Judging Freedom - LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski: Who Can Stop Netanyahu?

Episode Date: November 19, 2024

LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski: Who Can Stop Netanyahu?See 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, November 19th, 2024. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski will be here with us in a moment on Joe Biden's lust for war and who, who can stop Netanyahu. But first this. We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years. Save your money, then live off your savings. Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars. The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value. Just the cost of groceries is absurd. Let me be brutally honest. I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct.

Not just here, but globally. The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold. And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom. We will lose our privacy. They can track anything we do. You need to take care of yourself and your family. So here's what you need to do. Immerse yourself in knowledge and information. The writing is on the wall. Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset. Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals investing for over 27 years.

They help me diversify into gold and silver. They can help you too. Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Colonel Kwiatkowski, welcome here, my dear friend. I do want to spend a little bit of time with you on Benjamin Netanyahu and who can stop him and whether he's going to be unleashed under the Trump administration even more so than now. But before we get there, I need your opinions on the latest from President Biden about what you have recently written. Biden has, of course, either directly or one of his aides did it and just told him they were doing it, who knows, authorized the use of American offensive military equipment, sophisticated and powerful enough to reach 190 miles into Russia. How dangerous is this? Yeah, I mean, it's pretty dangerous. It's so dangerous that France and Germany have the immediate reaction that both of those countries had was to

accept themselves from this, saying, oh, no, no, ours cannot be done. Ours cannot be done. Because by doing this, you're creating all new targets um a new set of targets outside theoretically outside of ukraine and even possibly uh across the atlantic ocean that's what he's doing that that is exactly what he did now did he know he was doing that i don't know well you know uh he thought about doing it and apparently was prepared to do it. This is about a month or so ago when the prime minister of Great Britain, Sir Keir Starmer, was literally in air on his way between London and D.C. The Defense Department, we understand, talked the president out of it, saying this is dangerous because it makes all

of our people targets all over the world. And if you remember, Biden very angrily dismissed a reporter's question in the presence of the British prime minister, who himself seemed a little startled by the about face because the secretary of state had intimated very strongly, maybe in public, maybe in privately, said it to the British foreign minister that the White House was going to go along with this. So it's a 180-degree turn. Somebody talked him out of it two months ago. Now he's willing to do it. Why would he do this? Does he want to put a disaster that exposes Americans to death in Donald Trump's lap? Well, yeah, I think that would be a benefit in his view if he could do that. I don't think that, you know, they've promised publicly, and they're trying to do this,

is to make sure all the rest of any authorized funding, if you can call it authorized, to go to Ukraine will be rushed to Ukraine before Trump has a chance to put a stop on that. So it could be that this was presented to him as if he would authorize the deep strike potential, that that would then justify maybe the ability to spend more money on other things that could be associated with this new targeting. You know how the Pentagon does their, you know, how they do their business, how they, everything has to be justified, quantified. This could have been a way to make it easier for the Pentagon to exhaust all the remaining funds in the next five or six weeks, which is what, you know, is what he's trying to do. Now, you know, Biden, it's not clear that he's making these decisions, but clearly his mouth is moving. So, you know, he's a part of it.

The other folks around him, all of them realize that they're gone, basically, in five weeks. They are gone. We will not have that same Secretary of State. We're not going to have, you know, the crowd at the National Security Advisor's office, you know, his folks. So they're going to be gone. So are they the kind of people that think about America first? Well, clearly they're not. But this could very well be an example of vindictiveness. Not really, oh, we're going to start World War III. But, hey, let's stick it to him. Stick it to him being Trump, you know, and Trump's and, of course, Trump's voters.

Let's show those Trump voters what they got. I mean, I wouldn't put it past them to be a purely Washington political, angry toddler type response. And I think Putin is the one that, maybe it wasn't Putin, it may have been Lavrov, who characterized the American decision makers in our diplomatic corps as dealing with toddlers, toddlers with guns. And he proved that. The Russian ambassador to the UN was not very happy at all. He mentioned UK and France, as you did. Cut number 12, Chris. Perhaps Joe Biden, for many reasons, has nothing left to lose, but we are astounded by the short-sightedness of the leadership of the UK and France. They are eager to play into the hands of the exiting administration and are dragging not just their countries, but all of Europe into large-scale escalation with drastic consequences.

