Judging Freedom - COL. Douglas Macgregor: Putin's Patient Plans

Episode Date: September 25, 2024

COL. Douglas Macgregor: Putin's Patient PlansSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship,

or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. To be continued... Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, September 25th, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel McGregor, as always, but especially in these timely days, thank you very much for joining us. We have a lot to discuss. It appears as though the Israelis are preparing a land invasion of Lebanon. It appears as though the United States is sending troops to Cyprus. It appears as though President Putin is changing the Russian use of nuclear weapons policy, depending upon which non-nuclear states are aided by nuclear states. I hope we get to all of that, but first to Israel. From your sources and from your observation of a public sources, Colonel, is it apparent that Israel is preparing for a land invasion of Lebanon?

Yes. Of course, how much of an invasion is open to question because they don't have that many ground forces assembled for the purpose. Are we talking about a full up invasion all the way to the Latani River? Unless they can add substantial numbers of troops to the 30,000 or 40,000 they've assembled, I don't think they're going to be able to do that. So we might look at incursions into the area to try troops produce a full force response by Hezbollah? In other words, would this be suicidal for the Israelis? Well, you know, Judge, from my vantage point, everything they've been doing for the last almost eight, nine months has been suicidal. So I don't see how the Israeli state benefits from this.

I don't see how the Israeli people do, but obviously they've decided that they're going to benefit. So I think that they'll definitely try to fight their way into southern Lebanon, but the response will be destructive. There's no question about it. They're going to lose a lot of people, and a lot of damage is going to be inflicted on Israel itself. And then finally, I think we have to reckon with the inevitability of Iranian intervention. The Iranians are not going to

abandon Hezbollah. Is it realistic that the Israelis would recognize the limitations on their offensive ability? They haven't defeated Hamas. Gaza is a mess. They want to own it and run it. The right-wingers want to mow the grass and get rid of all Palestinians in Gaza. The right-wingers want to do the same thing in the West Bank. Alistair Crook calls this a war with no limits, but aren't there realistic limits, limitations on manpower, limitations on equipment? This is before we get to General Carrillo and whatever he told his counterpart in the IDF. Well, the answer is no, as long as Israel has the unconditional support of the United States Armed Forces. And right now, that's the critical assumption that underpins every operation that the Israelis conduct. They know that they are probably limited in what they

can do in southern Lebanon, given the numbers of forces available to them. They know that they can't cope with everything on multiple fronts. In other words, the West Bank, Gaza, as well as Hezbollah. That doesn't even begin to address what could conceivably happen in Egypt and Jordan, which are places that are just reaching the boiling point. I think the issue is, though, America, American military power. American military power is currently at the beck and call of Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli state, and as long as they have that, I think they will do whatever they think is necessary to win. Not only do you think Jordan is reaching the boiling point? So does King Abdullah. Here he is yesterday

at the General Assembly of the United Nations, cut number five. In the absence of global accountability, repeated horrors are normalized, threatening to create a future where anything is permitted anywhere in the world. Those who continue to propagate the idea of Jordan as an alternative homeland. So let me be very very clear that will never happen. We will never accept the forced displacement of Palestinians which is a war crime. For years, the Arab world has extended a hand to Israel through the Arab Peace Initiative, offering full recognition and normalization in exchange for peace.

But consecutive Israeli governments, emboldened by years of impunity, have rejected peace and chosen confrontation instead. He's right, is he not? Yes, he's right. But the sad truth is that he's very much at risk of being removed from power in Jordan. How would you remove a king from power other than by violence? Exactly. That's what is quite probable at this point. He is seen, just as General Sisi in Egypt is seen, as an instrument of Israeli and American diplomacy and power. Hmm. I mean, remember, he aligned himself with the United States and Israel. He put Jordan's so-called air defenses and capabilities at the disposal of Israel and the United States. We've been bribing King Abdullah and General Sisi in Egypt for years

to cooperate with us and Israel. I can't even begin to imagine how many billions of dollars have been spent on that proposition. But we've been actively bribing everybody in sight to essentially tolerate and indulge Israel. I don't think he's going to survive this. I hope he does because I think he's, in the final analysis, a decent human being. But these are tough times, and he's facing something on the

