Judging Freedom - Mexican kidnapping _ U.S. military readiness _ U.S. racial quotas(_)

Episode Date: March 7, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, March 7th, 2023. It's about 1140 in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. This is Hot Topics, you know, where I get a chance to sit here and discuss with you the issues that are bubbling up inside of me or issues about which I think I can help with an understanding. Senator Lindsey Graham told my friends and former colleagues at Fox last night that he is prepared to introduce legislation which would authorize the use of military force against Mexico. Mexico. I happen to like Senator Graham. We have collaborated intellectually on some things.

But boy, he still has a lot of John McCain left in him. He never really met a war he didn't like or a fight he didn't want to pick. Why would we be using the military against Mexico? Some libertarians have been arguing for this as well. A very popular guest here on Judging Freedom, Colonel Douglas McGregor, argues for the use of the military against Mexico because of the influence of Mexican gangs

and the gangs introducing fentanyl, you know, and utterly deadly with the tiniest amount of it can kill you. A horrific drug that is infecting Americans who obviously think they're taking some other drug. Nobody in their right mind, well, nobody in their right mind would take any drugs, but nobody in their right mind would take fentanyl. Nevertheless, Senator Graham is of the view that the civilian authorities are incapable of protecting the southern border and preventing the introduction of fentanyl. He's also of the view that Mexican drug gangs are terrorist organizations. Now, the government has defined terrorist organizations as those which seek to use violence in order to change the policy of the government. So not everybody who breaks the law is a terrorist and not everybody who uses violence is a terrorist,

but those who engage in two or more acts of violence for the purpose of affecting a policy change of the government or terrorists. The reason the government has that, the reason Congress enacted that statute is because if you rob a bank, okay, and you get caught, you're sentenced to five to 10 years. If you're a terrorist and you rob a bank and get caught and get convicted, you could be sentenced to 20 years. So the punishment enhancement for an act of terrorism, when it's a string of violent acts intended to affect a policy change in the government, is far greater than a single act which would form a part of a

string of terrorist acts, if you get my explanation. Do you really want the military invading Mexico? The Mexican government would have to invite the American military in. It would never do that. So this would be an act of American aggression against Mexico, the last thing that we want. Speaking of the American military, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning that two think tanks engaged in war games to determine whether or not it is possible for the American military to defend Taiwan and to defend against Chinese aggression in the South China Seas. What aggression in the South China Seas? Well, China has built hundreds and hundreds of artificial

islands in the middle of the ocean. These islands are a couple of acres in size. They have landing strips on them. They have power plants on them. They have listening devices and they have military equipment and military personnel on them. And then, of course, China claims that it owns the ocean three miles out and it has dominion of the ocean 12 miles out. So these islands are 25 miles from each other so that there's this continuous string or 24 miles. There's this continuous string of dominion. What about these think tanks? Well, two think tanks conducted computerized war games as to whether or not the United States could defend China from taking over the South China Seas or taking over Taiwan. The theory is that the United States would not be able to trade peacefully if China controlled that part

of the world or civilian ships couldn't traverse there. This theory of course, presumes that China doesn't want us to trade with it and of course it does. Nevertheless, what was the result of these war games by these two think tanks? Well, oh and two. The United States lost both war games. One of the think tanks was a nonpartisan academic think tank in Washington, D.C. The other think tank was the United States Air Force. So the Air Force's own war games showed that the United States could not defend against Chinese military action if it tried to take over Taiwan or if it really established very serious heavy duty military bases in these islands that it's built in the South China Seas. I don't know if

President Biden was aware of this. He's the one that started the debate about a year and a half ago when then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. The president backed her up by saying, I said she could go to Taiwan because we will defend Taiwan if China tries to take it back. Well, that would be nearly impossible. One of the U.S. admirals in charge of the Pacific Fleet said it would be impossible. Now the Air Force says it's impossible. Why does the Air Force say that? Why does this think tank say it? Because the United States has not fought a serious war with a serious challenge to it since World War II. All the other wars the United States has fought has been the bully picking a fight with the weakling in the schoolyard, even though sometimes we lost, like in Vietnam and in Afghanistan.

We thought we could win these, but we lost. We wasted blood and treasure. We don't have the ability to resist an army the size of Russia's or a Navy or Air Force the size of China's. I'm not saying we don't spend enough money. We spend way too much money, but we waste the money. The Defense Department budget is $770 to $780 billion. They famously can't find $220 million that was lost 10 years ago. They just don't know where it is. But that budget is larger than the next 12 countries combined, their military budgets. And that, of course, includes Russia and China. Why are their military stronger than ours? They don't waste money the way ours does.

