Well folks, there's a fire hose of news today on the show. We'll be posting the Secretary of State. We'll be talking about the state of the economy, what the vision of the Trump administration is, what's going on with this case of this illegal immigrant who's being held in El Salvador, just tons of stuff going on. But if you're listening to the show anywhere by the dailywire plus app or dailywire.com, you are not getting the full uncensored version of this show.
Welcome to the world of spectacular. Some truths are things we can't say. Some opinions aren't the kinds of opinions that they like. Become a dailywire plus member.
Watch the show the way it was meant to be uncensored, unfiltered, ad-free. Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join right now. It's always fascinating to determine which stories are national news stories according to legacy media is particularly true when it comes to national crime stories. Now, every crime story is, in its essence, a local story because every crime story involves the perpetrator and the victim and all that happens locally.
So unless you can identify a broad national trend, springing there from, and basically that local news story is the hook for discussion of the broad national trend. No local story on its own should be a national story, but it's fascinating what kind of crime stories particularly are the ones that spark national discussions about, for example, race in America. So according to legacy media, the only kinds of crime that ought to spark discussions of race in America are crimes where the alleged victim is black and the alleged suspect is white. Those are the only ones that you'll ever hear about whether you're talking about your story.
Whether you're talking about George Floyd, whether you're talking about Daniel Penny, whether you're talking about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, whether you're talking about Michael Brown, anytime you have a racial conflagration is always on one side of the racial ledger according to legacy media because again, the narrative that the legacy media would push is the idea that America's systemically racist place against black people. And so the kind of crimes they like to cover are, of course, the ones where a white person or the kid George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic person, kills a person who is black. However, the reality is that unfortunately, on a proportionate level, it is far more common for young black men to kill people of other races than the other way around. Now, let's be real about this.
Just statistically speaking, the vast majority of murders are intra racial, meaning that most black men who are murdered by black men, most white men who are murdered by white men. I believe the only race in the United States, which is not true, that the plurality or majority of killings inside the race are committed by other members of the same race are Asians. I believe that for Asian men, the preponderance of killers are outside the Asian race. However, when it comes to interracial crime, which again, the media elects use as a proxy for discussions about the evils of the state of race in the United States, there's only one type of story they elect to track in that, of course, is white unblack crime.
The reality, as I say, is that proportionately speaking, black unwhite crime is significantly more common. And that is why I think it is worth noting the case of a Carmelo Anthony, not the basketball star that would be spelled with a C, this Carmelo Anthony with a K. This case arises from the murder of a young man, a legend murder of a young man named Austin Metcalfe. So Austin Metcalfe was a football player in Frisco, Texas, and he had a confrontation with the aforementioned Carmelo Anthony.
Carmelo Anthony is black. Austin Metcalfe was white. And according to the police reports, there was some sort of confrontation inside an athletic base, basically some tents have been put out at a football game. And Carmelo Anthony was not supposed to be in that tent.
He was actually sitting in that tent and the football players for the opposing school were in the tent. And according to the police report, the white guy, Austin Metcalfe went into the tent and said to Carmelo Anthony, you don't belong in here at which point of confrontation ensued. Carmelo Anthony allegedly reached into his backpack, pulled out a knife and stabbed Austin Metcalfe in front of everybody else and tried to run away and throw away the knife. That is according to the police reports.
Not only that, according to Officer Eduardo Cortez, he says that he was the person who was assigned to bring the suspect Carmelo Anthony to the police vehicle and take him off to jail for his first booking. And here is his police report. He says the individual that was pointed out to him was a black male wearing a grey hooded sweater and dark colored Nike pants. The suspect at this point was on the track on the north end.
There was a chain link fence that separated me from the suspect. I gave the suspect instructions to keep his hands up in the air. During this time, the suspect said verbally out loud, I was protecting myself. And should be noted, I not questioned him about the incident when he made that comment.
I asked him if he had any weapons. He said, no, I've had him down for weapons while we were walking along the fence and not locating any on his person. I instructed the male to continue walking along the fence. He complied toward an area where there was an opening of the fence that led off the track.
The suspect also said he put his hands on me and then detained the suspect in handcuffs and had him sit on the ground. Another officer had arrived on scene at this time. I conducted another pat on his person and searched his first and after he gave me consent at weapons located while the suspect sat on the ground. I advised I had the alleged suspect.
The suspect then responded and said, quote, I'm not alleged. I did it. Apparently, as they were walking through the squad card, the suspect was emotional and said he put his hands on me. I told him not to.
He said, not question the suspect about the incident while he was disordered to the patrol vehicle. So another officer named Alan Fisher talked to the brother of the victim. He said, they're also sitting on the bleachers under memorial high school tent when another male who he did not know walked over and sat under the tent. Apparently, this person said Austin the victim told this male that since he'd not got a memorial, he had to leave the tent.
Austin the male went back and forth and then stood up and pushed the male to get him out of the tent. At this point during the time of arguing the males reaching around in the bag he had, this time the male took out an knife and stabbed Austin and then left the scene. Now again, this sounds like a confrontation that escalated to the point where Carmelo Anthony pulled an knife out of his backpack and then stabbed Austin Metcalf to death. Now the case presumably he's going to make him court is that it was self-defense, that he was in fear for his life because another student was pushing him.
That's going to be a very difficult case to make. And knife in his backpack, he pulled out the knife as a deadly weapon, pushing his not a deadly deadly weapon. But the sort of more sympathetic case to Carmelo Anthony would be that he was sitting there and somebody told him to leave, pushed him, he turned around, he stabbed him and it was because he felt that he had to in order to defend himself. Okay, here's where it starts to get very dicey, not just in terms of the criminal case.
It starts to get very dicey in terms of the GoFundMe that was then set up for Carmelo Anthony. So, a GoFundMe was set up for Carmelo Anthony and immediately raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now imagine a reverse scenario in which the races were reversed here and a GoFundMe was set up for the family. Whether it be any doubt the media would be all over it talking about how terrible it would be for a white student who stabbed death of the last student after being pushed to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in GoFundMe money.
Apparently, the money was then used according to the New York Post for a wide variety of goodies. According to the New York Post, Carmelo Anthony is holed up with his family at the pricey home inside the gated community of Richwoods in Frisco, Texas after he was released from jail Monday on a reduced $250,000 bond for allegedly killing Austin Metcalf earlier this month. The home at a white suburban of Black, Ackeriah, and a third sedan in the driveway on Tuesday according to the outlet. A neighbor said the family had just bought a new ride.
He got a new car, the resident told the outlet. Residents in the gated community were allegedly unaware the family was living at the home until Anthony was released on Monday. Another neighbor told the outlet that Anthony's family is not poor if they live in the gated community. It's unclear how long they've been living at the home.