He sees the role of France and Great Britain differently than you did. You were talking about France and Germany. Nevertheless, this equipment, which was used at 3 o'clock in the morning Moscow time to destroy a storage depot that held artillery shells, so there were a lot of secondary and tertiary explosions as the shells went off, can only be operated by Americans. It is operated in conjunction with American satellites that use secret codes to transmit information to the ground. You need a top secret security clearance to engage the satellite and a top secret security clearance to engage the satellite and a top secret security clearance in order to engage the equipment. So Karen, there is no question, but that Americans are choosing targets, aiming the equipment, pulling the triggers,

even though it's not an actual trigger, it's a series of buttons, as you know. America is attacking Russia, and President Putin understands that. Does President Biden do the people that are making decisions, however lame duck they are, however repudiated they were, so soundly by the American electorate earlier this month. Do they understand that? You know, they take in information that is very different than your guests and viewers will know regarding Russia, regarding Russia's intentions and capabilities and the conduct of particularly the Ukraine thing. So I'm not sure that they, I think their judgment is that we can attack in this narrow way. They're going to call it a narrow way because it's only, you know, it just happened that they're going to do this, these deep strikes, and we can do this and Russia will not respond. We

gauge that what we know of Russia, what we know of Putin is that they will do nothing. And that's a gamble. It's a huge gamble. Of course, the more informed you are, I think the more likely you are to consider it a huge gamble. And these people making these decisions are not well informed, okay? They're not well served by the intelligence services, of which I guess there are 18 now. They're not well served by that. So they are the blind leading the blind in Washington.

But they probably in their justification have said the Russians won't respond to this. Now, incidentally, as we all know, Russia has revamped its no first use of nuclear weapons effectively. I mean, their new strategy allows for, much as ours does, allows for first use of nuclear weapons if there is a threat that meets the criteria. So, you know, Americans guiding an American weapon deep into Russian territory, does that qualify? Well, you know, I guess somebody in Washington wanted to find out, but I'm sure that they calculated this. And they may have even calculated that because Trump is coming on board soon with his people and he's not interested in fighting Ukraine, he's interested in solving the Ukraine problem, that they may be gauging that, well, right now at this time, Putin's probably not going to respond because that'll mess up his future dealings with Trump. And now that is the most evil way of making a decision, you know, because where did the American people, where did the

kind of collective wisdom that we don't want to use nuclear weapons anywhere, we don't want to see them used anywhere on the planet ever again, right? Where does that come into play? It doesn't. They don't care about that. And honestly, I think this is why the American people threw this administration out. They sense that they just don't care about Americans. Here's President Putin. Now, this is back in September, but he obviously had in mind what happened over the weekend. This is right around the time that the incident we talked about a few minutes ago happened with British Prime Minister Stormer. Chris, cut number one. It is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not.

It is about making a decision about whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not. It is about making a decision about whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not. If the decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation, and this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.

It means that NATO countries, the United United States and European countries are fighting Russia. There's no dispute, but that that is what's happening now with respect to the United States. Add to this, Colonel Kwiatkowski, Jake Sullivan's statement over the weekend that the Biden administration has $7 billion remaining authorized by Congress for Ukraine, and the president plans on spending show, that the neocons understand internally that this Ukraine experiment was a disaster. Why would they spend another $7 billion on it? Why would they expand it to Russia now unless they just want to give Trump a headache the likes of which he never imagined. Yeah, well, I think we can't underestimate the possibility that that's exactly what they want to do, to give Trump a headache. I mean, remember, you know, before the election and before he won, I think uniformly the Democratic Party felt that he was Hitler. Literally Hitler is how they described it. And now he's the president

elect. So why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you do everything you possibly could, including threaten global war to restrain or weaken this incoming president? So I think they really believe their own rhetoric. The other thing is this money, as we have heard repeatedly throughout this, most of it stays in the United States. So this $7 billion that they're rushing to get out the door, I would expect more than half of it, much more than half of it, will backfill coffers and bank accounts of the military-industrial complex here, more so than