scale of the French Revolution inside his own country. Wow. Pretty startling analysis, Colonel. Colonel, tell us about General Kirilla, who I believe is the head of CENTCOM, who visited Israeli military and civilian leaders twice in one week. What do you think, from public sources and maybe from your own sources, he told them? Why was he there twice in one week? Well, I don't know the answer to the question because I don't have any inside sources sitting down in CENTCOM headquarters telling me very much. But there are people who insist that he went down and warned the Israelis against overreaching and inviting Iranian intervention, suggesting that if that were to frankly, because he probably would never have been confirmed for the Post if he showed any interest in questioning the unconditional support of the United States for anything Israel wants to do.

So it's hard for me to believe that that's the case. But there are rumors to that effect floating around on the Internet. But he's been there twice. My suspicion is that he went there to confirm that the Israelis are comfortable with everything we are doing for them. Colonel, would he have gone there to convey that message without the express authorization of his superiors, either in the Pentagon or the White House? That would seem to be impossible to me, although we've seen some things, certainly while President Trump was in the White House,

that suggested that there were independent actions and thinking, certainly on the part of General Milley, with regard to China and potentially other matters. So I suppose it's not impossible, but normally, no. It would take the Secretary of Defense to instruct him to go with a specific message. And I don't see much evidence that Secretary Austin is going to contradict whatever the White House wants him to do. Before we, we are going to talk about Secretary Austin in a few minutes when we talk about President Putin and Prime Minister Stormer.

But with respect to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, if it's a land invasion, if the United States is going to back it, can you foresee American troops on the ground? No, we don't have enough forces to send that would make any real difference on the ground in the Middle East. That's the problem. We've got, what, perhaps 450,000 in the regular army. I don't know how many guardsmen and reservists are on active duty right now, but if we added another 50 or 100,000, It still wouldn't make much of a dent. Remember, most of our fighting force is sitting in Eastern Europe across from the Ukrainian border, from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, down to Romania. So we really don't have anything to send in that connection.

And the Marines are just too lightly organized and equipped to take up a position on the battlefield for anything other than defense. So I think right now, no, we can't. But we will supply all the air and missile power that we can. And that's what we're doing. We have multiple carrier battle groups. We have thousands of aircraft on standby. We have bombers that are on standby everywhere from Diego Garcia to Nebraska. And I think as a result, that's about all the Israelis can hope for.

Colonel, why are we sending troops to Cyprus, even if it's just a handful? Yeah, well, that's a good question. This is the note that you sent me. I hope you don't mind me revealing this, what the subject line was that you typed. Idiots are us. Why are we doing this? Well, I think we don't seem to be concerned

about the very high probability that what we do will widen the war. The Hezbollah has already made it very clear that if Cyprus is used as a springboard for the Israeli Air Force and Navy, for that matter, that they will consider the area part of the target array. In other words, they will regard what happens there as part of the theater of war. You also have the Turks who have a very keen and permanent interest in Cyprus because half the island is

Turkish. The other half is under Greek control. And in recent years, tension between Greece and Turkey has certainly increased. And I'm sure that that would be a welcome development if you're an Israeli right now. If you could bring the Greeks into war against the Turks, while you are also dealing with the probability that something could bring the Turks in, they would probably welcome that. And of course, you have Iran. Iran is going to be very interested in what happens on Cyprus. So the bottom line is what we're doing, it seems to me, is widening the conflict, which is a mistake. Colonel, is the use of explosive material in pagers and walkie-talkies and other mobile devices distributed to thousands of, at the time,

unknown people, mainly civilians, by a foreign agent a war crime? Well, the people who are experts on the law suggest that it is. You know, my view is war itself is a crime against humanity, regardless of how and where it's conducted. And I think sometimes we fail to understand that if you are involved in this war between Israel and its opponents, that this is a war of anything other than ruthless extermination. I think that's where we are. The two sides are now bent on the slaughter and destruction of the other, which is one of the reasons I think we should be interested in stopping it. But we are doing the opposite. We seem to have positioned ourselves on the side

of the Israelis, regardless of the consequences for our own interests. Colonel, I want you to see a very brief interview with a woman I never heard of before, but her name is Deborah Lipstadt. She is the U.S. State Department envoy to combat anti-Semitism. Watch her mocking the concept of the use of a pager as a device for murder. After October 7th, there was a feeling around the world that Israel is weaker. And in the- You want a beeper? I can give you a few.