Again, this is all controversial stuff. We have to wait for all the facts to come out in the particular case. However, it's worthwhile noting that again, the basic sort of narrative that would be drawn if the race is reversed. It would be about systemic American racism.
You may even have a story about privileged white Americans being a black American if in fact, this kid comes from a relatively well-off background. You're not going to get anything like the reverse. We have a series called Facts. That series goes through some of the facts that are relevant to the interracial crime narrative.
So I'm going to bring that to you now. Brought to you by Birch Gold, protector savings through gold investments, expense 98, 98, 98, receive your free, no obligation information kit on gold today. Here is our episode of Facts discussing interracial crime statistics in the United States. You've been told that black Americans are being violently victimized by white Americans.
White supremacy. White supremacy. White supremacy. White supremacy.
White supremacy is waging a war against us. Every major media story about interracial violence in the last 20 years has featured black American being harmed by white American. You know, they're named George Floyd. Oppen Arbery.
Breonna Taylor, who was shot by the cops accidentally went hurt boyfriend and started shooting at the cops. Trevon Martin, who was shot by a Hispanic man under disputed circumstances but close enough. Whenever a black person is shot by a white person, the media are all over it. Joe Biden does press conferences and invites the victim to the White House.
Benjamin Crump shows up on CNN and MSNBC at the plane about the inherent victimhood of black existence in America. 20 million people go out of the streets in the middle of June 2020. Joy reads that's her hair on fire. Here is the statistical reality.
White Americans are significantly more likely to be victimized by black Americans and black Americans are to be victimized by white Americans when it comes to violent crime. The stats are not close. Now, let's start with a simple fact. No, the all crime is intra-racial.
White on white, black on black, Hispanic on Hispanic. The only group for which that is not true is Asian Americans. But when it comes to black versus white crimes or white versus black crimes, black Americans are far more likely to be perps than victims. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics citing the National Crime Victimization Survey, in 2019, there were 562,550 interracial crimes concerning blacks and whites.
89,980 of those crimes featured a white perp and a black victim. 472,570 of those crimes featured a black perp and a white victim. In other words, 84% of violent interactions involving black and white people involved, black people victimizing white people. That's not a statistical aberration.
A common argument that you hear all the time is that, well, maybe the problem is that when white people attack black people or when black people attack white people, that may not all of it is getting reported, maybe it's a reporting problem. Well, this is why murder is a useful statistic because murder is always reported. There's an actual dead body. You can't hide behind dumb arguments about white crime being under reported or black crime being over reported when it comes to dead people.
Every year, the number of whites killed by blacks exceeds by a factor of about two, the number of blacks killed by whites. Let's say 2019. According to FBI statistics, there were 3,299 white Americans murdered that year. 2,594 of them, 79% were killed by white perpetrators.
566, 17% were killed by black perpetrators. Now, 2,906 black Americans were murdered that same year. 2,574 of them, 89% were killed by black perpetrators. 246, 8% were killed by white perpetrators compared to those two numbers.
566 white Americans were killed by black Americans. Only 246 black Americans were killed by white Americans. Now, let's adjust for population size because it turns out there are a lot more white people than black people. So, generally, you'd expect to see if all the other factors were equal, a lot more white on black crime than the opposite.
There are about 235 million white Americans, there are about 47 million black Americans. This means that one out of every million white Americans killed a black person. By contrast, 12 out of every million black Americans killed a white person. The disparity between the status is perfectly obvious.
The reason that crime is currently wildly under-released in major democratic areas is because the left will not acknowledge reality. Way better to pretend that the criminal justice system is discriminatory than to acknowledge the obvious truth, disproportionate crime among black populations. But ignoring that problem doesn't make a go away. It makes the problem worse, and the people who generally suffer are not white Americans, they are black Americans.
According to Alan Beck of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, quote, The relative to their share of the US population, 60%, white people were underrepresented among the offenders in non-fatal violent crimes overall, 52%. They accounted for 45% of offenders involved in aggravated assault, and 31% of offenders involved in robbery. Black people were over-represented among the offenders in non-fatal violent crimes overall, 29%. Relative to their share of the US population, 13%.
Half of all offenders involved in robbery, 51%, a third involved in aggravated assault, 34%, more than a fifth involved in civil assault, 23%, and rape or sexual assault, 22% were black. According to Pew Research Center, black men are the most likely to go to prison. There were 2,272 inmates per 100,000 black men in 2018, compared with 392 inmates per 100,000 white men. In 2018, black Americans represented 33% of the sentenced to prison population, nearly triple, their 12% to 13% share of the US population.
White accounted for 30% of prisoners, about half their share of the adult population. According to another study, printed in the journal Science Advancees, quote, Lifetime Risk of Imprisonment for Black Males rose from more than 1 in 5 out of 20% in 1986 to nearly 1 in 2, about 49.6% in 2004, before falling to roughly 1 in 6, 16.2% in 2016. Even though the current number is way lower than the prior numbers, it's still way higher than ever recorded among white men. So, why is this happening?
Why disproportionate crime in black community? The single most obvious factor correlating with violent crime is lack of fathers in the home. According to the Institute for Family Studies, only 37% of black children are living in a home headed by their biological parents. 72% of black fathers have had a child out of wedlock.
Studies show the number of fathers in the neighborhood can actually help alleviate the problem of lack of fathers directly in the home. There's a network effect and neighborhood effect, but it's rare to find a black neighborhood with a lot of present fathers. As a study from Harvard, Stanford, and the US Census Bureau found, just 4.2% of black kids currently grow up in areas with a poverty rate below 10% and more than half of black fathers present, that compares to 63% of white kids. Now, there are those who argue that it's white racism that's causing the absence of black fathers.
That's a weird argument given the fact in 1960 when white racism was really a serious American problem, less than a quarter of black children were born on wed mothers. Today, that number is like 72%. So as racism in the United States plummeted, the rate of single mothers in the black community went up. Blaming racism for the rising single motherhood makes no sense statistically speaking.
Differential crime rates don't have anything to do with inborn racial differences. This isn't actually about race. It has to do with behavior. When you incentivize father absence, crime goes up.
When you fail to police crime, crime goes up. When you make excuses for black, on white violence, or pretend that the real problem of violent crime in America is white on white people. When you make excuses for black, crime goes up, particularly among the populations who are being ignored black Americans. Again, why is all of that relevant?
The reason that all of that is relevant is because when you are talking about the sorts of narratives that the legacy media would proclaim as important, those are the kinds of narratives that they will never talk about. And they are important because, again, if you actually wish to reduce, for example, interracial crime, then you want to look at where the interracial crime is actually occurring. And you want to focus in on cases that are good evidence that such interracial crime is in fact occurring. It's more on this in a moment.
