Judging Freedom - Phil Giraldi : Mass Graves and Organ Theft

Episode Date: May 1, 2024

Phil Giraldi : Mass Graves and Organ TheftSee 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 Wednesday, May 1st, 2024. Phil Giraldi is here on why students seem to be taking the lead in denouncing the atrocities in Gaza. But first, some personal thoughts on buying gold. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer, a very satisfied customer. About a year ago, I bought gold and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. If you have $100 in the bank, it still shows $100, but you can only buy $76 worth of goods with it.

Why is that? Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power, and mine, by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. Gold keeps its value and goes up. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce, call Lear Capital, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report.

Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold. Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you. Phil, welcome here. Welcome to the show, my friend. Thank you. Is there any connection between, as you see it, between the fact that young people seem to be getting their news from unorthodox sources, usually on their mobile devices and not

the mainstream news, and their steadfast opposition to the genocide in Gaza. I mean, another way to ask you this is, is the mainstream media cleansing its message to suit its political aims? Well, I think that's an emphatic yes. I mean, all you have to do is look at the mainstream media, which I do basically a scan on every morning, and I rather suspect you do something similar. And you see that there's not even anything being reported about the ongoing Israeli attacks on the Gazan population in areas around even Rafah. So there are people getting killed every single day and it's not being reported. Now, young people have the virtue of being idealistic, which some of us older people have gone through that and are now kind of suffering with what we see going on. But they're idealistic and they want to do something about it. And this is a good thing.

And I think it's putting pressure on the politicians. It seems to be having a mixed effect on the universities themselves and the university administrators. But I think it's a good thing. I was of drafty age during the Vietnam War and was indeed drafted after I graduated from college. And I saw all the demonstrations in Chicago that took place when the Democratic Convention took place there. And at that time, I was kind of mixed up on what

I felt about the war and so on and so forth and gradually realized that it was wrong from the beginning, wrong as it was being waged, and wrong after it was over. But it takes a certain level of understanding to do that. But I think it's wonderful what the young people are doing, and I would encourage them to keep it up. Why are university administrators determined to suppress this one political attitude that the IDf is wrong that israel is a genocide state that israel is conducting that israel is an apartheid state conducting genocide does have anything to do with the donors to the universities and it certainly in some cases have uh has had um quite a bit to do with the donors who have said that they're going to stop giving large

sums of money to the universities. They said that in the case of Harvard and also the University of Pennsylvania. So that is indeed part of it. But there's also considerable pressure coming from the federal government, which administers, remember, a lot of the funds that wind up in research, particularly in the research universities, the big universities, and has a lot of control over where that money goes. So these administrators are running scared. And that's why we saw these ridiculous performances when they were groveling in front of Congress, which was basically asking them things that Congress has no right to be asking. These were very subjective questions expecting a certain line of answers, which is, of course, that there was anti-Semitism everywhere. And that basically what's going on in Gaza is an example of good

against bad. And we know who the good and the bad are. So I'm a graduate of Princeton University. The president of Princeton, who's an acquaintance of mine, is a professor of constitutional law and a lawyer. He has decreed that if you want to speak out on the campus, you can only do it in the time and in the place and in the manner of which he approves. If you go to another part of the campus and speak out against it, you'll get kicked out, suspended. If you persist, you'll be expelled. Put aside the issue of the contract between the students' parents and the university. The federal government, the same federal government that is intimidating these college presidents, is charged with

enforcing the law. And the law says if you accept money from the federal government, you have to respect the First Amendment. The law in New Jersey has a very, very, very liberal, open, broad public accommodations policy. So the green in front of Nassau Hall, the main public part of Princeton University, if you're familiar with it, is a public place where anybody can walk and say anything they want at any time of day about any subject matter. That's the law in the state of New Jersey. It's not being enforced. The federal government is not enforcing its agreements with Princeton, and the state of New Jersey is not protecting the freedom of speech in these public places. Why is this happening? It's happening because the government feels it can get its way by exerting pressure on these

various entities. And it's as simple as that. We have a whole lot of stuff going on right now that is basically attacking the First Amendment. And let's throw in the Fourth Amendment too. And all this stuff is happening right as we speak. The anti-Semitism act that's going through Congress right now will basically limit what people can say on certain subjects. And it will also set up a system of anti-Semitism monitors at most universities. So this is incredible. It's thought police of the worst type. It's a complete denunciation of the values that our founders saw as essential, given what was going on with the British crown, telling people what they could say, what they could do, with whom they could associate.