That's the United States representative. I don't know where the interview was taking place. In my view, it's reprehensible. Have you ever heard anything like this out of the United States government? No, I haven't. And obviously, I don't know what this job description is for this particular position, but I think she, like so many others right now, are really representing Israel's interests as opposed to American interests. And poking fun at something that has done enormous damage is never a good idea. Even in war, we discouraged that. Under the worst circumstances on the battlefield, we had people in 1991, some who would make light of what had happened to the opposing force in 91, and we pretty much shut that down very quickly. War is inhumane enough. It doesn't need any extra help from us. It turns out that Mrs. Lipstadt was speaking at the Israeli-American Council, a pro-Netanyahu lobbying group funded by Miriam Adelson. Well, there's no surprise. Yes, yes. That's not a reflection of American views and attitudes,

though, and I think people need to understand that. It reflects a particular group of people in the United States who are determined to drag us into war in Jordan, it is so serious that the king's duration and power and maybe duration alive are tenuous. What is the reaction in the resistance to the use of these explosive devices and the pagers on the people of Lebanon? Well, I think we can answer that by asking the question, what was the impact of massive bombing operations during World War II on German cities? It did not break German morale. It stiffened resistance to the West. And I think that's what you're going to see happen in Lebanon and across the Muslim world. The resistance to Israel and what it represents is stronger now, perhaps than it has ever been, and it will only grow stronger. There was a lot of statements and innuendo made by Secretary Blinken and his relatively new in the job British counterpart, David LeMay, the British foreign minister, government to use British and American-supplied long-range missiles with British and American technicians to strike deep into Russia. It appeared that Prime Minister Starmer, as he was

flying from Great Britain to the United States, was anticipating this joint announcement with President Biden. By the time the Prime Minister landed in the U.S. and arrived at the White House, an angry President Biden made it clear that there would be no such announcement. appeared together in public at a public gathering sponsored by the Financial Times of London, at which those in the audience, probably carefully chosen, but an audience nevertheless, were allowed to question these two chief intelligence officers. What happened? I think that Secretary Austin, behind closed doors, has made it very clear that if we authorize these long-range strikes that Russia will come into a state of war with NATO in the United States to put it bluntly and that targets in Lithuania Latvia Estonia Poland Germany Slovakia, Romania, and potentially other states in the region will be taken under fire by the Russians. They will launch missiles and destroy infrastructure that is essential to the sustainment of U.S. forces and allied forces in Eastern Europe. and that's a war for which we are not prepared,

and I think that Secretary Austin has made that privately very clear to the leadership in the White House, and as a result, I think there has been a certain amount of sobriety regarding what needs to happen in Eastern Europe. There is now a realization that that war is lost and that a simple addition of a few missiles isn't going to make any difference, but it could precipitate a war with Russia. And people who are dismissing that out of hand

by saying, well, nothing's happened thus far, so nothing will happen in the future, are extremely irresponsible. And I think the people in the White House understand that. So I think you have to pay homage, at least in this sense, or tribute of some kind to the common sense and rationality of Secretary Austin. I wonder if Secretary Austin exercised that common sense and rationality when he dispatched General Carrillo to the Israelis. We don't know. That's the problem.