First, it's been over 10 years since the US government's surveillance of citizens was revealed. Not much has changed. Americans are losing the privacy battle against our government. Big Brother is watching you if we don't fight back.
We were creating our willy into Stovia here, which sounds scary, but there is a quick and easy solution that can help you reclaim your freedom. Express VPN. Express VPN is an app that encrypts your entire internet connection, creating secure channels that shield your online activity from everyone. Government agencies, data brokers, even your internet service provider.
Your digital life remains completely private. Rated V number one VPN by experts at CNET in the Verge. Express VPN combines powerful protection with remarkable simplicity. With just one click, you are now protected.
Work seamlessly across all your devices, supporting up to eight connections simultaneously. I use Express VPN all the time, obviously. I'm not in my home studio right now. I'm using Express VPN.
If you want to protect yourself from corporate and government spying the way we do, go to expressvpn.com. Get four extra months of privacy for free. That's eXPR. Yes, that's VPN.com.
Get yourself an extra four months for free. Express VPN.com slash fans get yourself four extra months for free. Express VPN for years. You should do the same.
Also, the American dream is under attack. Our working patriots like you, drowning in debt. Criders like that, of course, means they can charge really, really high interest rates. Those high interest rates and the student loans, crushing mortgage payments.
When you're broke, you are easier to control. This is where you need a PDF debt. It helped thousands of people break free from that by understanding your unique financial situation and creating a personalized plan that actually works. There's no minimum credit score required.
They're genuinely focused on helping you save more pay off that faster, put money back where it belongs in your pocket. What sets them apart? PDF debt holds an eight plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and post hundreds of five star views on both Google and trust pilot. Those aren't just numbers.
They're a percent thousands of real people who escaped debt and reclaimed their financial freedom with the help of PDF debt. And I have too many friends who've fallen into debt and it ruins your life. Absolutely ruins your life. Unless you get it solved.
You are 30 seconds away from being debt free. You're free assessment. Find the best option for you right now at pds.com slash man. That's pds debt.com slash man again.
pds debt.com slash man again. That problem. Go get it solved. Fix your life right now.
With my friends over at pds debt.com slash man. Unfortunately for the left, certain types of violence are to be either ignored or to be justified. So last night on Sean Hannity show he had on Taylor Lorenz Taylor Lorenz used to be a journalist for the Washington Post. She now works for Maddie Haas on it.
He's a new outlet and she is an absolute horror show of human being. She has made her bones lately by celebrating the murder of the United Healthcare CEO who was killed by Luigi Mangion. She's sort of a fan boy of Luigi Mangion because she thinks that he's good looking and she has a sort of crush on him. She obviously has a screw loose.
Here she was on Sean Hannity's show proclaiming her support for the violence. Simple question. Do you condemn that? Can you take a moral standing condemn that?
I was a guy. When I condemned it as a violence of our system and I would love for you to acknowledge that. Do you condemn the system? Do you condemn people that call for a sassan?
I'm sure you can ask me if I can condemn Hamas. Next, this is crazy. I would love for you to acknowledge what I'm actually saying, Sean, and you seem to be talking past each other. I want to talk about that.
I hear you a lot of people are doing because of costs. We need to talk about that 70% of Americans, by the way, believe that the insurance company practices are responsible in part for Tonsen's debt. These are the signs of a non-profit. You want to put a rationalization.
I am saying anybody that wants to assassinate anyone that is in person is wrong. I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican or a father or a husband. That is a simple truth that anyone with a heart would easily say our national TV. You're having a hard time with me.
Okay, so again, this is the left justifying violence on the basis of the politics. And this is the theme and the running theme of today shows that depending on whom the violence is directed at and whom the violence who perpetrates the violence we can tell who the media will side with, whether they will ignore the story or whatever. Another great example of this just this week, targeting a Democrat by the way, not targeting a health care CEO. So it turns out that the person who set fire to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's residence on Sunday indicated that he was motivated by his views on the election.
According to the Washington Post, I believe that Josh Shapiro needed to stop the killing of Palestinians. Now, Josh Shapiro is the governor of Pennsylvania. He's not the president of the United States. Zero plenary power over foreign policy of the United States, even if you agree with this guy.
But the reason that the media aren't playing this up as an act of politically motivated attempted murder is because much of the media agrees with this guy. Imagine if this were a right wing or Trump supporter who decided to try and kill Josh Shapiro. That would be a narrative for the rest of the year minimum. Are you never here the end of it?
It would be right wing violence being bred by the podcast sphere in order to target people like Josh Shapiro. But because the person who decided to try and kill Josh Shapiro and his family is apparently a psychotic left winger who hates Shapiro because Shapiro is a Jew and to pro Israel for his like. The media are not going to talk about the problem of radical anti Israel feeling leading to violence despite the fact that very often in the past years though has led to violence. And certain types of violence are not to be discussed to be ignored or to be downplayed.
That is also true to regard to illegal and uncrown. So yesterday, the White House in attempt to push back on the narrative that is being pushed by the legacy media that the people who are being deported from the United States are all innocent and wonderful and all the rest and the administration doesn't care about Americans. They put forth an angel mom. That angel mom's name is Patty Moran.
She's the mother of a woman brutally slain by illegal immigrant and victim on Tony Martinez Hernandez as she was exercising on a Maryland at trail is according to daily wire.com. Mary Margaret All-Hannner boarding. The 23 year old murder was arrested in June in Tulsa, Oklahoma and charged with first degree murder and first degree rape in Rachel Moran's death. And here is what the angel mom had to say on this received almost zero legacy media coverage because they treated it as an irrelevant story.
To have a Senator from Maryland who didn't even acknowledge or barely acknowledge my daughter and the brutal death that she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother, so that he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to bring back someone that's not even an American citizen. Why does that person have more right than I do or my daughter or my grandchildren? I don't understand this. Okay, for the legacy media, this was not worthy of coverage because again, illegal immigrant murdering an American is not worthy of coverage.
It is heavy coverage when illegal immigrant with a pretty significant violent history apparently is deported. Even if the due process concerns are real concern, the level of sympathy that is being put forward by the media and the attempt to sanctify Kamal Pregal Garcia stands in stark contrast to the way that they are treating people like Patty Moran, whose daughter was beat to death of a rock. It's pretty incredible stuff. The person she's referring to there is of course Senator Chris Van Holland had a down to El Salvador to try and visit a prison at which illegal immigrants are being held to port illegal immigrants.