We're doing the same thing here now. And I'm awfully surprised that there's not a lot more unrest among we older people, we older than the students, about what is going on. Because our fundamental rights are being stripped from us one at a time. And it's just incredible what's going on. So this is nothing new. Did you come across in your research a leaked memo or email or text from management at the New York Times telling reporters and editors to use certain words and to avoid certain phrases when describing what's going on in Gaza and the reaction to it by young people and by anybody in the U.S.? Yeah, there was, in fact, a leaked document, presumably leaked by someone with a conscience who was working for the New York Times.

It must have been hard to find. But anyway, it prohibited, it was an editorial comment prohibiting or advising that certain words should never be used in any writing about what's going on in Gaza. And it included words like occupation was not to be included. And the one that surprised me most, they didn't even want the word Palestine to be used, because that would imply that Palestine has a sovereignty and a state entity. It exists as a state entity. And clearly, the New York Times does not want to remind people or to people start thinking that Palestine might actually be, you know, where people live and would like to lead their own lives in the UN, but five of them, led, of course, by the United States. Palestine is a recognized member of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. The New York Times is telling reporters and editors not to use the word?

Yeah, that's what they're doing. Right. Is Israel trying to stifle dissent in the United States by various means, painting dissenters as anti-Semites and various other means? Well, I would say they're not trying to stifle dissent. They are stifling dissent. They own Congress. They own the White House. They own most of the media. And that's why we're seeing the same point of view,

the same narrative coming across all the time. My personal favorite is when they refer to these these college kids demonstrating as uh pro-hamas terrorists I mean you know terrorists is really a loaded word uh people can be sent to jail for being quote terrorists so how do they come up with this stuff and this is this appears in the mainstream media and it also appears in the mouths of our congressmen many of whom are now calling for gaza to be or at least a number of them uh totally destroyed uh some are calling for it to be nuked uh others are making it very clear particularly the ones in uh smotrich and uh uh friend, what's his name, Itamar. Itamar Ben-Gavir.

Yeah, who are calling basically for killing all of the Palestinians that are not pulling any punches about it. And when is the congressman going to stand up and say, this is obscene? We're giving these people, what, $26 billion? Well, Congress disciplined one of its own for saying from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be. She said that outside of Congress. They couldn't discipline her for saying it on the floor of the Congress because of the speech and debate close to the Constitution, but they did discipline her for saying it on the floor of the Congress because of the speech and debate close to the Constitution, but they did discipline her for saying it outside the halls of Congress.

One of our viewers just texted me saying he or she just finished watching a segment on college protest on a network of my former employer, Fox, which referred to the students as not pro-Palestine, but anti-Israel. This is the type of New York Times mantra that you were talking about, correct? Yeah, that's exactly correct. That's being done across the board. And it's, you know, this is like, basically, there's very little pushback on this. I think you probably are aware of the fairly major riot that took place at UCLA last night. And I watched the video of it, and it's rather interesting in certain respects. Here you had the students who were protesting. They were in their tents and they were gathering around and doing stuff.

They were not being violent. They were not being aggressive. They were not hostile to anything. They were minding their own business. And they were attacked by a group, apparently, I've been reading today, of local residents of Los Angeles. These were not students. And they were all waving Israeli flags.

And they attacked this campsite. And they were tearing down the tents, tearing down the structures. They were attacking the students. And meanwhile, there was a whole line of Los Angeles police standing by and watching this go on. So, you know, we've been brainwashed to the point where people can't even think anymore. I mean, this is obscene. People not making any trouble protesting a genocide get attacked by another group that clearly was organized and put together just to attack them, and police stand by and watch it happen. This is America today. It seemed to me it's the job of the police to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which includes the liberties

