Abolish the Senate: Jeffries Says No, His Caucus Says Yes & Florida Votes | Martin, Carroll, McNeily

[00:00:00] On July 14th, the Democrat Socialists of America published a platform that calls for abolishing the United States Senate and for replacing the President and the Supreme Court with an executive and a judiciary chosen by Congress and reportable to Congress. They are very proud of this document. It's on their website. You can go there to check it out. On Sunday, the leader of the House Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries, was asked about it, and he said he does not support that agenda, but he added

[00:00:28] that the people who run on it will be in his caucus. So which is it? Support the agenda or not? Welcome to The Jenny Beth Show. I'm Jenny Beth Martin. Welcome to The Jenny Beth Show.

[00:00:55] On July 14th, the Democrat Socialists of America published a platform that calls for abolishing the United States Senate and replacing the President and the Supreme Court, which I just went through. Democrats have been asked about whether they support this platform or not, those who are in office right now. And they are saying, no, we don't really support the platform, but these people are going to be

[00:01:20] in our caucus and we have a big tent. So which is it? Are they really supporting the document or are they not supporting the document? We're going to have to get into this throughout the show today because I think the Democrat Party, if they're not standing up and saying, no, we oppose this, then they are supporting the entire document. But before we get into that, we are going to talk first about the polls in Florida,

[00:01:47] which are open right now and they close at 7 p.m. tonight. On the ballot, we have the race for governor and there is also a special election for the Senate seat that Marco Rubio left. And we have to fill the last two years of his Senate term. Currently, Senator Ashley Moody is defending that seat because she was appointed to it when Marco Rubio left to become Secretary of State. And more than 1200 offices down

[00:02:13] ballot or on the race in one, I'm sorry, are on the in the election today. In one redrawn congressional district, the Daily Signal found three Republicans running neck and neck and nearly half of Republican voters are still undecided. Polls are open right now as we speak. So we'll be watching for who Florida selects as its nominees later tonight. And then let me just point out something that's very important to

[00:02:40] understand. When we have a primary that is this crowded or any close general election, it's decided by people who are physically showing up at the polls to work, not by advertising alone. The election is guarded by those sitting in the room watching the polling and the voting as it happens. Tea Party Patriots Action has recruited and trained 35,000 poll watchers and poll workers over the last

[00:03:07] two election cycles. And we'll be recruiting more for this coming election cycle for this coming general election as well. The primary elections today are a perfect example of what that work is for. We need many people working to get out the vote, to watch the polls and to work for candidates as we head into November's general election. And I'll tell you at the end of the hour what more you can do specifically

[00:03:35] to take action for the getting out the vote this fall. But two things before I bring in the panel. First, on Monday, the negotiating window with Iran closed with no announced path to ending the military conflict there. In June, a 60 day negotiating period was agreed upon. Yesterday, President Trump told Fox News that if Oman gets in the way of the naval blockade, we will bomb the S out of them. A fifth of

[00:04:04] the world's oil trade still runs through the Strait of Hormuz, which affects prices of the pump and really anything that travels using oil, which is basically everything, all goods, including groceries. So we're going to discuss the situation in Iran and what might happen next. And then the other thing is that the Democrat Senate nominees, we have four of them now who have said they will not back Chuck

[00:04:29] Schumer as leader of the Senate. And we're going to discuss what this means as we head into the general election season and who is really leading the Democratic Party. I have three people on with me today to help break it all down. Rod Martin is the founder and chief executive of Martin Capital, and he was on the startup team at PayPal. He writes at Rod Martin. He writes a Rod Martin report. Rod, welcome back to

[00:04:58] the show. And I think we may bring them all. Yeah, there you go. Thanks so much for being here. Then we've also got Con Carroll, who is commentary editor at the Washington Examiner and author of Sex and the Citizen. Con, I'm so glad to have you on with me again today. Absolutely. And then finally, my friend and colleague, Robert McNeely, who is the director of broadcasting and grassroots engagement at Tea Pretty Patriots Action is with me. Well, thank you, Jenny Beth. Great to be on this incredible panel.