Chris Van Holland said they won't let me talk with the deported man. He went down there to apparently make a show of his sympathy for this wonderful deported man who got to the details on that deported man in a moment. So I asked the Vice President if I could meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia and he said well you need to make earlier provisions to go visit Seacot.
I said I'm not interested at this moment in taking a tour of Seacot. I just want to meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia. He said he was not able to make that happen.
So I asked him if I could get on the phone. Either video phone or just a phone and talk to Mr. Abrego Garcia. He said he could not arrange that.
He said maybe if the American Embassy were to ask, maybe that could happen. So much sympathy for Kamal Abrego Garcia. Now again, if you're on a protest lack of due process, you should be standing in front of the courts. You should be standing in front of the White House, flying down to El Salvador to show sympathy for a man who according to the UK Daily Mail is violently accused by his own wife of beating her up multiple times.
Bad look for Democrats, but again, that's the sort of stuff that gets brushed under the rug in service of a large narrative. Apparently, according to the Daily Mail, Abrego Garcia, 29, was deported from Erlen-Toel Salvador by the Trump Administration of Connections to MS-13. His wife accused her husband of violently beating her multiple times in a 2021 court filing exclusively obtained by the Daily Mail. In November 2020, he hit her with his work boots.
In August 2020, he hit her in the eye causing her to get a black eye according to our petition. That same day, Abrego Garcia started driving quickly, scaring his wife as the one-year-old was in the backseat. She said she was afraid to be close to him in May 2021 after an argument in a gas station. The Salvador migrant punched and scratched his wife, leaving me bleeding.
Remember, this is a person who is pitched by the media as Marilyn Father. I mean, Marilyn Father sounds like a wonderful, wonderful person. It turns out, by the way, that according to Robbie Starbuck, Tennessee Highway Patrol caught the same Abrego Garcia in 2022, driving without a license, and suspected him of trafficking the seven people inside. When they called Joe Biden's FBI because he was on the terror watch list, the FBI told them to photograph everybody and let them go.
Sounds like a wonderful person. So glad that Democrats have decided precisely where to place their sympathies. What kinds of crime are worthy of reporting on it, which kinds of crime are not worthy of reporting on? And it's precisely for this reason that because Democrats have picked some of the worst people in humanity to spend their empathy and sympathy on, Americans are likely to ignore some of the due process concerns about, for example, this person because it totally unsympathetic victim.
So President Holland again, down in El Salvador, he says that according to the El Salvador by his president, the reason that this guy's being held there is because Trump is paying the point that Holland is making is that the Trump administration is claiming no longer have control over whether our regular RCA comes back to the United States for one final hearing before he's deported permanently. He's saying that's not true. And his answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador, to keep him at sea cut. And then multiple things can be true at once.
One can be that the due process concerns that are being raised by the courts are legitimate concerns and the Trump administration should deal with them. The other is that Democrats have politically decided to spend their empathy and sympathy on some of the worst people in humanity, truly, and to ignore particular types of crime that don't fit the thing they are attempting to push. Now, speaking of the due process concerns, yesterday, Judge James Boseberg, you'll remember him from the hearings where he suggested that planes of migrants from Venezuela needed to be turned around mid-air, and then they were not. And the Trump administration claimed, well, we did keep some planes on the ground, other planes were already in the air, there's nothing we could do, it was an oral order, it wasn't written order and all the rest.
Now, Boseberg says he's going to launch proceedings to determine whether any Trump administration officials defied his order, not to remove those Venezuelan migrants from the country. Now, this is kind of a weird filing by Boseberg in the sense that the Supreme Court has already decided that the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport people. We'll get to more of this in a moment. First, self-care routines can seem overwhelming and time-consuming.
One of the most transformative self-care, up-re required zero daily effort. This is where Bullen Branch comes in. Up-reading your bedsheets is a simple one-time change that delivers years of luxuriously with a breathable, buttery, soft fabric that improves with every wash. When you slip between the sheets, the days stress melts away instantly.
Bullen Branch is 100% organic sheets were pivotal in my sleep quality. From the very first night, I could feel the difference. These aren't just any sheets. They really do have some credible softness that puts you in instant relaxation mode.
Plus, you can pair them with Bullen Branch's airy blankets, duvets, and quills for the perfect seasonal upgrade. What really impressed me is how they get even softer with every wash. I didn't know it was possible, but after a few months, I felt even more luxurious than when I first got them. And believe me, I tried other premium sheets before.
Nothing comes close to the breathable comfort of these things. By the way, when I'm on the road, I literally bring Bullen Branch products with me on the road because they help me sleep better. The best part, they're woven with a finest 100% organic cotton on earth with designs and colors for every mattress size and bedroom style, so you can find the perfect fit. This spring.
Upgrader sleep during Bullen Branch's annual spring event. For a limited time, get 20% off at bullenbranch.com. That's bullenbranch.com. B-O-L-L-A-N-D.
Branch.com. You get 20% off site wide for a limited time. Exclusion's apply. Seaside for details.
Also, there's a growing expense eating into your company's profits. It's your cloud computing bill. You may have gotten to deal with the start. Now the spend is sky high and increasing every single year.
What if you could cut your cloud bill in half and improve performance at the exact same time? Well, if you act by May 31st, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure can help you do just that. OCI is the next generation cloud designed for every workload where you can run any application, including any AI projects faster and more securely for less. Oracle has a special promotion where you can cut your cloud bill in half when you switch on over to OCI.
The savings are real. On average, OCI costs 50% less for compute, 70% less for storage, 80% less for networking. Join modals, SkyDance Animation, and today's innovative AI tech companies will upgrade to OCI and save. Offer only for new U.S.
customers with a minimum financial commitment. See if you qualify for half off at Oracle.com.com. Slash Shapiro.com. Slash Shapiro.
Go check him out right now. Oracle.com. Slash Shapiro. AI is going to be a part of every business.
There's no reason for you not to have the infrastructure you need. Go check him out right now. Oracle.com. Slash Shapiro.
If you qualify for half off. And second of all, the spring court has also decided that this case was filed in the wrong place. In Washington, D.C. it should have been filed in place closest to El Salvador, which is actually at a federal court on the southern border.
Nonetheless, Postberg is now trying to suggest that he's going to hold in contempt members of the Department of Justice for not listening to his judicial orders. Democrats, of course, are celebrating all of this because they're saying just underscores the unwillingness of the Trump administration to follow the law. Attorney General Pambondi fought back against Postberg yesterday. Here's what she had to say.
And well, he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with a very, very short notice of any to our attorney to run in the courtroom. You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges. You just spoke about that. It's been a pattern with what they've been doing.
This judge had no right to do that. They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government. And the question should be, why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens?