that are supposedly constitutionally guaranteed, like the freedom of speech. So the police just watched this attack, that at some point the university administration asked the police to break it up? I mean, the police are supposed to stop violence. They're not supposed to stand there and watch it yeah the police went in and started arresting the students who were victimized by the townspeople apparently not if you if you if you uh get read some of the eyewitness accounts of what took place last night you'll you'll see some interesting things i did hear one account on the cbs radio news out of their local new york station which was nearly identical to yours and the person giving the account identified himself as a jewish student uh at ucla uh who observed people with israeli

flags uh attacking he didn't know who they were he didn't think there were students attacking the um who observed people with Israeli flags attacking. He didn't know who they were. He didn't think they were students attacking the pro-Palestinian demonstrators. I guess if I still worked at Fox, I'd have to call them the anti-Israeli demonstrators. But here we go, George Orwell being vindicated because of the powerful use of language and words that he predicted would be commanded by authoritarians and infect our culture. 40,000 people are dead. 37,000 are non-combatants. What happens if this is repeated in Rafah? There are a million and a quarter people there, Phil,

and Netanyahu says he's going to invade whether there's a ceasefire agreement or not. Yeah, that's what he said. I take Netanyahu at his word when he says something like this, because he sees this as the only answer to anything. And a lot of people will die. America and Joe Biden are accomplices in this murder and should be going up before the international court someday to spend the rest of their time in prison. But I guess that won't happen. But this is just awful. I mean, there are probably more than 40,000 people dead. There are probably a lot of people under the rubble. In fact, I saw a number this morning of at least 12,000 people are kind of unaccounted for. So that's another number to add into the tally. But this is outrage. And

Netanyahu says he's going to do it. They're going to do it because the Israeli public is strongly behind this. And now we have Mr. Blinken, a hero for our own times, who is arranging this, well, it's a temporary ceasefire, see? So that means that the Israelis can start it up again when they feel like it. And this is the kind of deal you would expect from Blinken, where he's going to try to get Hamas to release the israeli hostages which is the only card they have to play and uh so it's uh it's clearly a deal on the side of israel and by and blinken is making it look like uh uh he's he's doing something great for the world the greatest thing he could do for the world right now is resign you were pointed out in a in a recent article that you published at the Free Press, I think it was also picked up by our friend Gerald Salenti in his publication, The Trends Journal,

your article is entitled, Students are Taking the Lead in Denouncing Gaza Atrocities. Israel and its friends maligned them as anti-Semites, and you point all of this out in there. Will there be any resistance if Rafah is invaded and innocents are yet again slaughtered in mass numbers? There won't be any resistance from the United States, I assure you. Joe Biden has an election coming up, and he needs Jewish money, and he needs Jewish media support, and he doesn't need having Netanyahu right in his face. So he'll do whatever they want. Chris, let's play the first of those clips of Congressman Gates interrogating Secretary Austin. Now, this is a fascinating series of questions that the Secretary was just unprepared for. The Q&A is about the floating dock, which is now going to cost $300 million, the floating dock. Instead of sending trucks...

Let's stay on the same subject. Ms. Larkin just said there'll be about 1,000 U.S. service members operating a peer system off of Gaza. How many of them will have guns, Mr. Secretary? Well, typically all of the deployed service members carry guns, and they have the ability to protect themselves if challenged. So if someone from land in Gaza shoots at our service members who are on the $320 million pier that we're building, you're telling me our service members can shoot back? They have the right to return fire to protect themselves. So now I want to move to the likelihood that you think someone from land in Gaza might

shoot at our service members on this pier. Do you think that's a likely scenario? That's possible, yes. So that's, they don't consider that boots on the ground, Phil, because they're not on the ground. They're floating on this dock. Congressman Gates goes on to say, if we're going to have boots on the ground, if these people are going to be armed,

if somebody's going to shoot at them, presumably it'd be the IDF. It's not going to be the Palestinians shooting at them. They're bringing food to the Palestinians. Shouldn't Congress be voting on this? But this is the type of empty-headedness that is running the government. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the fact is that I wish somebody in Congress would have the courage to say, yeah, if anyone is likely to shoot at them, it would be the IDF who has the borders, who has the capability and would want to create a false flag incident. Correct. It would look like the Palestinians did it.