[00:05:27] Let's dive in on this Tuesday, a big primary day. Very good. Okay, so let's get right into it. And Robert, I want to start with you because you actually have been a candidate. You've run for office. The polls in Florida closed today at seven o'clock. What is it like in the last hours of a primary from the perspective of a candidate and for when it comes to getting out the vote for the importance

[00:05:53] of poll watchers, for poll workers? And what are candidates thinking right about now? Oh, it's an exciting time. It's a daunting time. It's a nerve wracking time. And that's usually what the campaign manager community of this constitutional republic and to represent your fellow neighbors, constituents at the highest of levels, whether that be on the city council, the school board, the state house, or even the United States Congress. But what you have to really look at, and if you have not volunteered or worked on a campaign, this is really where the sausage is made. You'll have campaign

[00:06:23] staff watching closely with those precincts that are acting well or acting rather in a strange way. And if it's a larger race, of course, you have lawyers there on the ground watching what's happening in these precincts, especially if they're hearing any election integrity issues when it comes to what poll watchers or others might be seeing at the respective precincts right there on the ground, while volunteers are really turning out the vote. So what you're looking at is campaign staff watching

[00:06:53] all of this in real time and the numbers and the persuasion game is over with. At this point, specifically in Florida or even Alaska today, people are really churning out and turning out the vote. And it's those volunteers in those last minutes making sure that their neighbors are getting to the polls. Very good. And it should be very interesting to see how how the elections turn out tonight. Rod, you live in Florida, 1200 offices on the ballot today throughout the state,

[00:07:21] and nearly half of Republican voters are still undecided in some of those redrawn congressional districts. What does it tell you about how things are looking in Florida and how do you think it's going to go today? Dr. I'm really optimistic about Florida. The obvious problem that we have here is a couple of the candidates for governor, but between them they might

[00:07:45] get 15% so I'm not overly worried about that. In a perfect world, I wouldn't have Byron Donalds on the ballot. I'd have Ron DeSantis crowned king. But since that's not an option, Byron's going to do great. Uh, last polls, I saw all of his opponents combined and didn't get up to 50%. Uh, so you know, there you go. Is that going to be a little tougher race in the fall than,

[00:08:14] then it would be for Ron DeSantis? Well, of course it's a new guy. And, and so things change, but I think Florida looks pretty sound. We have our first, you know, just in the past four years, we have our first Republican voter registration majority in state history. That number just keeps growing. I think what we're seeing in Venezuela and Cuba, uh, have really solidified a lot of votes

[00:08:42] in South Florida that we didn't have solid a few years ago. The younger generation, uh, born here of, of refugees, uh, had, and kind of adopted the view of the public schools. And, and now they're beginning to see as the democratic socialists, as they call themselves take over the democratic party, that these guys really are communists. And when they stand up at the DSA convention and just say

[00:09:12] from the podium, our goal is communism and the crowd cheers, they mean it. So, so I think Florida's in good shape. Texas is a little tougher, uh, for a variety of reasons, but I'm not too worried about Texas this fall either. And I'm really happy with how a lot of the Democrat primaries have gone. I think Mike Rogers has a much better chance in Michigan than he did before Abdul El-Sayed. So,

[00:09:39] so we can have a good year. Very good. Um, and Byron is a true person who just, he stands for liberty, for the constitution. I have seen, uh, he's in the house freedom caucus when he actually became the person who the house freedom caucus was pushing to become speaker of the house before it wound up being Mike Johnson. Our organization endorsed him for a speaker of the house. And I, he, he champions

[00:10:09] the constitution. He talks about his tea party background. He talks about Mark Levin and what he learned from Mark Levin about the constitution and founding documents. And I appreciate that about Byron Donald so very much. I'm, I'm really hopeful tonight. So we'll see how things go. All right. Now con, um, in South Carolina, we have a primary election next week for the runoff for the Lindsey

[00:10:36] Graham seat. And your paper at Washington examiner has been tracking that and also tracking how South Carolina is shaping up for the democratic primary in 2028 for president, because that's where they're going to have their first, for first vote for president on the Democrat side. So what are you thinking about South Carolina next week? And also as we're looking into 2028?

[00:11:03] Oh, well, just briefly on the, uh, Republican primary. Um, you know, uh, I don't know. I'm a little, um, uh, not optimistic about, uh, Senator Graham's replacement. Um, I think she's like Senator Graham himself, uh, rest in peace. Uh, I think he's a little, uh, she's a little weak on immigration and some other issues. I don't know how pro-life she is. She's been donating some groups. Um, so I, I do hope that election, that primary election goes the other way.