We just don't know. And the Israelis are certainly not going to tell us the truth. Right. And I don't think General Carrillo is going to express in public whatever he discussed in private. I'm simply skeptical that he would go and say those things. I think it's very clear that we do not want this war in the region to widen. If you're in the military right now, you know the true state of affairs inside the United States Armed Forces. You know the personnel shortfalls. You understand the problems with missile production. You know, this business, we've been down this road before. We've told people this repeatedly. Nobody seems to listen. We have no surge capacity

in the military industrial complex. In other words, just because the President says, I want you to produce 500 missiles next month, it can't be done. We don't have the capacity to turn them out that rapidly. It takes time to tool up. We forget that early in the campaign when the Russians discovered what they were dealing with in terms of a Ukrainian military entity and how large it was and how well equipped it was and our readiness to pour more resources, manpower, and technology into them, they made the decision to essentially go over to the strategic defensive. That gave them time to build up, to expand, to reinvigorate their scientific industrial military power. And they've done it. We've never been through that. We've never paused. We've never stopped and said, before we do something,

we might want to consider doing the following. We've never done that. There's been no strategic thinking whatsoever, as far as I can tell, that underpins anything we've undertaken. Colonel, what I'm taking from what you're saying is that American forces are not prepared to fight a war in Eastern Europe with other NATO soldiers against Russia and are not prepared to fight alongside IDF against Hezbollah. Yeah, that's right. We aren't. We don't have the manpower. The forces aren't organized, trained and equipped to fight. We don't have the unified military command structure to give

direction. We're not prepared for this. And I think Secretary Austin has privately conveyed this message. Now, whether or not it's being heeded, I think we can say, at least insofar as Starmer's visit is concerned, that sober-minded people prevailed and said, no, we are not going to authorize these deep strikes into Russia for the very reason that we've just outlined. We're not prepared to go to war. Colonel, about 15 minutes before we began this interview, the Washington Post reported that Russia's nuclear doctrine is now included to attacks on non-nuclear states. I'll just read the opening line because I don't know anything about it. It's written by two reporters. I assume they have their sources, although the Washington Post is notoriously a mouthpiece for American intelligence. Russian President Vladimir Putin made a fresh nuclear threat against the West on Wednesday, that's today, Colonel, indicating that any nation's conventional attack on Russia that was supported by a nuclear power

would be perceived as a joint attack. What does this mean, Colonel? I think it's very straightforward. What he's saying is that if you in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Poland, or Germany think, or for that matter, Finland or Sweden or Denmark, if you think you can launch missile strikes against us from your soil, missile strikes that essentially originate with U.S. military personnel and capabilities, and that you will emerge from this unscathed, you're wrong. In other words, if you're going to host American military power on your soil, you're going to sponsor American military capabilities, rockets, missiles,

artillery, and so forth, then you will be treated as an extension of American military power, which means we will use whatever means we think are required to protect Russia. No, I don't think we should be surprised by this. I think we would take exactly the same position if this were being done to us in Mexico and the Caribbean. In fact, I think we did in 1963. So this is predictable. I don't think it has anything to do with a new threat. I think it's simply a statement of fact. Does this mean that the east coast of the United States is threatened if American military hardware is fired from Estonia towards Moscow? Conceivably, yes. And I think we have to take that into consideration.

You now have large numbers of Russian submarines off the shore who have non-nuclear warheads on hypersonic missiles. miles per hour and carries a 1,700-pound warhead, when that warhead lands, it has the impact of a tactical nuclear weapon. Those things are available, and they're sitting on Russian submarines, and they could be launched against us. Again, this is the issue that needs to be taken very seriously right now. We have too many people in Washington who are very cavalier about this whole business. Well, thus far, you know, the Russians have this, the Russians have that, but they haven't used it. Well, from the very beginning, I would say the Russians have exercised extraordinary restraint in Ukraine because they never wanted to destroy the place and they certainly didn't want to kill millions of Ukrainians. So that's not a real surprise. Their interest in what's happening in Ukraine

is very different from ours. They're not interested in destroying us or Ukraine. They simply want to remove the danger that Ukraine could be used as a platform for attack against them. That's all. We took the same position regarding Cuba. We didn't want to murder people in Cuba. We didn't want to kill millions of Cubans. We simply did not want Cuba to be a platform for attack against us using Russian missiles and warheads. That's all. Very straightforward. There's no mystery here. Everyone tries to impart a spin to this to try and make it look more sinister than it is. It's a very straightforward matter. We need to take it seriously. If we don't, eventually we will get what we don't want,