adding to warfighting capability that Ukraine has or doesn't have. I mean, Ukraine is collapsing from within. The army's shrinking and collapsing. They can't recruit. They got huge problems. This thing is over. It's just a matter of who's going to say when first. It's done. So I honestly think they're rushing to get the money out of there because that's how Washington works. And that money will stay in the United States. It's not going to help Americans, but it will help the lobbyists and the corporations that hire those lobbyists. So if they send an attack to Ukraine that already exists, they will place an order with the military industrial complex with defense manufacturers for another one or two or however many they want

to replace the one or two or however many they want to replace the one or two or however many they sent. Yeah. And also remember, we have depleted a lot of our reserves of weapons and some of the same weapons that we have been sending and wasting in Ukraine, Israel would like us to send and waste on their efforts. So, you know, there's competition for these things and they want to get this money spent before Musk and Ramaswamy take a look at the books. It'd be hard for me to believe that they could cut the defense budget. Donald Trump increased it every year that he was in office because of his belief, I think, misguided. And maybe he's changed this mind. He's obviously a different person than he was eight years ago, that spending more money means a better defense. But Karen, you know this

better than I. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined, even though Russia has a better army and China has a better navy. Yeah, no, it's true. And the things we spend them on are increasingly outdated and increasingly vulnerable. And I think your guests have talked about the floating targets that our 12 carrier battle groups are. And it's not just that. It's not just that they're floating targets. It's that when they try to do things that you would think Navy forces could do, like, I don't know, make a safe passageway in the Red Sea, maybe something

like that. They can't. They're ineffective in doing that. So the military, we spend all this money, we get no defense, absolutely no defense for it. Americans are not defended by this. And our offense is increasingly, you know, challenged and not desired. I mean, if you were going to shop, right, if you were just a country, you don't want to build up a military, where are you going to shop? Well, increasingly, it's not going to be the United States. You're not going to shop there because you pay a lot and you don't give very much. And you have this terrible logistics chain, which we know from the F-35s and many others that the readiness levels of our equipment is

never what is promised it's never what we paid for do you think i'm switching gears karen that donald trump will give netanyahu whatever he wants just as joe biden did that the same trump who claims to be a president of peace and wants to wind down the ukraine war immediately will pay for slaughter and genocide in Gaza because that's what Bibi wants and that's what the donor class over here wants. Yeah, you know, maybe a decade ago where Bibi was still in charge then and Trump wasn't, you know, maybe in that relationship, but Trump is different in part because he's older and this is his final term and this is his capstone. This next four years are this is a big deal for him and his maker almost.

I mean, I think he sees it in those terms. Bibi is on his last leg. The rope holding Bibi with the living is fraying rapidly. He you know, he's at the end of a really long career, and he's ending on an unpopular note. I mean, his decisions that he's made have really weakened Israel. In fact, some predict, I know the moon of Alabama, I like to listen to what he has to say, and he says Israel is losing and will continue to lose until there is a major transformation and maybe possibly even the collapse of the Zionist state. Well, I don't know who the moon of Alabama is. I don't either. It's a military guy website kind of thing and often takes an iconoclastic view.

Well, Scott Ritter agrees with him. Colonel McGregor agrees with him. Colonel Wilkerson agrees with him that Netanyahu is Israel's worst enemy, that he and his decisions have destroyed the economy, the culture, the military, and maybe Israel's future. Yeah. See, and that is a reality that Trump clearly knows and picks up on. You know, Trump is a guy, he trusts his gut and he has instincts that are well honed from the life that he has led. So, you know, I think when he looks at Netanyahu, he doesn't see strength. Like the Congress, you know, genuflects before Netanyahu, they see strength and power, probably because he's got the goods

on all of them. But Trump doesn't see Netanyahu as powerful. He sees them, I think, a little more realistically, which is weak. And Trump does not align himself, if he can help it, and certainly not the Trump 2.0 that we're seeing today. He does not align himself with the weak. All right. So Marco Rubio, ardent Zionist. Pete Hegseth, ardent Zionist. Michael Waltz, the National Security Advisor, ardent Zionist. Mike Huckabee. It's not a policy job. It's a performance job as the ambassador. Beyond ardent, fanatical Zionist, literally believes God the Father gave from the ocean to the sea to the Israelis in perpetuity. Yep. Well- Those are the people that are going to the Israelis in perpetuity.