[00:11:29] Uh, but putting to the democratic side, I mean, the DNC going with South Carolina first over Iowa, New Hampshire is a huge boon to Kamala Harris. Uh, these, there's only going to be so many lanes in the democratic primary. One of them is going to be the DSA, the socialist candidate. That's probably going to be, uh, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, uh, AOC. Uh, and then there's going to be a more moderate lane. Um, and then I think there's going to be a lane that consists of, of the

[00:11:57] African-American vote. Um, and I think Kamala's going to solidify both those second two lanes early on with that South Carolina primary. Uh, the, the African-American vote within the Democratic Party is all of a sudden, um, the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. When you look at what has happened in the primaries, uh, from Michigan to New York, even out to Colorado, it is, uh, generally white college educated voters that are electing these socialists, that are electing these democratic socialists of America. And it is instead, especially when you

[00:12:26] look at New York, it is the African-American communities that have been sticking with more of the establishment candidates. So I, I do think, uh, Kamala will, will win that primary. Um, she'll get a boost coming out of that, but you look and you see that Iowa and New Hampshire, those democratic parties are not backing down. They are going to run their contests anyways, and then it's going to be up to the DNC how to, how to punish them. My guess is what they'll do is they'll, they'll cut the representation, um, that they actually sent to the convention in some way,

[00:12:54] but whoever goes and competes and wins on those contests are still going to get a news. Yeah, that's exactly right. They'll still get the news. Isn't really helped that much. And I, I, yeah. And so I, I think, um, in both those states, I think you're going to have a predominantly white, predominantly college educated, a lot of female voters. And I think AOC is going to have to be favored in both of those states.

[00:13:18] That's going to be very, very interesting. Well, I think we should realize about the Democrat primary process for president is that no matter who the voters vote for, there's a chance that the establishment will just change it all at their convention, um, or before their convention. Anyway, we've seen that happen several times when it comes to who the voters vote for there.

[00:13:41] That's Francesca Hawke. I mean, if that's not an election theft, I'd like to see what one would look like. That is more blatant than what they did to Bernie Sanders in 2016. And everybody can say, oh, election fraud never happens. Really? Because they fired the DNC chairman over that one. So we know this happens. We know they do it. And there's, I'm sorry, there's just no way Hong goes from 22 points

[00:14:08] up to losing narrowly in the span of two days. That's crazy. So yes, you can't assume that the votes are going to matter that much. Yeah, I, I would just add there though. Go ahead. Oh, I would just add there though, that the establishment itself is being taken over by the DSA. I would point to the convention just this past weekend in Texas, where in the past, the, that, that body, the DNC rules committee body

[00:14:36] has rejected calling for the abolishment of ICE. They called for the reform of ICE, but all of a sudden this time they, they flipped. You have enough of those members who flat out said, this is what my constituents want. This is what my party is back home. So the establishment of the Democratic Party is becoming socialist, which, which. Yeah, there's no doubt about it. It's completely becoming socialist. And let, I was talking about this at the beginning of the show. Let's pull up this graphic

[00:15:05] that shows the, what the DSA is calling for versus a constitution, because basically what they want to do will erase the constitution. They want to abolish the Senate. They want to replace the president. Replacing the Senate is going to get rid of article one, section three, getting rid of the president of the United States, article three, section one. Well, that one is for judges, article three. You, article

[00:15:32] two is with the presidency. They want to expand the house proportional representation and rank choice voting. Rank choice voting is so horrible in places around the country where they enacted it. Most of those places work to try to get rid of it because it rigs the system so badly. And it's just confusing for voters. They won a 32 hour work week at full pay. I don't even know what a 32 hour work week would

[00:16:00] look like. I haven't worked one of those in so long. End ICE detention and deportations, amnesty, regardless of status, aggressive wealth taxes. They are so radical. And when you've got Hakeem Jeffries who's saying, well, no, I don't really support that platform, but they're going to be part of my caucus. And then you have what Khan was just pointing out about the Texas Democratic platform. Yeah,

[00:16:26] there's really not a lot of sunlight between the Democrat socialists and the Democrat establishment. Khan, what do you think when you're seeing that platform? Oh, I mean, I think it's where the Democratic Party is going. I mean, I don't think the middle has no ideas and they're right. They don't. And you can't beat some

[00:16:54] establishment has nothing. Whereas the DSA has a very, I think, as you could saw, well thought out agenda that they definitely feel strongly about and they're going to push it. And the establishment just has nothing to fight with it against. And so I think that's just going to be the overall DSA is going to win because Hakeem Jeffries has no agenda to counter it with.

