense, but you know, you see how it all works and you can kind of walk through it. And part of the, a major museum in Russia is the Kremlin museum. So it's, it's got all these different kind of tie-ins and there's churches on the grounds and, and but it's huge.

So when you see an image and it looks like a small explosion, just understand these are gigantic buildings. Should we show it one more time? That's a lot of new people watching. Can we show that clip again? I think people should see it. There you go.

Here it comes. You'll see the drone come over and they'll take it out. I mean, that's a big explosion for, like you said, it's hard to, that's a huge size. That's a huge structure. That wall. I mean, that, that is where they do, that's where they launch. They, they, the tanks go down and the tanks look tiny. That's Red Square.

I mean, that's right off Red Square that you're seeing there. And so again, is it light, is it very hard to believe that Ukrainians could get a drone inside Russia that deep, into Moscow that deep, that low, and the close, and right onto the Kremlin grounds without Russian air defense? I mean, that would mean that the Russian, in a weird way, the Russians would have to be admitting that they have that bad of air defense.

So it doesn't really make a total sense yet, but our government, the United States is not definitively answering who is responsible. And we should be able to do that because we're paying for the war in Ukraine. So on top of that, this is interesting to me because you would think while Russia is in this conflict, other countries wouldn't want to rush to be economically tied to Russia. You've probably have heard of BRIC. You can invest in BRIC as well. I mean, I don't know how that's changed with the Russian investment, but there are funds available to you for basically countries that are again, modernizing Brazil, there's Russia's involved, India, and of course China. But that BRIC network is expanding right now. There are countries that want to actively join. Some of these countries that we provide billions of dollars of aid to.

And so we're bringing in Harry Hutchison. Harry, it's not surprising to me in the sense of the Chinese angle, but even the Russian angle, this is a time where countries are saying, you know what, we're willing to even risk the US aid we receive because we think it's a better long-term decision to be economically tied to the BRIC countries. And as you point out and point that out for our audience, this is totally controlled by China.

Absolutely. So the West as a whole is no longer a dependable ally. The West keeps talking about democracy. Meanwhile, the West, including the United States, is undermining democracy based on their own strategic objectives. While we speak, the American government is undermining democracy in Hungary. It's undermining democracy in Israel. It's undermining democracy in other countries as well. And so many of these countries are simply fed up and they are now eager to join with another alternative group, a group dominated by China militarily, strategically and politically. And so this poses a challenge to the West and the West is incapable right now of meeting the challenge under the leadership of a senile President of the United States.

And that is simply the fact. And the West basically is tied and tethered to a war with Russia, a proxy war, but this war is unwinnable. Meanwhile, Russia is expanding its influence.

Why? Because it's allied itself or aligned itself, better said, with China. And so what is the State Department doing? It is saying, we have an affirmative strategy to work with these other nations, but the State Department's affirmative strategy is grounded in what? Identity politics. Many of these countries are uninterested in identity politics, number one, and number two, they don't want to be dictated to by the United States and its allies. So here's a great opportunity and the United States has in some sense forced Russia and China to work together and you can now invest in an alternative currency and many speculators are already doing this and they may indeed reap a fortune going down the road.

Keep in mind, if you look at Singapore, for instance, in Singapore, apartment rates, rental rates, are going up as much as a hundred percent, yet many people are migrating to Singapore. What does that tell you? It tells you that there is an economic, political, and strategic alternative out there.

Yeah, which is, it's weird for the people. I think it's tough for Americans to even accept. I think more so than now, I know our audience can understand it, but the bigger picture is that most Americans think we're untouchable in the sense that no one is going to ever want to not use the US dollar and no one would ever really want to unite with these countries. But I'll use Africa as an example because the State Department was asked specifically about these African countries that are trying to join and I've seen it firsthand in different countries in Africa that have let the Chinese in and they basically take all the resources, they pay off a few leaders, they leave nothing for the actual people, but they also not only take the resources that are critical and they don't help the country at all, they help the leaders, they help the elites in that country, they make them billionaires, but it doesn't trickle down because they don't come in there with any kind of human rights kind of ideology or restrictions. And they also build ports and military bases in those countries, but the US response is that we don't want to limit African partnerships with other countries. If we're giving your country money, we should be able to limit your partnership with China. I think that is correct, but to the extent that the US and its Western allies gives money, for instance, to West African and Asian countries, much of that money is tied to policies which backfire in those countries. So, for instance, Ghana has virtually collapsed. Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government has collapsed.