which is something along the lines that you just asked me about. I'm going to ask you about President Putin's patience. But before we do, here he is with a very serious statement. And they evaluated the need to adjust our approaches towards the possible use of nuclear arms. As a result, there are some suggestions to introduce certain clarifications to the conditions on the possible use of nuclear arms. So on the draft document, the list of states and nuclear alliances regarding which we carry out nuclear deterrence has been expanded. The list of possible threats to use nuclear deterrence has also been expanded. And I would like to draw your attention especially to the following thing. In the updated revised version of the document,

any aggression from any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or with the... Basically what we were talking about earlier. Is this famous patience wearing thin? No, I think he's simply watching us as we encroach upon Russia step by step. And he's trying to signal very decisively what we can expect to happen if we continue down this road. We know now with the Finns in particular that we've said we will potentially put forces in Finland. Now, when we say forces, that doesn't mean thousands of U.S. troops, but it could mean certainly missile

installations and capabilities. Remember, we did this in Romania. And early on, we insisted that the only reason we were putting anything into Romania was to protect against or deter Iranian missile attacks. Well, the Iranians obviously have no interest in attacking Europe with any missiles. But that was the story that we stuck to. I think he's simply saying, look, we're going to take it very seriously. If you do these things, and he's telling the Finns, he's telling the Germans, the Poles, the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, everybody. If you host these weapon systems on your soil, you are going to be included in the target array. And we could conceivably use a nuclear weapon to dispose of you if we think it's that serious. And what they decide is serious is

a matter for them. In other words, we could sit around and say, well, this is not really what we meant. It doesn't make any difference. They're interpreting us on the basis of what we've done to date and what we could do in the future. You don't plan militarily on the basis of what you think the opponent will do. You look at the opponent's potentialities and you say, well, the opponent could do the following. What's the worst thing the opponent could do? That is what you plan for. You plan for the worst thing your opponent can do.

And for the Russians, that means, conceivably, missiles targeting Russia, the heartland, its cities, its people, its population. Colonel, I'm sorry to be asking you this. Where do you think it is more likely that a major war will break out? Israel-Hezbollah or a major war that will involve the United States, Israel-Hezbollah or Ukraine-Russia? Well, I think right now, President Trump has made it abundantly clear that if he is elected, he will bring this war to a close in Ukraine. Now, he hasn't been precise about how that would happen, but I think he's confident that he can hold talks and end the war. Now, there are certain things that should happen right away. We can talk about that. But in the meantime, I think he's confident that he can hold talks and end the war. Now, there are certain things that should happen right away. We can talk about that. But in the meantime, I think that signal is being treated somewhat seriously in Moscow,

which means I think the Russians are going to hold fire, certainly until after the election. And I hope that's the case, but I think it is. I think, on the other hand, in the Middle East, the potential there is actually greater. And that is because we don't exert the kind of control and influence over Israel that we do in Europe. Israel is an independent actor. And Israel's representatives here in the United States, inside our government, inside our legislature, wield enormous power. And right now, we are committed unconditionally to whatever Israel wants to do. That's a very dangerous

set of circumstances because everyone is watching Iran at the moment. Now, a lot of people think, well, this is wonderful. If the Iranians are foolish enough to intervene on behalf of Hezbollah, then it's our opportunity to destroy Iran. The problem, of course, with that assumption is that Russia isn't going to stand by and allow us to destroy Iran. Neither will China. And then finally, we've been talking about Cyprus. If I were at all concerned about maintaining any degree of rapport with Turkey, I would stay the hell away from Cyprus. And right now we seem to be doing the opposite. And the Turks, the Turkish population,

the electorate, and most of the Turks in the government would be very delighted to intervene in this war against Israel on behalf of the Muslims living not only in Lebanon, but also in Gaza and elsewhere. They aren't doing it because Erdogan has restrained them. But depending upon what we do in the future, that may not be possible anymore. Does President Erdogan risk the same dangers that King Abdullah does? No, I think he's got greater control over his future than Abdullah. He has control over his security services and over the armed forces. I don't see any evidence for that occurring.