[00:17:19] Absolutely. That is exactly right. We have a clip of what Hakeem Jeffries said. So let's pull that up and show that really quick. Well, listen, I don't support the DSA agenda as has been articulated by the DSA itself. Now, you're going to have individual members who have been elected in Democratic primaries. And if they are elected in the general in November, we'll be part of the House

[00:17:46] Democratic caucus. It's going to be a broad caucus. There will be progressives. There will be new Dems. There will be blue dogs. So, Rod, what do you think of that when you hear him saying that? Well, Hakeem Jeffries has a real management problem ahead of him. This is a new group of people who are likely to buck him on some things he's not used to being bucked on. So whether they're in the

[00:18:15] minority or the majority really makes no difference. This is going to be very hard to manage, which is really very good news for us, especially if they do manage to eke out a majority. But if they do, it will be eking one out. This is really the crucial message, I think, from Charlie Cook's latest numbers. The Democrats are going to have to pick up two-thirds of the truly competitive House races

[00:18:41] to be able to put together even an absolutely razor-thin majority. I don't really see that happening. I don't see how that works. This just isn't turning into a wave here. So in the majority, he might find himself held hostage by some of these people. In the minority, he's just got a huge problem and their numbers will grow because in the minority, the DSA has a better case to make.

[00:19:09] I would just come back to something you said a minute ago. When you look at what the DSA's platform really says, and wait, not just that, but Abdul El-Sayed, Francesca Hong, Zoran Mamdani, all of these guys will tell you they want to nationalize the means of production. They are just using

[00:19:35] straight communist, not just lingo, but policy positions on every single thing. And everything you just named off, proportional representation, rank choice voting, abolish the Senate, abolish the Electoral College, what it ends up being in every single case is a system that is absolutely dominated and run by the

[00:19:59] big city Democrat machines at the expense of the rest of the country. That's the purpose. And then once you've done that, you know, you can pack the Supreme Court, you can really get away with anything you want in what amounts to a parliamentary system. That's an elective dictatorship, even if it's worked for the British most of the time. It is not a system that America's founders would have countenanced or that

[00:20:26] they wanted for us. And I don't think it's a system that most Americans want. There's polling that shows, I wrote an op-ed about this, and it shows that around 40 percent of Americans either don't say the, when asked, what is something good about socialism? They'll say nothing, or they can't answer anything. They can't give anything that they think is good about it. So that gives me a little bit of hope.

[00:20:55] The majority of Americans aren't able to articulate what they think is good about socialism. And I can't imagine most Americans want us not to have a president or a Senate. They may not like who is running either the White House or the United States Senate right now, but I think they like being able to vote for the Senate and for their senators and for the president. Robert, there are four

[00:21:20] Democrat Senate nominees who've refused to back Schumer as their leader. So what do you think this says about who's actually leading the party right now? Well, I think the proof is in the pudding that the DSA and the Democrats, I mentioned it yesterday, really are not different. They are leading towards communism. That is what their establishment is. And it's very interesting because

[00:21:45] even the likes of those who want to run for president in all of these different lanes, as Khan pointed out, you have Pete Buttigieg, who was run out of town as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, because he did not have black support. He did not have the support of the police because really of an egregious tenure. He endorses all of the mantle of DSA calling for packing the

[00:22:10] Supreme Court, something that the Roosevelt administration wanted to do during World War II. This is there have always been key components, the far left progressive movement and the radicals within DSA. They're really putting their money where their mouth is. But the so-called mainstream now are endorsing it, including several of their presidential candidates. And Pete Buttigieg is perhaps

[00:22:33] the loudest one in that group of people. Yes, I think that you're right. And he's very, very radical. They are all very radical. Okay, let's shift down to Georgia, where Robert and I are sitting right now, because the Senate race heated up in Georgia this week. President Trump was in Marietta, Georgia recently, and Robert and several other members of our team were there. I was in D.C.

[00:23:02] working on the Save America Act, and I had a meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson at the same time the president was speaking. So I had to go do that to keep working on Save America. But Robert was there. And while the president was in Marietta, he went after John Ossoff directly. And we've got a clip of that. So we're going to show that clip really quickly. Georgia is a state that believes in common sense. And yet you're terrible. Senator John Ossoff is terrible. John Ossoff and the Democrat

[00:23:31] communists want to let the Marxists into power bankrupt your families and leave you totally undefended with wide open borders. And that clip was from RSBN, where Robert used to work. Okay, then now this past Sunday, John Ossoff was in Atlanta and he was answering back. So let's see what John Ossoff said. Better than pro-war, pro-tariff, pro-cutting-your-healthcare Trump puppet Mike Collins.