Why? Because they took loans from the IMF and the World Bank tied to climate change and this is leading to an economic collapse. China doesn't really care about those issues. China pays lip service, for instance, to climate change. They're focused on strategic, political, and military objectives and the United States is unprepared to fight back. People, I think early on, even when I would be in those countries, they would say, oh yeah, the Chinese, it's just a business thing, it's just an economic thing. We now know that if that was the case maybe a decade or two decades ago, that's no longer the case. Now it's strategic with their military as well.

It's not just about money. It may have been 20 years ago when the Chinese started this expansion, but now the expansion has turned into becoming the world superpower. I think that is correct and many of these African and Asian countries, they are now engaged in a calculus. They are trying to determine who will be the dominant player in the next 5, 10, 20 years and right now they're beginning to bet on China and they're not necessarily wrong.

Why? Because we basically have a President who's absent without leave, who's prepared to give up United States sovereignty to groups, World Economic Forum groups based in Davos who are focused on 15-minute cities. They're focused on digitized currency, digital passports, and all of the other elements of a control or totalitarian regime. Many of the African and Indian and Latin American countries, they're uninterested in complying with these goals and objectives, but nonetheless the state department, which is one of the main sources of evil in the world, they continue to press on. Folks, I think we just have to have a more aggressive policy. We cannot just have the policy more if we're going to give you billions of dollars in aid, but you can still make deals like this.

We have to say there's going to be things we demand if you're going to take our money. They still want our money, these countries. I don't think they're willing yet. They're not able yet to just rely on the Chinese just helping them along the way with their infrastructure.

Unless the infrastructure is benefiting the Chinese to put in, like handing out free phones so they can track everything, they're not going to rebuild your roads unless they need to rebuild the roads. But the U.S. goes in, we rebuild all your infrastructure, then we say, yeah, if you want to join up with our enemy, we will let you do that. We don't want to interfere. If you're going to take our money, we should interfere. We should be in control. That's how you keep your places of world power. That's what the Chinese are doing. So again, it all goes back to these same issues, proxy wars, when it looks like there could be an end in sight. If the Ukrainians are even thinking about taking aggressive, not just defensive steps, but offensive steps, we should be able to end the conflict then. But no one is talking about the conflict coming to a close.

They're just talking about the spring and the conflict exploding. So we're going to get your thoughts on it. Give us a call.

1-800-684-3110. How concerned are you? I mean, Russia is talking about utilizing nuclear weapons in response to this drone attack. All right, welcome back to Secchio.

And again, we have a new sound, which is from Zelensky. So the Ukrainians are denying that this was their drone. Now, why would they? It was a failed attack. So if it was, you would still deny it. I'm not trying to say they're not being truthful.

It's a difficult situation there. That's why I want to hear from the United States more. I don't want the US saying, we don't know. So because if after this comment from Zelensky, Blinken is still going to say, we don't know, that means we don't trust Zelensky enough, which means we don't trust the Ukrainians enough, which means we shouldn't be funding, definitely, an offensive war against Russia, which is what everyone is telling us is about to happen this spring as things warm up, is that they're going to reinvade Crimea and they could launch attacks on Russia itself. If Ukraine is at a point to doing that, can we just stop having kids get killed and stop the attacks on apartment buildings and just end this conflict?

It's not going to, they never end nicely, but if you can just stop people from suffering and get the world back on track post-pandemic so we don't have war in Europe, that's what we should be working towards as the United States. Not funding a never-ending war against Russia while China walks around the world not having to use their resources, outspending us, taking our allies from us. What's interesting is with the BRIC countries, both Saudi Arabia and Iran want to join. The fact that we have let that happen, that we have let the Saudis unite with Iran post-Abraham Accords, is one of the, if not the biggest failure for the Biden administration, it's in the top two. Because you have mortal enemies now joining up economically because they no longer, one, the Saudis no longer really trust the United States to have their back and then they're willing to, so they think they've got to do their own deal with Iran to make sure Iran doesn't eventually launch you know a nuclear weapon or an attack at them.

But here's the sound from Zelensky, it's in English interesting enough, so he's directing this to the western audience certainly, take a listen. We don't attack Putin or Moscow, we fight on our territory, we are defending our villages and cities, we don't have you know enough weapon for this, that's why we don't use it anywhere. For us that is the deficit, we can't spend it and we didn't attack Putin, we leave it to tribunal. Okay I would understand, so he's saying you leave it to international courts to one day hold Putin accountable for war crimes. You're not going to accept responsibility for a failed attack anyways, you might never just accept responsibility if you were successful in this attack. So I'm more go to like where's the U.S. because I understand why in Zelensky's interest you would deny this.