The situation in Egypt and Jordan is very different. Those leaders are in serious, serious jeopardy. But no, Erdogan doesn't face that. But the point is, he still has to think in terms of how far he allows us and Israel to go before suddenly he feels compelled for reasons of Turkish national strategic interest to act. And of course, what the Iranians do will matter very greatly to him. And the Iranians and the Turks have talked at great length about what could happen. So I just think the Middle East is an unknown in the worst possible sense. And I do worry very much about a war breaking out there that

could engulf all of us. Certainly, there will be pressure from the American neocons for the United States, as absurd as this sounds to those of us who believe that Iran poses no threat whatsoever to the United States, for the United States to attack Iran? Well, remember, this is a long-term dream that's been harbored in the United States by many people. I think it was Norman Poteretz when he was advising John McCain, who said he woke up every morning praying that he would wake up to news that we were at war with Iran. So this is not a new problem. What's changed now is that the degree to which power has passed from the hands of Americans who were more judicious and balanced in their thinking to those who are simply willing to do whatever it is that Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters want is the major shift in power. Right now, they seem to be quite willing to do whatever the Israeli government demands. This is very surprising to me because you're talking about a very small

country. We're a very large country. And the small country is in charge. The large country is almost a bystander waiting around to do whatever it's told. It's a surprising set of circumstances. It's very dangerous. And I think it needs to end. Colonel McGregor, thank you very much for your time, my dear friend. We ran the gamut, and it's a privilege to be able to pick your brain, no matter how gloomy the news may be. Let me add one thing here before we go, so that people understand the situation in Lebanon, which is a little more complex than I think is widely appreciated. Hezbollah now has the capacity to adjust fire against the Israelis. What that means is that they have access to overhead surveillance, their own and presumably others. And this overhead surveillance allows them to adjust fire for

the missiles that they launch against Israel. In other words, the current Hezbollah is far more sophisticated, lethal, and dangerous than anything the Israelis have seen in the past. And these people will absolutely not surrender to Israeli demands. Has any American official condemned the Israeli use of exploding pagers to kill civilians? Anybody in the government? Not that I'm aware of, and I wouldn't expect it.

The government is 100% aligned with whatever the Israelis want to do, whether or not it's within the limits of legality. The only clear condemnation I know of it from any American person is the former head of the CIA and the former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, Chris, number 13. Ability to be able to place an explosive in technology that is very prevalent these days and turn it into a war of terror, really a war of terror. This is something new.

Is it terrorism? I don't think there's any question that it's a form of terrorism. This has gone right into the supply chain, right into the supply chain. And when you have terror going into the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, what the hell is next? It sounds like you're genuinely worried. I am. I am. This is a tactic that has repercussions. And we really don't know what those repercussions are going to be. The forces of war are largely in control right now of what's going on. Do you think there should be condemnation for it? Should other nations step in, including us? I think it's going to be very important for the nations of the world

to have a serious discussion about whether or not this isn't an area that everybody has to focus on because if they don't try to deal with it now, mark my word, it is the battlefield of the future. Do you share his fears? I think so. He's also saying something else by implication, and that is that you must measure what you may gain by what you may lose when you do something like this. And right now, everyone in Israel, I think in the government at the top, is emoting. I don't think they're thinking. I think they're emoting. And that's why I use this term, a ruthless war of extermination. Anything that results in the loss of life of their enemies is judged to be good. There is no rational calculus. There is no end state designed to harmonize interests.

The only interest that is being taken seriously is Israel's interest in destroying its enemies. That's the only interest that counts. Everything else is irrelevant. That leads you down a very dangerous path. Colonel McGregor, thank you very much, my dear friend. Deeply appreciated. I hope you can join us again next week. Okay. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. Coming up later today at three o'clock, Phil Giraldi, on the same subject matters which we discussed with Colonel McGregor. And please let me remind you, if you're going to be in the northeast part of the United States on Saturday, our Peace and Freedom Rally featuring Scott Ritter, Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampol, Gerald Salenti, and yours truly in the very,

very historic Kingston, New York, the first capital of the state of New York, very easy to get to by major highways. If you can't make it, the program will be zoomed all over the world, including here on Judging Freedom. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.