Judging Freedom - Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: War and the Freedom of Speech

Episode Date: August 20, 2024

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: War and the Freedom of SpeechSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, August 20th, 2024. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski joins us now. Colonel, always a pleasure. Thank you very much for joining us. You have a great piece on Jadsnap.com and elsewhere on why the feds fear free speech. And there are some well-known and some not so well-known anecdotes in there of the invasion of free speech and the attempts by the government to punish it and chill its expression. But before we get there, I need to ask you about events going on as we speak. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel hasn't been seen in public in 14 days. Do you think he's in hiding? He should be. Maybe he woke up. You know, it is interesting because his country is conducting a

genocidal war that's been going on for almost a year now. And it's a war that is engaging the people of Israel very much. I mean, they all have opinions on that war. And it's in some ways divisive, even though I think both sides in Israel or all sides in Israel seem to want to kill Palestinians. How that's done and the rate of speed that that's done, I think, is an issue. And so his absence is a problem. I mean, you know, what is it telling us? I don't I'm not sure. It's interesting.

I mean, you know, we lost Biden for a while there, I think about a week. Nobody knew where he was. And it was concerning. Of course, like Israel, we're a nuclear nation. And you wonder where you're where the man in charge is. I wonder if he isn't underground anticipating an Iranian response. I mean, the Iranians are known for their patience, but they also, and you know this better than I, have been receiving a lot of military gear from Russia that I guess takes a while to engage. Now, most of this, I believe, is defensive in nature, but receiving it and employing it is not something that happens

immediately. Yeah. You know, in hiding, perhaps, it seems, if you think about Netanyahu's future, his political future, he's a dead dog politically as soon as this war is over with, and he may even be before then. So it's almost as if he really is lacking maybe, if he is in hiding, it makes little sense because he could ensure his legacy by being very bold and open. And then if he's killed, that prevents jail later and it prevents public embarrassment later. Those things are coming for Netanyahu, no doubt. So if he's in hiding, I don't know. Alistair Crook has said on this show that Netanyahu is in danger of being the victim

of a military coup. That's how animated the rank and file and leadership of the IDF is against him, particularly when he threatens to compel them to fight a war against Hezbollah. Yeah. Now, that's much more likely that he's not hiding from a potential Iranian strike, but he's hiding from his military. That makes a lot of sense. You know, I don't know the situation politically in Israel, especially since October 7th. You know, it's changing. It's moving rapidly. Things are happening to Israel economically and militarily. Their reputation is gone. You know, it's changing. It's moving rapidly. Things are happening to Israel economically and militarily. Their reputation is gone. You know, the BDS movement is global now.

So many bad things are happening that if you are an Israeli patriot, which I'm sure the IDF feels that they are, regardless of how misguided many of them are, as patriots, what's the solution? Well, you need to change the leadership. So maybe that's what it is about. Do you agree with me and with a lot of our colleagues on this show that if you follow carefully the maneuverings of Prime Minister Netanyahu, it's rather obvious he does not want a ceasefire. Oh, yeah. And if he says publicly, well, we agree to this ceasefire proposal,

it's because he knows that Hamas will never accept it. Because he knows as soon as there's a ceasefire, Smotrich and Ben-Gavir leave the government. That collapses the 65-vote coalition that Likud has put together in the Knesset, and he's out of a job, and he's probably out of his freedom. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, this is life and death for him politically and maybe even personally, keeping that coalition together with him at the head of it.

And it's very clear that Netanyahu has opposed and actually sabotaged any chance repeatedly, repeatedly over the last eight or nine months to get any type of ceasefire. So yeah, all this makes a lot of sense. But, you know, that's how they operate. This is how, I mean, you know, we had our president couped over a lot less. Yeah, he did pop up yesterday to accuse Hamas of being obstinate in the Gaza cease talks. This will raise your blood pressure a little bit, but it'll also animate you. Cut number one. Israel is prepared for any threat, both defensively and offensively. We are determined to defend ourselves and we are also determined to exact a heavy price from any

enemy who dares to attack us from any arena. I want to emphasize that we are conducting negotiations and not that we just give and give. There are things can be flexible on and there are things we cannot be flexible on, which we will insist on. We know how to distinguish the two very well. We will stand by the same principles that are sustainable for Israel's security. These principles are in keeping with the May 27th framework, which has received American support. Once again, I would like to emphasize, up until now, Hamas has been completely obstinate. It did not even send a representative to the talks in Doha. Therefore, the pressure needs to be directed at Hamas and Sinwa, not the government of Israel.