Okay. So again, that's going to be the angle from the Trump administration. And it isn't a terrible angle, specifically because Democrats pick the exact wrong people to defend. And meanwhile, the State Department continues to do good work in terms of supporting many of the worst people in the United States.
The Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined us online yesterday to discuss all of this, to talk about what the State Department has been doing. Not only has the State Department been supporting people who come to the United States on things like student visas and lie about their actual belief systems and what they are here to do, but also the State Department yesterday shut down a branch of the State Department that is specifically designed very often to target American information that the left doesn't particularly like. Here's my interview with Secretary Rubio. Joining us online secretary of State Marco Rubio Secretary, thank you so much for joining us.
I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for having me on. So let's talk about this major move that you just made at the State Department getting rid of a big chunk of the censorship bureaucracy that had been created and pushed a while back, but then exacerbated over the course of the last few years hidden.
What's the story with what you are doing over at the State Department to get rid of the body formerly known as the Global Engagement Center? Yeah, I think you have to understand the history behind it. It's real brief. You know, they started it by saying, you know, Al Qaeda, ISIS, all these terrible groups are radicalizing people online.
We should do something about it. You know, back when they came up with that 12 years ago, whatever it was, people were like, I don't know, it would make sense. And then it metastasized. And it's like, oh, there's foreign interference in our elections.
We need to start going after that. Well, then by 2020, it became a moment to go after voices inside of American politics and begin to label people. And they put a guy in charge who basically was going around saying Trump is, Trump speaks just like these foreign terrorists or supporters speak just like these foreign terrorists. So now you have an individual running a State Department entity that was labeling American speech by Americans as foreign interference.
And then really the kicker was not only were they doing all that formally from the State Department, but they were taking State Department money and they were giving it to these third party groups who were supposed to be like independent, you know, verified arbiters of what's true and what's good and what's bad. And these groups were deliberately targeting, I believe you were one of the ones they targeted. I think the federalists begin putting labels on people. Now, you may say, okay, well, what's the importance of label?
Well, that's not just the issue here. The issue is not only did they put labels on people. That was then used to go to social media companies that was used to go to outlets and say, you have to deplatform these people or you have to cut back on how much views they're getting. You have to go after them and that's in silence them.
So in essence, it metastasized and met and the metamorphosis into a government run entity that was targeting political speech in America, labeling it this information and silencing it, all paid for by the American taxpayers directly and indirectly. And that ends. So what happened when we took over, they got rid of this global engagement center. They renamed it and moved it somewhere else.
But you know, renaming something doesn't change it. You still leave the thing around. So we've undertaken, you know, 12 weeks of looking, how do we reorganize this whole thing? How do we get rid of it?
How do we get? And that's what we're announcing today is we're taking the whole thing down and it's about $50 million. It's not a small amount of money. And we're not going to be in the business of doing this anymore.
In fact, we're going to be in the business of promoting free speech in America and around the world as a core American value. And that really is what we're going to be about right now. And we're also going to go back and look at, you know, as an accountability project, all of the instances in which this was used as a weapon against American political voices. And the reason why that's important, not just because of accountability, is to make sure it never happens again.
You document these things so that someone in the future, when they get some bright idea like this, realize why we shouldn't do it because this is what it turns into. And Secretary Rubio, it's a really good object lesson in what happens with some of these government agencies, which start off decades ago with the right purposes and then gradually are infiltrated by people with a significant political partisan agenda, who then proceeds to weaponize these institutions against Americans. We've seen this in USAID. Obviously, we see this here with the GEC turned into another sort of body that was then hidden inside these agencies.
And when people like President Trump talk about the deep state, this is the kind of stuff that he's talking about. Yeah, so USAID is another great example. Humanitarian aid. It was created for development and humanitarian aid.
Where it really went off the rails as one, humanitarian aid and development aid was turned into how do we infuse domestic political priorities into what we fund around the world. So when it became a domestic political priority to take on transgender rights, now all of a sudden you've got programs by Americans couched as humanitarian or development aid in other countries around the world. In essence, they injected domestic political considerations into foreign aid and the result is, not has to be rolled back. So it's another example.
We're going to continue to do humanitarian aid, but what we're not going to do is use humanitarian aid to spread a domestic ideological movement globally. We're not going to do that. Secretary of Rubio, Secretary Rubio, obviously this is a big move by the State Department. You make a lot of moves over the State Department that are different than your predecessors.
That includes moves to get out of the United States, people who are terror supporters, not just people who say bad things, but people who are actual terrorist supporters act in ways that are conducive to actual terror groups. I want to give you a moment to sort of explain the approach that the State Department is taking in taking a look at, for example, student visa holders. What are the standards that are being used to determine whether somebody should stay in the United States or should go because obviously opponents of the administration are arguing. It's violations of free speech.
People have the ability to say what they want. That's not an argument that the administration is actually arguing with. The administration is not trying to crack down free speech. You're trying to actually stop something else.
Yeah, well, let's start with the baseline. Okay. No one is entitled to a student visa to enter the United States. No one.
It's not a constitutional right. It's not a law. Every day, consular officers on the ground and face-to-face interviews are denying people visas for all kinds of reasons because we think you're going to overstay because we think you're a family member, a member of a drug ring, whatever it may be. We deny visas every day all over the world.
No one's entitled to a visa. Let's start with that. Because I hear some of this reporting out there. Like if somehow you're allowed to have a visa unless we can come up with a reason why you shouldn't have one.
That's not true. The burden of proof is the other way. Now, let's say you go to a window somewhere in the world and say, I want to go to the United States to study at a university. And as part of that interview, it comes out, using a commost as actually a good group.
We probably would not let you in. I would hope we wouldn't let you in. Okay. But let's say we don't ask you that question.
And you get into the US. On a student visa. And all of a sudden it becomes obvious. You say commost as a good group.
Well, then we should revoke your visa. In essence, if we would have denied, if we'd learned things about you once you're here, that would have caused this to deny you a visa when you were overseas, that's grounds for revocation. It is not in the national interest of the United States. It's not in our foreign policy interests, it's not in our national security interests to invite people onto our university campuses who are not just going to go there to study physics or engineering, but who are also going to go there to filament movements that support and excuse foreign terrorist organizations who are committed to the destruction of the United States and the killing and the raping and the kidnapping of innocent civilians, not just in Israel, but anywhere they can get their hands on them.
That's not in our national interest. So we have a right to deny visas before you get here. And we have a right to revoke them. If we believe that your presence in our country undermines our national interest, our national security and our foreign policy.
And that's what we intend to do. Now, listen, there are other student visas that are being canceled that are nothing to do with us, by the way. And that has to do with someone, for example, who is there on a student visa and has a DUI. And I don't know, that's not us, that's DHS.