Yeah, well- Who are the people that are going to be implementing Trump's policies about Israel, the four of them? Well, they're all Christian Zionists. And there's a little bit of a difference from an Israeli point of view. Think about a Jewish Zionist, okay? There is some trust there. Of course, Jews that are non-Zionist are not well-trusted.

They are by the current government for sure. But Christian Zionists are, I would say, even less trusted than Jews who oppose the Zionist state of Israel. They are used. They're a well-used political force in this country and have been for a long time. They are not increasing in number. You know, the recruitment in the churches and the, you know, of young people to be ardent Zionists, that's not working. Okay. They're not getting the young people. It's a dying, it's certainly not an America first kind of thing. And it's certainly not very Christian. So it's not making it. I think he's throwing almost a poison bone to Israel with some of these appointments. And I don't think with Hedge, with Hedge Seth, his hands will be full fighting off the attacks from the DOD. And I think Hedge Seth was picked less as a Zionist and more as a fighter with a bone to pick with the military.

Much as, you know, putting Tulsi Gabbard in Intel after she was put on the no-fly list by the same bunch of people, you know, there's a kind of thumb in the eye going on with that. But with some of these other Zionists, I mean, Marco Rubio, first off, he owes everything that he is right now to Donald Trump. He's going to do what Donald Trump says or Donald Trump will get rid of him so quick his head will spin. So some of these appointments are about loyalty to Trump. And I think others are thumb in the eye. Now, we haven't had a Christian diplomat, a Christian ambassador to Israel since 2011. And they've all been Jewish Americans. They've all been Zionists.

So that's a you know, I mean, if you're Israel, that's who you would like to work with in your capital, right? That's the American ambassador you can trust. Christian Zionists is not one you can trust. If I were to ask you who can stop Netanyahu, your short one word answer will be Trump. Yeah, Trump can do it. Now, if it wasn't a person, it would be Netanyahu's own hubris.

And that usually gets everybody in the end. So there is that. But yeah, he's he is not invincible. And in fact, it's a joke. This image that I have, and I know you have it in your mind, too, of our Congress, you know, standing ovations, 40 and 50. You know, the man can't even speak because they're applauding so diligently. That is an offense to our country. That is an offense to our constitution. It's an offense to this idea that Netanyahu is a great leader, which he is not. He is not a great leader. So that tells us a lot

about where we have gotten ourselves to. And I think Trump is getting us away from that. And if he has to use clowns that are Christian Zionists and send them into the midst of, you know, Jerusalem, thinking that they are allies of the Israelis, only to find that the Israelis will not even talk to them. I mean, they are, you know, this is a country that is at perpetual war with its enemies and everyone is its enemy. I mean, do you think that Israel looks at America and said, we can really trust America? Of course they don't. Why do you think they have to bribe our congressmen? They cannot trust Americans. Not even the worst congressman can't be trusted unless you've got dirt on him or you've paid for his campaign. So they do that.

They do that because that's what they perceive they need to do to survive, for their country to survive. They are not our friends and they're not our allies. We have a, you know, what is it that Trump uses? The transactional relationship. That's what we have a, you know, what is it that Trump uses? The transactional relationship. That's what we have. Thank you, Karen. Great, great observations, my dear friend, and much appreciated. I hope you'll come back again next week as usual. Absolutely. Okay. All the best. Tomorrow's a busy day for us at nine in the morning, Ambassador Freeman. At 11 in the morning, Max Blumenthal. At two in the afternoon, Aaron Maté. At three in the afternoon, Phil Giraldi. At four in the afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer. At five in the afternoon, Colonel Larry Wilkerson. Wow. Moving up to a half a million subscriptions. Like and subscribe. Help us spread the word. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.