Who does he think he's kidding? He didn't send a representative to Doha. He murdered the chief Hamas negotiator last month, earlier this month. No representative. I can't imagine why. You know, I can't imagine why. Oh, that's right. We killed him.

We killed that representative who was going to meet us in Doha and make peace. Yeah, this is, I honestly don't know. You know, Israelis are pretty smart in terms of they have a press and they have conversation and debate, much more so in their media than we do in this country, I think. So they're very wise to his blatant lies. I don't, I just don't get it. I just don't get it. Switching gears, Colonel, the Western press and President Zelensky have been boasting about is an invasion of Russia

by the United States of America and NATO. What's your take on this? Yeah, well, I know initially when they invaded the U.S., when asked about it, acted very surprised. Oh, we just found out about this. And that is, I immediately knew that to be false, mainly because a government spokesman was stating this. But, you know, the Russians have recordings from the very beginning of this thing, 10 days ago or whenever it was, with not just English accents, but American English accents being recorded. So not only were we aware of it, did we facilitate it intelligence-wise, logistically, and with weapons systems, Western NATO and American weapons systems.

Not only did we facilitate it in that regard, we knew about it. In fact, I'm sure that our National Security Council, CIA, and DOD encouraged it. They said, well, if this is what you want to do, you go for it. Maybe this will change the stasis that is there. trade on as we get to the final stages of this Ukrainian, you know, aggression, which is, of course, driven by UK and the United States. No doubt at all that we had. And I, people that I respect and listen to have said, oh, it looks like the Ukrainian, this was kind of the far right, I don't want to say the word I can't say, the far right nationalist Ukrainians that are the ones that are keeping Zelensky in power, because, you know, he's very unpopular amongst the people. A lot of people are looking for change, but the hard right Ukrainian nationalists are supporting him. And maybe this was something they insisted upon, but, you know, and didn't tell anybody. Well, that's not

the case at all. That's not how this war is. Ukraine is American proxy. And we know we have not just driven and facilitated everything that they've done, but we make it happen. So, you know, we're not, it shouldn't be a surprise. Now, it is smart to act surprised. Certainly, Joe Biden and the State Department can say, oh, we're watching it closely. We had no idea. They can say that, but that's not what this is. Well, anybody that understands these things just beneath the surface knows that there are lessons to be drawn from this. This is a last-ditched, desperate effort to provoke President Putin. It's not going to be provoked into attacking NATO. There's no way this could have happened without the approval and instruction of CIA, MI6, and probably the American DOD. Who do they think they're kidding?

Yeah. Yeah. I think, I don't think they care. You know, in this country, of course, you know, we've got this Biden war, this whole democratic obsession really with with using Ukraine as a bludgeon against Putin, the evil Putin. And this urge that they have is maybe very likely coming to a sharp end at the time of our next election, which is soon, three months. And a few months after that, policies may or may not change. But we know policies will change if Trump is in there, because Trump doesn't like to waste money. And Ukraine is a massive waste of money. And plus, we're already seeing, you know, Germany is stopping future funding. The other

countries in Europe have been bled dry. They're done. So this is coming to an end. And as it comes to an end, you know, Zelensky has to think about his survival. He has to think about how he can create closure. And that closure could be by inciting an overreaction on the Russian side. It could be incited by the dirty nuclear, damaging one of these nuclear plants, which is certainly what they've been trying to do for quite a long time in both the Zaporizhia and also the one in Kursk. So this is predictable in many ways, and it's a sign of an ending. The end is coming, and that end is going to be very painful for Ukraine. It's going to be very, very painful for Ukraine. It's not going to hurt America. Nobody respects this country. But for Ukraine, as they take count of the cost of what

has happened to their country and their people and their culture, and of course, they've just banned the Ukrainian church, their society and their religion. As they take stock of what's left, the disaster will almost be too painful to bear, I think, for most of them. Here's President Zelensky on Sunday morning, August 18. And then here's President Putin on Sunday afternoon, August 18. So, Chris, first number, cut number five, and then immediately following cut number four. Today, we achieved good and much-needed results in destroying Russian equipment near Turetsk. And all this is more than just defense for Ukraine. It is now our primary task in defensive operations overall to destroy as much Russian war potential as possible and

conduct maximum counter-offensive actions this includes creating a buffer zone on the aggressor's territory our operation in the kursk region it appears that the enemy with the help of the Western Masters is fulfilling their will and the West is fighting us with the help of the Western masters, is fulfilling their will, and the West is fighting us with the hands of the Ukrainians. So looks like the enemy seeks to improve its negotiating positions in the future. The enemy, with the help of its Western masters. is the adult in the room, and I don't think that they're going to provoke him, even though it seems inescapable that Americans organized, paid for, and participated in this series of events. Yeah, yeah. Thank God that he is an adult, and thank God he's got the experience and the Russian patriotism to really respond in this way, respond in a way that is not going to, not likely to entail the complete destruction of Ukraine or a nuclear attack from him to some other of his enemies. And certainly the United States would be a logical target.