But I don't know if people realize if you commit a crime while you're in the US, that's an automatic grounds for revoking your visa and no one was ever doing it. They weren't doing it. They weren't crossing referencing the system. Now they're starting to do that.
So that's the majority of these, but we have identified. I can't tell you the exact number because it's static and it's constantly moving. But when someone is presented to me and it's clear that this person is a supporter of a foreign terrorist organization, we're going to remove him from the country. You're not going to be here.
It's just that simple. What a stupid thing. What a ridiculous thing to invite people in your country so they can be part of these movements. They're terrorizing fellow students tearing up campuses, shutting down campuses.
We have campuses in America that couldn't even operate for weeks. People can go to class. Are we crazy? What other country in the world would allow this?
We shouldn't allow it. Secretary Ruby, I think that the controversy that's risen over, for example, the detention of Mahmoud Khalil who is one of the students at Columbia University who has a green card, but who was also engaged in protest activities that violated the law, who obviously was sympathy. Obviously was sympathizing openly with terror attacks by Hamas and all the rest of this. The sort of controversy here, there's a common thread to the opposition to the Trump administration on this stuff, which is, as you mentioned, this bizarre idea that people are somehow owed entry to the United States.
I think that ties in very strongly to the Democrats new approach to what's going on with this with this Salvador migrant who's now been deported to El Salvador. The administration has taken a legal position that basically now that he's in Salvador and custody that it's up to the Salvadorans whether return this person to the United States or not for further due process concerns. But that's really not the case that's being made by opponents of the administration. Many opponents of the administration are making a more significant case, which is the idea that basically if you get into the United States or somehow owed a permanent status in the United States and you're seeing this across the board ranging from the Trump administration's moves to get rid of temporary protected status for people who have entered on mass under the Biden administration to the resistance to DHS or the State Department making moves with regard to the tens of millions, possibly if you legal immigrants have been brought into the country by the Biden administration, there's this bizarre supposition that everyone on earth is somehow owed passage to the United States and permanent membership in our society.
Yeah, and I think it explains to you why we have the immigration crisis that we had and it was the belief they would all say we believe we should have immigration laws, of course, but if you get into the United States, you should be allowed to say. If you make it here legally, no matter how you got here, then you should be allowed to say. I mean, I think that that mindset that's being revealed in these cases tell you how you get 12, 13, 14, 20 million people entering the country unlawfully and illegally over the last few years because of this mindset that we have immigration laws, but we don't really mean it's once you get in, you should be allowed to stay here indefinitely and we have some sort of obligation to accommodate you here in the country. That's how you create this mindset that led to that crisis and people know it's all incentivized.
People believed in the Joe Biden rightfully they believed if I could just get across the board. I'm going to get to stay and in 90% of the cases, they were absolutely right. And that's why more people kept coming. There's a reason why no one's coming now.
You know, one of the problems I'm facing right now with countries in the Central America and the Western Hemisphere? You turns. A lot of people were headed here. They realized Trump was serious.
They made a U-turn and now these countries are complaining, oh, they're stuck in my country. Well, you facilitated. They're transit for years. Now, they're stuck with them as a result of it.
But that's actually happening. Why? Because the incentives are no longer to come. The incentives are not to come.
It's been successful. It's the most secure border we've had in my lifetime. I mean, I mean, just think about it. And it's not just because there are people there.
It's because people aren't coming anymore because they know that the president is serious about enforcing our immigration laws. Well, Secretary of State, Marco, we really appreciate your time. Thanks for what you're doing inside the State Department to get rid of shadow organizations designed to crack down free speech as well as to move people out of the United States. We actually don't like America very much.
Secretary of State, we'll be up. Thanks so much for stopping by. Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Meanwhile, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped pretty significantly yesterday. It was set to open significantly lower today as well as a lot of dyspepsia in markets over the Trump tariff war. Obviously, this is also prompted not only by the Trump administration's announcement that it was going to bar the export of particular chips to China from Nvidia, which has been sinking Nvidia stock, but also Jerome Powell yesterday warned of challenging scenarios facing the Federal Reserve. He's saying essentially that he turns out.
He's saying essentially that he therefore is likely to drive up inflation, so I'm excited to harder for him to drop the interest rates and he said he saw strong likelihood that consumers would see higher prices and higher unemployment as a result of President Trump's tariff wars. Here was Jerome Powell yesterday, the header of the Federal Reserve. Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. Inflationary effects could also be more persistent.
Avoiding that outcome will depend on the size of the effects on how long it takes for them to pass through fully to prices and ultimately on keeping longer term inflation expectations well angered. Powell then added, you would worry the process will take some years that the inflationary process might be extended. When you think about supply disruptions, that's the kind of thing that can take time to resolve. It leads to what would have been one-time inflation shock to be extended, perhaps more persistent.
That means that it's unlikely that he's going to lower the interest rates. Powell also added that the federal debt right now isn't at an unsustainable level theoretically we get out of it, but he said it's certainly on an unsustainable path. So further spending further sales of bonds in order to fund our national debt is probably not a good idea. U.S.
federal debt is on an unsustainable path. It's not at an unsustainable level. And no one really knows how much further we can go. Other countries over time have gone much farther, but we're now, you know, we're running very large deficits.
That's a full employment. And this is a situation that we very much need to address sooner or later we'll have to and sooner is better than later. President Trump decided that the best solution here to attack Jerome Powell is not going to change his economic policies. He says the European Central Bank is expected to cut interest rates for the seventh time and yet quote, too late to Jerome Powell with the Fed, who is always too late and wrong.
Yesterday, he should report which was another and typical complete mess. Oil prices are down, groceries are down, and the USA is getting rich on tariffs. Too late should have lowered interest rates, like the ECB long ago, but he certainly should lower them now. The other countries will drop by 80%.
A drop that would have topped 90% without the White House's recent exemption for smartphones and other tech goods. The total volume of goods traded around the world is expected to contract by 0.2% this year. That is an abrupt turnaround from a near 3% increase last year. And the WTO is anticipating that the trade slowdown is going to spill over into weaker global growth, about 0.6% in points below its initial forecast.
So what is President Trump trying to do here? That's sort of a big question. What is the end goal? Well, there's something that has been called the Mar-a-Lago Accords proposed by the Chairman of the White House Council on Economic Advisors, man named Stephen Morin.
He outlined that idea in a 41 page essay titled, The User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System is going to finance.yahoo. He's a Harvard Trade Economist. And basically, he proposes what he calls the Mar-a-Lago Accords. He says the deep unhappiness with the prevailing economic order is rooted in persistent overvaluation of the dollar and asymmetric trade conditions.