Of course, it's a failure. And it probably wasn't you, I'll give them the bit of the doubt, it doesn't really make sense that if it was somehow tied to Ukraine it was someone inside Russia that they might not have full control over, that's why I would like to know who made that drone. The Russians are never, I can't really believe the Russians on that though, so I have to go to my own government which I don't really believe either, but to think that, but their response is we don't know. Which means they're not fully accepting the Ukrainian denial, but yet the money keeps flowing to that country which no one trusts, including Biden, including Trump.

And now back you know I mean going back and forth people have had issues with dealing in this part of the world and usually we get it halfway right so you're also getting it halfway wrong. This is what Blinken told Benjamin Hall when he was asked about offensive moves by Ukraine, not defensive, not defending your own country, which is how they sold us on this conflict before us. We're just there to defend Ukraine from this unauthorized aggressive action by Russia and once that's done we're done. So why are we now endorsing the idea of a counter-offensive? I think that's what Blinken does here.

You be the judge, take a listen. Russia's already failed in the sense that what they were trying to accomplish initially was to erase Ukraine from the map, to subsume it into Russia, to eliminate its existence as an independent state. That's failed and it's not going to succeed. We know that the Ukrainians are contemplating a counter-offensive in the weeks to come. Let's see what happens with that and ultimately its success on the battlefield is the best way and probably the quickest way to actually get to a negotiation that produces a just and durable peace. If Russia has failed as Tony Blinken said our Secretary of State and they were not able to accomplish what they do why are we not working towards an end to this conflict and instead Logan he opens the door not to ending the conflict but to a counter-offensive and all I says when I hear offensive that means attacking Russian assets inside Russia.

Yeah it more means it feels like un unprovoked. Obviously the whole thing is broke but taking the initial action obviously an offensive counter-offensive and we know they're contemplating it in the next couple weeks so we'll see how that goes. We're not saying hey don't escalate this further. If we truly believe that Russia has failed and Ukraine succeeded by keeping them out of which it they have done that they have not been able to take over the country okay Ukraine has not been obliterated from the map. Yeah I mean they need they're gonna need a lot of economic build back because the infrastructure damage but if that's the case why are we not negotiating it in I'm not saying they could get it done tomorrow but why are we thinking about counter-offensive months from now because the war machine and when we're not at war directly the war machine needs to be fed. So instead of but we are depleting our military assets because while our military is doing diversity trading we got the Chinese building ports all over the world handing out resources and our U.S. response is well we don't want to tell countries what to do and who to make partnerships with. What world power doesn't tell countries that they're giving resources to yeah get what you have to do to get those resources. Yeah you're already getting this involved you're already paying the bills so why not step in and have these conversations it does feel very odd and maybe not truthful you know you hopefully there's people inside. It's like you can't believe anyone you can't believe your own government you can't believe the Ukrainians or the Russians we're certainly not going to believe Russian media you really can't we can't fully trust Ukraine and we don't even we don't even know that much about their structure and and we saw what happened with the annexation of Crimea under President Obama and we did nothing that did happen in like a matter of days and the U.S. response was we're not going to conflict with Russia and it wasn't there was loss of life and there's been fighting on the eastern side of Ukraine but not at the level we've seen now. So Ukraine if they were if we all agree that Ukraine was able to push back against the Russian aggression to take over Ukraine which I think they did with our resources now in the conflict at least put us on a path that's all I want Logan put us on a path to where this ends instead they just keep opening the door to more conflict which who did that's not benefiting us inflation is going up because of these kind of conflicts yeah it's making it tougher economically here in the United States of America. Yeah absolutely and we appreciate all of you listening we hopefully broke this down for you understand you're going to see this headline a lot about this assassination attempt and we're going to hopefully give you a better understanding of what it actually could be all the options I hope you enjoyed this broadcast support the work of the ACLJ visit aclj.org right now take a look at all the great content we provide too it's new daily news is up there's great great blogs great video content make sure you subscribe on whatever platform you're watching this right now unless you're listening on terrestrial radio and find us on all those platforms we're everywhere Facebook, YouTube, Rumble join us subscribe we really appreciate it we do the show each and every day live at noon eastern so if you're listening to this later on join us live every weekday on all of those platforms again you can find all of that easily at aclj.org join I do another podcast at kilobrothers.com
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-03 14:41:18 / 2023-05-03 15:01:09 / 20

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