He's not going to, he's not intending to do that. He doesn't want to do that. And I think while they were surprised and there was, you know, failures in intelligence on the Russian side, for sure, that allowed this to happen, I think his solution and what his folks in the military will do is going to bring it to a closure. And it'll probably accelerate that closure because, you know, Putin, you know, he's responsive to public pressure like all leaders. I don't care if they're elected or kings. They respond to popular opinion.

And popular opinion in Russia is extremely upset and agitated about this Ukraine problem. They want it over with. So he's going to have to figure out a way to do that. And I think he will in a way that doesn't risk nuclear annihilation, something that Russia certainly doesn't want. And Europe should not want it. I can't imagine that they would want it. One more clip, and that is Alexander Lukashenko, who's the president of Belarus. Actually, I did not know until Ray McGovern informed me that Belarus, a country most Americans have never heard of, has nuclear weapons. Here's cut number three escalation on the part

of Ukraine is an attempt to push Russia to asymmetric actions for example the use of nuclear weapons for sure Ukraine would be very happy if Russia or Belarus used tactical nuclear weapons there they would be happy because we would hardly have any allies left. No countries would ever sympathize. And secondly, on nuclear weapons, the world has a negative view of these. So the Ukrainians want to push this possibility. They want to push Russia. Who could defeat Russia? Ukraine cannot do it. Who can? The West. NATO. We, myself and President Putin, think that NATO would then get the green light to invade Russia without hiding its intentions. Very interesting. The green light to invade Russia without hiding its intentions. Before we jump to the freedom of speech, what do you think?

Well, I mean, he's honestly speaking his perspective from being the first place that would be invaded by NATO if such a green light was turned on. I don't see NATO capable of doing it. But the problem is NATO is really the United States. And the United States, we print money. We go to war all the time. We are in desperate, desperate political and economic straits right now in our country.

And very often a major war is something that the people in power see as a solution, a solution to their domestic problems, a solution to their economic problems, a diversion from popular criticism. So we're in a they I think the Belarusian, you know, Lukashenko and others in that part of the world are correct in suggesting that the United States, because they say NATO, okay, but it's the United States, would invade and would do such a thing. There are people in our government, the neocons certainly, but there's others who definitely see Russia as the next frontier for resources, for domination, for a kind of modern colonialization. They see that this is where it is. This is where we can act. This will help us in our future war against China. There are people that believe that. And so it is not irrational for Lukashenko or anybody else to be concerned about this. When he authored the First Amendment, James Madison insisted that the word the, T-H-E, appear before freedom of speech. So Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. His argument was that freedom of speech is a natural right. It comes from our

humanity. It pre-exists the government. It already existed before we even formed this government. And by putting the word the in there, he would emphasize that. So I always refer to it as the freedom of speech. You have a great piece out. What do the feds fear about the exercise of the freedom of speech? What do they hate about it? to good order, contrary to legal order. You know, they don't like being exposed. And they certainly, as all political power structures, they hate to be embarrassed. And they don't like being made fun of either. I mean, you know, I think at some point there was some discussion, oh, memes, you know, memes should be controlled and managed, you know, because people are laughing at us and they can't stand that. So that's really the part

of free speech. It's mainly that people would be informed with truthful and also alternative narratives, alternative from what the government is telling you. So they hate all kinds of truth. Only truth that is acceptable to governments, and certainly our government, is whatever it is saying that day. So if you recall back to something and say, government is whatever it is saying that day. So if you recall back to something and say, well, wait a minute, yesterday you said something else, that's free speech that they don't like. Shut up about yesterday. That's just the mildest example. Of course, certainly we saw huge crackdowns in discussions of biomedical and health issues during COVID. No one could say, you know, it's very much not even written down.