I would bet money on that right now, right now. We have another clip from Congressman Gates and Secretary Austin. This is a very telling moment, Mr. Secretary, because you've said something that's quite possible that could happen, right? Shots from Gaza on our service members, and then the response, our armed service members shooting live fire into Gaza. That is a possible outcome here so that we can become the port authority and run this pier. Right? That's correct. I expect that we will always have the ability to protect ourselves.

Boots on the ground? President Biden told the country that we weren't going to have boots on the ground in Gaza. And we won't. Okay, but you guys parse the distinction between, like when Americans think boots on the ground, they think Americans in harm's way or engaged actively in a conflict. You guys seem to be sort of saying that boots on a pier connected to the ground, connected to service members shooting into Gaza, doesn't count as boots on a pier connected to the ground, connected to service members shooting into Gaza, doesn't count as boots on the ground? It does not.

I think you're going to find the American people have a different perspective on that. And if we're going to have people shooting into Gaza, we probably should have a vote on that. You know, he has a lot of detractors because he's a character, but he did a terrific job, Congressman Gates, of interrogating a befuddled and reluctant Secretary Austin. And in my view, the congressman made a great point. I don't know how it's going to resonate with Congress. He voted against all this aid, but of course the majority of Congress,

the overwhelming majority of Congress voted in favor of it. Well, the point is here that instead of building this stupid pontoon bridge, they should just get their best friend in the world and closest ally ever, Israel, to open some of those gates and let the trucks that are lined up there get in and instead of doing that they decided to build this pontoon bridge to to you know so the israelis would continue to choke the gazan population by by limiting the food that's getting in and limiting the medications and things that are getting in. And this is the reality of it. Whatever abuse, whatever abomination Israel is wanting to do,

would they get a rubber stamp from Blinken and from our president? Why don't we just send trucks to Gaza with Marines guarding the trucks and insisting on getting in? Would the IDF actually shoot at the American trucks and the American Marines? power in terms of their little backyard there. And they think it can get away with anything because historically speaking, when dealing with the United States, they have gotten away with everything. The only Western leader who's commented on this publicly is the Norway foreign minister. Now, this was at a conference at which Tony Blinken was physically present. He wasn't on the stage at the time, but he was either in the audience or in the building when the foreign minister said this yesterday. Number seven, Chris. We are now living in the time of a deep crisis of the credibility of the institutions that we have. And I think this has been exacerbated by the crisis in Gaza and by the inability by many

Western countries, I would argue, not Norway, but many of our colleagues who have hesitated to use the same type of language against violations of international humanitarian law, for instance, that we easily apply when they are violated by Russia in Ukraine. When it comes to Gaza, we have not been able to see the same type of response against – it is a different case because, of course, it was – the first act was the Hamas attack on Israel. But the way Israel has conducted the war has also been very problematic in light of global norms. And if we don't call out that, it comes back and haunts even the argument

on Ukraine. You can see it was the World Economic Forum. It was the 29th, which was Monday, just two days ago. But he is saying what nobody else is saying that's a that's a foreign minister as far as we know uh in public except of course for uh lavrov of uh of russia which is basically oh it's okay to indict uh vladimir putin but it's not okay uh to indict bb netanyahu it's okay to criticize putin and the activities of the Russian military in Ukraine, but it's not okay to criticize the IDF in Gaza. Why? You know, he doesn't answer that question, but at least he points out the radical disparity in the way public officials are treating these inconsistencies. Your thoughts? Well, my thought is that, as you just put it,

in a way, the question answers itself. It's basically that there is a fundamental breakdown when it comes to getting the state of Israel to obey under the rules of law that the United States keeps citing, international rules and international conduct. And we keep citing this, but in the case of Israel, we refuse to enforce it. It's a tragedy for our own times. You know i've been i've been in foreign policy doing foreign policy stuff for for god uh since the 1960s and uh i have never seen a situation this tragic this deeply regrettable for the united states and and something that seems to get deeper and deeper and farther down as we go into it longer. I hope we can survive this because I love my country. But at times I despair.

Thank you, Phil. It's grave what you've just articulated, but appreciate the honesty and the courage that animates what you said. We'll see you again soon, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Coming up at four o'clock today, Eastern, Aaron Matei, and at 5 o'clock Eastern, his sidekick, Max Blumenthal. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thanks for watching!