His basic idea is that everybody should show up at Mar-a-Lago all these various kinds of various countries and rejigger the entire global trading system so as to please the United States. Marin wrote, President Trump used tariffs as generating negotiating leverage for making deals. It's easier to imagine that after a series of punitive tariffs, trading partners like Europe and China become more receptive to some manner of currency accord in exchange for the reduction of tariffs. So lower the value of the US currency, Mar-a-Lago partners could sell dollars in their possession.
What's the goal of devaluing US currency? Presumably, the goal would be to more easily raise debt. So the US would not have to repay our debt quite as regularly. It would limit the potential rise in interest rates caused by fear over inflation.
And there's some who call this a de facto default. And the whole goal would be to reassure some manufacturing in the United States. The goal would be to devalue the American dollar, basically pay people back and inflate a dollars. That is sort of the economic goal here, but there may be a broader goal.
And here is the question for the Trump administration. It's totally not clear at this point what the Trump administration approach is going to be to global politics. Now, President Trump is a utilitarianist at seven times. He lives in the world of reality.
That means he tends to pick fruit off the tree of policy, meaning he tries to find that policy. He uses that and he finds the next best policy and he uses that. There's no kind of thorough going to stalls to the Trump administration. There are people who try to weave the controls around President Trump who try to suggest that there's a thorough Trump philosophy of life and of administration that is going to be applied.
And I see no evidence of that. It's much more sort of grab bag politics with President Trump, which definitely has its eyes and it also has its downsides. It means that there's not a ton of predictability. It also means he's unlikely to stick with plans that don't work.
But some of the people who are tempting to sort of weave a Trumpian philosophy around President Trump, there you would see a debate about Trump's philosophy. You know, a debate inside the administration. That debate inside the administration is taking the form of on one side JD Vance, Steve Whitcoff, David Sachs, on the other side of that divide would be presumably Pete Haggseth, Marco Rubio, Mike Walts. And the question there is one that David Sachs, I think, expressed really, really well on the online podcast the other day.
So the case that the tax makes, again, David is a brilliant guy. I think he's wrong on a lot of this, but he's quite brilliant. He says that the Trump agenda is basically to reverse the attitude of the United States toward everything from immigration to foreign policy. A consensus that he says was built in the 1990s.
And I think he's right on immigration. He's wrong on all the rest. But here's what he is saying Trump is really all about. Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital.
So basically the unfettered free trade agenda. And then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana. We had deployed American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they've been greeted as liberators, not occupiers. I think all three pillars have been refuted.
And the person who has represented the shift in this consensus to, I say, a new agenda of economic nationalism and geopolitical nationalism is Donald Trump. When you have a bipartisan consensus that included both Republicans and Clinton Democrats around these three pillars of globalism. And then I'd say that country turns against that. That's not going to be a smooth process.
That is going to be potentially a violent process. It's going to be a disruptive process. Okay. So what are the three pillars of globalism that he is talking about?
He suggests three. One is open borders. Totally agree. That has been rejected.
Not just by the United States. It's been rejected all over the West, which is why you're seeing the rise of populist anti-immigration parties. And it's totally justifiable. The second is free trade.
He says, well, there's a great consensus about free trade and that is falling on his face. Free trade is bad. Well, actually free trade is quite good. The question is why we let China into the club.
And so the debate that's happening inside the administration is whether free trade itself is the bad or whether free trade with China is the bad. And it's totally unclear which side that ledger president Trump comes down on at this point. He seems to really like tariffs again. There are people like Peter Navarro.
There are people like Howard Lutnik. There are people like David Tax presumably are very much in favor of curbing free trade capital and all the rest of it. That would be a really dire thing for the American economy. The American economy is the most powerful economy on planet Earth specifically because we have been oriented toward freedom of commerce.
Free trade has been true for in terms of freedom of commerce has been true or legitimately a century in the United States. And we are the dominant global power economically because exactly this. The idea that free trade needs to be thrown out because it's quote unquote been debunked. I think that's a just wrong statement on its face.
And then finally, Pax Americana. So here the idea is that America puts troops all over the world in order to defend the consensus because they be greeted as liberators. Well, no, actually the Pax Americana is not based on the idea that Americans troops will always be greeted as liberators. The Pax Americana is based on the idea that if we don't fill the gap somebody we don't like will.
It has nothing to do with the feelings of the people who are on the ground. Doesn't mistake the push made, but the sort of Wilsonian foreign policy, the idea that we had be greeted as liberators was all about the permission of the people who were going in and dealing with as opposed to America should pursue her own national interest and that national interest is actually deeply entangled with America remaining the global hedge. But what does this speak of? If we are rejecting open borders free trade packs, Americana, I think everyone agrees.
No open borders. Everyone. Okay, but free trade impacts. Let's say we reject those things.
What does the world then look like? What the world looks like is America retreating from the world? It looks like America basically saying screw it to policing the world oceans. Here you saw that represented by JD Vance in that open signal thread that got revealed by Geoffrey Goldberg, where he was actively arguing who cares with the Red Sea gets shut down.
They're members of the Department of Defense who have been stacked in by allies of the President, who are very much in favor of the idea. That doesn't matter if Taiwan gets taken over by China or if the Middle East is beleaguered by Iran or whether Russia takes over not only Ukraine, but other parts of Eastern Europe. That really makes very little difference at all to the United States. The America ought to withdraw from its place as the leading power on planet Earth and instead we should sort of speedrun the end of American Empire.
We should try to reassure as much as humanly possible. If prices go up well, you weren't here for the chief TV's anyway. And if you crater the global economy, it won't have any dire effects for American citizens. I think that's totally wrong headed.
I actually don't think that's where President Trump is. I don't think President Trump wants to speedrun the end of American power on the globe. President Trump has said over and over again that he's a peace through strength guy. So there are people who are attempting to sort of defeat the peace through strength idea with the idea of an American withdrawal, which sounds frankly, just like Barack Obama.
Totally like Barack Obama. It's a multilateral world. We need people like China just needs to be more responsible player. But even if they're not, does it really matter if the United States involves Iran can be brought into the family of nations so we can withdraw from these particular areas.
But Russia, we need a reset button. I'm struggling to see the difference between some of the foreign policies proposed by the new neo-isolationist to sort of write and Barack Obama's foreign policy. They look exactly the same to me. I can't tell the difference between them, but just in terms of actual practical policy.
You can see this coming to a head over the President's Iran policy. So the President has been oriented since 2015 in a very anti-Iran direction. For the reason Iran has spread terrorism all over the Middle East, Iran is threatening global oil supply, Iran obviously has attempted to assassinate President Trump himself. So one of the big debates is what you don't think the Iranian nuclear program?