And when they conduct war games, I guess we don't know the outcome of those war games. I don't know if President Biden is aware of the outcome of the war game that the Department of the Air Force conducted, which showed that we would lose. We would lose a battle for neutral maintenance of the South China Seas, meaning any civilian ship could pass through there without being harassed by Chinese warships, and we would lose the battle to defend Taiwan. Do we really want to defend Taiwan? Do we really want to defend Ukraine? We are sleepwalking toward World War III. And the sooner the president recognizes this, the better. You've heard me say it before. I'm going to say it again. Sleepwalking toward World War III. public threats that we will defend Taiwan. That encourages China to attack Taiwan. High Mars, sophisticated missile systems on the back of trucks,

not a truck like you see on the highway, but a mobile missile system in Ukraine, manned by Americans in Ukraine, armed by Americans in Ukraine. American troops out of uniform in Ukraine are picking Russian targets on a computer screen. The trigger is being pulled by American troops in uniform in Poland. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland answering my question, not me directly, I don't take credit for that. What are the goals of the United States military in Ukraine? She says our goal is to liberate Crimea. Liberate Crimea. Crimea has been a part of Russia since Catherine the Great reigned over Russia, which was before George III was the king of England, and we fought the American Revolution. Stated differently, Crimea has been a part of Russia for the past 300 years, and she wants us to liberate Crimea. If we fire on the Russians in Crimea, that is the moral and legal equivalent of firing on Russia. That makes it legal for Russia to fire on any American asset or any American target anywhere in the world. Why is she saying this nonsense?

And as I speak, two, only two, but two. Ukraine fighter jet pilots are in the U.S. learning how to use F-16s. President Biden, that's our most sophisticated manned fighter jet. President Biden has said we're not going to give you F-16s. President Biden, that's our most sophisticated manned fighter jet. President Biden has said, we're not going to give you F-16s. Well, why are we training Ukrainian pilots to fight them? The day Ukrainian pilots fly F-16s over Ukraine is the day they can pull some triggers and reach Moscow, sleepwalking toward World War III. In the West, Taiwan, South China Sea, the government itself says we'll lose. In the East, Ukraine, the government itself says we want to attack part of Russia. Has Congress authorized this?

Short answer, no. Longer answer, Congress hasn't even debated any of Russia. Has Congress authorized this? Short answer, no. Longer answer, Congress hasn't even debated any of this. If this isn't enough to raise your blood pressure, President Biden is about to sign a new executive order which will expand race preferences throughout the federal government. I get the idea of equality, but this executive order, a draft copy of which has been released to the press, leaked to the press, whatever verb you want to use, doesn't use the word equality. It uses the word equity. This is a dangerous word for the government to use. If you're in business, equity means ownership. The equity markets are the stock markets. You're not loaning money to the company. You're buying an ownership share in the company. That little

of the company that you own is called your equity. That's not how the government uses equity. The government uses equity and equality in different ways. Equality is equal rights for every human being. That's been guaranteed since the Declaration of Independence and then after the Civil War amendments were added. Of course, all persons are created equal. And of course, all persons have equal rights. By the way, it's all persons. It's not all Americans. It's all persons. That's not me. That's the Constitution. But the Constitution guarantees that all persons have equal rights. We don't push people equality. This is about the government's use of the word equity., the government will compensate you for your absence of smartness so that your outcome in the great American race, whether it's to get to heaven or to get to the biggest house on the hill, is equal to everybody else. This is egalitarianism. This is forced outcome. So this is, if you will, equality of groups, not equality of individuals.

When the government gets involved in this nonsense, who suffers? We all do because it costs money for the government to do this. And it takes the government's focus off what it's supposed to be doing. What is the government supposed to do? The government's job is to defend our freedoms. Of course, it does a lot more than that. It takes away our property and redistributes it. It tells us how to live. It thinks it can regulate any behavior and right any wrong and tax any event and intrude on any process and spend any money. The government is way out of control. Local government is, state government is,

the federal government, of course, is the prime offender here. But now the federal government wants to get in this business of equity, whereby it will take groups of people and say, you're just not achieving the same end goal as other groups, so we will help you. We will change the laws to help you get ahead. That is not the job of government. Government is the job of equality at the starting line, but once the great race of life begins, it's up to everybody's own energy and talent and faith in God and perseverance as to whether they succeed. It's not the job of government to carry them across any finish line, but not in Joe Biden's world. In Joe Biden's world, equality and equity mean the same thing. In the real world, they don't. Equality means equal

rights and an equal starting point. Equity means a government enforced, a government induced, a government compelled, and a government paid for. It's a finish line. Of course, the government doesn't pay for anything. You do. Morris, we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.