There was a minefield of things that could not be said in terms of what the government wanted you to say. And, of course, they cracked down on people through their use, through their control of mass media. People were deplatformed for doing things like asking a question. So clearly they can't tolerate any freedom of speech really, but particularly the truthful kind and the questioning kind and the historical kind, calling up examples of how does this fit in with what you're doing now? They don't want to hear that. Wow. Do you think that the FBI would interfere with the freedom of speech directly if we didn't have a First Amendment? I mean, stated differently, when teaching the Bill of Rights, which I did at three law schools, I would often start by saying to the students, if the states ratified an amendment repealing the First Amendment, would we still have the

freedom of speech? And almost every hand says, no, no, no, no, we wouldn't have the freedom of speech if the First Amendment were gone. Well, the First Amendment doesn't grant the freedom of speech. It protects the freedom of speech. It comes from our humanity. It doesn't come from the government. Everybody believes that except the people in the government. That's right. And they don't take seriously, well, maybe they don't understand it, but nowhere in the government that I'm aware of do they protect the freedom of speech? At least nowadays, modern day, they monitor it, they spend inordinate amount of time and money in trying to influence it, but they don't protect it. They don't like it. In fact, I mean, just a few hours of looking at what the DNC convention

looked like and the kinds of things that they're saying, really, they hate, they absolutely hate freedom of speech. To say something is to be made an enemy of the state. And, you know, the state likes it like that, because that's one way to create fear and ensure subordination of people. But no, if we're alive, if we're born, whether we can speak or write, we have this freedom. The freedom of speech is a natural right. It can't be removed.

And if the government repealed, if the 75% of the states ratified this, we're gonna abandon the First Amendment, that would do nothing. That would do nothing. That would mean nothing to our real rights. Our real rights are innate to us, to people around the world, not just Americans, but everybody. So we would exercise it. And it might actually be a good thing if such a conversation came up, because then people could say, wait a minute, you can't tell me what to say, to think, how I want to communicate, who I want to talk with, how I want to congregate, where I want to worship.

You can't tell me that. We can send 40 FBI agents and a bomb squad and a SWAT team to your home looking for three electronic devices and leave with two truckloads of all your papers for the past 20 years. You were the chief UN weapons inspector back in the late 90s and early 2000s if we don't like your freedom of speech. And if you have dual citizenship in Russia and America, we'll wait till you're back in Russia and then we'll invade your house in America. Of course, I'm not making these stories up.

The first is Scott Ritter. The second is Dimetri Symes. I remember Ted Kennedy, of whom I was not a fan politically, once made some comments in favor of the Irish Republican Army and the Department of Homeland Security, wouldn't let him fly in a plane from Reagan to Logan, the United States Senator. And what did they do to Tulsa Galbert, a member of Congress? Yeah, yeah. No, the FBI is the arm of the state. I mean, it has no, I don't think FBI agents are required to understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That's not part of what they do.

What they do is take their orders from the state. And it's a shameful thing. You know, and I think you could see a little bit of that in the way Scott described the agents that came to his house. You know, they were very diligent and, you know, obedient to their orders, but they weren't proud of what they were doing. You know, they weren't taking great joy in what they were doing. They're slaves to the state as well. And people that work in the FBI, if they are asked to do things like this or a secret service or any of these places where they are told to do things that are not right, they should quit. I mean, you know, life is worth more than that. Do not be a slave to an immoral state and a state that is not even bound by the very document that was created to its design. Here's where you go. Here's where you don't go. We have a constitution. Has the constitution failed to restrain Leviathan? I would say yes, unambiguously yes,

not even a close call. And many of my students, it's getting better over time. The younger people have great faith in the younger people, but many of them say, well, we need more government because we have a bigger country. And so they kind of, there's all kinds of excuses that we's we, the people, that make the decision. And I think we really need to encourage many of these people who work for these arms of government that violate the Constitution on a daily basis. And that includes people in the military who are fighting wars that are not declared, okay, by the Congress, fighting the King's Wars somewhere. These people need to think about who they are and what they believe, and they should step away from that kind of employment, because if we don't do what the government tells us, it has zero power. Well said, Colonel, particularly with respect to quit being a slave. Beautifully, brilliantly, and passionately said. Thank you very much for it. Thanks for your time, dear Karen. We'll see you again same time as usual, your usual time and day next week. All the best. Okay. Thank you, Judge.

Okay. So those of you trying to find us, you can always find us on judgenap.com. We're also streaming on RumbleX and Facebook. And maybe, just maybe, we'll be everywhere tomorrow. Tomorrow at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, Colonel Douglas McGregor. At 3 o'clock in the afternoon Phil Giraldi at 4 o'clock in the afternoon Aaron Maté and a very busy Thursday

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom Thanks for watching!