Now the reality is that right now, basically a single sort he would take out the Iranian nuclear program. And Iran does not have the capacity to generate any sort of serious conflict that would affect the United States in the Middle East. What I can do here, why? And the reality is that Iran's proxies have been devastated.
Iran has never been more vulnerable than it is right now. If Iran get a nuclear weapon, that immediately turns around. Suddenly Iran is a threat to pretty much everybody, including the Saudis, including the UAE, including Israel, including Europe, by the way. That is why the Trump administration has expressed over and over and over that Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon.
But the approach that they are now apparently taking is a very Obama-ass approach. We played you earlier this week, Steve Whitcoff, the absolutely befuddled negotiator on behalf of the United States, suggesting that Iran should be allowed to keep a certain level of enriched uranium, which is exactly what Barack Obama was arguing. And now, apparently, according to Axios, there's open debate inside the administration which people are taking sides along the lines that have already suggested. One camp, according to Axios, unofficially led by President Vance, will lead to diplomatic solutions both preferable and possible, and that the United States should be ready to make compromises in order to make it happen.
Vance is highly involved in the Iran policy discussions. This camp also includes Steve Whitcoff, Secretary of Defense Pete Haggseff. Now again, it's unclear where Pete Haggseff actually falls along these lines. Certainly many of the people been staffed under DOD, under Underneath Haggseff.
Are people who are sympathetic to the Vance Whitcoff position. It also gets outside support from MAGA influencer and Trumpless, where Tucker Carlson is. First of all, Tucker Carlson is giving you your foreign policy advice. All right, I mean, that is a choice.
That is a choice. By the way, culminating today in a New York Times League is something that used to happen all the time where the Obama administration would get some sort of information on a potential Israeli military action and end up on the front page of the New York Times next day. Now, apparently, that's happening in the Trump administration as well. And there's a piece titled Trump waved off Israelis after divisions emerged in his administration.
Israel had planned to strike Iran in nuclear sites as soon as next month, but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating deal with Tefron's limit. It's a nuclear program from a decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel and seeking to set back around ability to build a bomb at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically. Almost all the plans would require to yourself not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making it the United States central part of the attack itself. Again, this is according to I am sure Department of Defense sources who are working aligned with the sort of Vance philosophy of the administration.
This article, by the way, is devastating for intelligence. I mean, it lays out like actual details. The article talks about what exactly Israel is going to do. There's a possibility, apparently, of a commando raid, quote, initially the professor Mr Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials, up to the president.
So senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites, the bombing campaign and effort the Israelis hope to involve American aircraft. Israeli military officials said a commando operation would not be ready until October, and it's now who wanted to accelerate it. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have required American assistance according to officials briefed on the plan. Some American officials were potentially open to it.
That would have included General Michael Carrillo, the head of US NCOM and Mike Walz, the national security advisor. And then, of course, I mean, it's pretty clear he's leaking this, honestly. And so the question for the Trump administration in President Trump is whether he actually wants internal divisions being leaked to Barack-Ravita d'Axios and wants something leaked to the New York Times. And so the question becomes what exactly, again, is the philosophy of this administration, if they're looking for an easy off-road with Iran, that basically allows Iran to clear pathway to nuclear bomb in the belief as David Pax has the Pax American must end?
Okay, then we should hear about that. Like, what does the future look like? Because frankly, I don't think that that is what President Trump historically has supported. That's how he told me on the show.
He has always said that he's a peace through strength president. So what exactly is the philosophy? That is the great debate inside this administration, again, it's taking a head over Iran, but it's not just about Iran. It's also about world trade.
It's about America's position in the world. It's about whether America wishes to remain a global leader or whether America wishes to recede into a sort of multinational, multi-national, hodgepodge, a sort of lobster pot of grasping for power. That is a very dangerous game. And the fact that it's being pushed by very prominent voices inside the administration is a problem.
It also, by the way, means less success for the United States. We should point this out. If there's an economic downturn, I can't say this enough. If there's an economic downturn, if the world's situation, it's more chaotic, not less, under President Trump, Alexander Ocasio-Casio-Casio-Casio-Casio-Casio will be the next president of the United States.
It will be someone from the left. It will not be the extended run that Republicans are hoping for, that I am hoping for. It is not going to be a conservative century. If in fact, the Trump agenda fails or if the Trump agenda just turns into the Obama agenda on foreign policy and trade.
If that is what happens, if somehow President Trump's own campaign promises are thwarted by people inside his administration, who do not actually agree with those campaign promises, by a different view of foreign policy, a different view of global economics. If that is what ends up happening here, the result is not going to be a Republican century or even a Republican decade. The result is going to be a backlash that comes in the form of a populist left progressive who comes in and wipes away everything that conservatives actually like and wants. That is the danger.
There's a high stakes game. And so I think it's worthwhile having a conversation over what exactly the world vision, the global policy of the administration is at this point, because frankly, there are too many mixed signals. And those mixed signals are leading to confusion, not just in markets, but also in terms of foreign policy. And that confusion is likely to violence.
Confusion of foreign policy, predictability in foreign policy as a market leads to more quiet, calm, peace, growth, chaos, as in not like the madman theory of politics where you don't know if he's going to punch you or what, but a sort of chaotic view of foreign policy, in which the default position is not going to be a good thing. It's not likely to lead to a more peaceful world. It's likely to lead to precisely the opposite. And by the way, I should point out here that when we talk about departments and officials who are oriented against the peace through strength idea, the reality is the Pentagon has now been hit with a series of leaks.
And those leaks are coming in large part from people who are very much aligned with the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, Dan Caldwell, senior advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hijsef. They're in Selamik, Defense Department Deputy Chief of Staff, were escorted out of the Pentagon by security officers and had their building access suspended, pending further investigation. You know, it'll be fascinating to see how all this plays out and the future of America rests on it. And meanwhile, the hottest story of the day is that Elon Musk has a messy personal life.
Now, of course, we know that already that, of course, is no shock. A long article in the Wall Street Journal, basically featuring Ashley Sinclair, who I have to say, there are no heroes in the story. There are just no heroes in the story. Everybody is acting horribly and badly and it's ugly and see me and gross.
I have long been an advocate for traditional marriage and children within it. I know this is like a wildly controversial position in today's world. I think it's bad not to do that. I think it's actively bad not to do that.
And if you're the girl who took Elon Musk's check in order to get pregnant and now you're disappointed with the situation, don't make your hero. If you're Elon Musk and you're impregnating everything in sight, that also does not make your hero. Those are villainous actions, all of them. They're all bad.