[00:23:58] And while the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn't want to do the job. So, Robert, being here in Georgia and as a Georgia voter, what do you think of this back and forth with John Ossoff and the president and how this race is going?

[00:24:28] Well, it's really quite interesting because for his reelection, John Ossoff has been very talented at remaining quiet amongst the media and trying to really prop up different services, including his big fight with the United States Postal Service and his ground game of reaching out to Republicans and Democrats. But now we've seen this very interesting shift in what I call the dark horse in this race. I really think John Ossoff is one of those second or third tier candidates wanting to seek the

[00:24:55] presidency. And because the DNC now pushing for that first primary to be in South Carolina, I think he's going to take this so-called regional lane. What do I mean by that? Go back 40, 50 years. There were once New England liberal Republicans and some Southern conservative Democrats. Now the ideological lines have been pretty clearly drawn between right and left and very few in the

[00:25:20] middle so-called moderates. What Ossoff is attempting to do here, I think, is to reach out to our neighbors in the Palmetto State and say, I can be the one to really carry that mantle. And what you saw there was a charade, was an act, because this is someone who looks good, sounds good, but really, is there substance in what he's trying to communicate? And has he really been a do-something senator? Ultimately, the people of Georgia here have to decide. But I would say that Mike Collins'

[00:25:49] opponent, the one who made sure the Lake and Riley Act got to the president's desk, the one who actually worked with President Biden to push very good legislation through his tenure as well, has actually done that grunt work, unlike Mr. Ossoff. So we'll watch this very interestingly happen right now, because I think he wants to be president of the United States. Yeah, I think that you are right about that. He wants to be president of the United States.

[00:26:18] Rod, there's a second Ossoff story this week that's getting a lot less attention. The publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times wrote an open letter accusing Ossoff of voting to block military sales to Israel while telling constituents back home he supports it. Basically, they're accusing Ossoff really of voting for it before he votes against it. So he votes for it on the votes that cost nothing, and then he votes against it on the votes that really matter.

[00:26:46] Do you think that's a fair reading of the Ossoff record? Yeah, I think so. And I think that's increasingly true of the Democrats generally. Unfortunately, a few of our Republicans too, not so much office holders as some people who would like to be, we have a particularly anti-Semitic candidate for governor here in Florida, who all of his funding

[00:27:11] seems to be coming from Arab Islamists who primarily support Ilhan Omar and Abdul El-Sayed. So, you know, why is he a Republican? How does that make any sense? But you have this growing dissonance, particularly in the Democratic Party, where Jewish voters still mostly vote for the

[00:27:35] Democrats. And honestly, the Democrats would like to see them dead. And they're pretty clear about that in their rallies and in all of these protests, where they're saying, you know, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Well, okay, what are you saying? You're saying we're going to destroy the state of Israel and everybody in it. The Mediterranean Sea will be running with blood. That's their position.

[00:28:03] And at some point, it crosses over from rhetoric into their real desire. We've certainly seen that with their Hamas buddies overseas. And we're seeing it here. So, no, Asif is going to have to answer for that at some point. But we might not like the answer because the Democrats are very clearly going the wrong direction on this. Yes, that is exactly right. And he's trying to walk a very fine line and

[00:28:32] keep both sides happy, which is why he's saying he's voting for something when he also in reality is voting against it. Okay, panel, stay with me. We're going to be back. And when we come back, we're going to hear and learn more about what Rod and Khan have been writing. Very quick break.

[00:29:16] Welcome back to The Jenny Beth Show with Rod Martin, Khan Carroll, and Robert McNeely. Khan, I want to start with you because you took on a fight inside our own movement. You wrote that the founders, that for the founders, the common good came from liberty. You draw the line between what you call autonomy, conservatives, and common good conservatives. Define that split for someone who's hearing this for the first time. Sure. So this all came out of originally a New York Times profile hit piece,

[00:29:45] if you will, on Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, where one of the old disgruntled staffers was complaining about the fact that Kevin Roberts was going around the Heritage Foundation saying that we should be going after conservatives, should be pursuing the common good over individual liberty. And so this became a huge dust-up on the right, where you have a lot of what I call autonomy conservatives that are much more concerned with individual rights and liberty. We're really

[00:30:11] attacking the Heritage Foundation and a whole kind of broader movement that focuses on the common good instead. And I think, you know, really an embodiment of what we would call autonomy conservatism would be Milton Friedman, right? This is a guy who was for the legalization of all drugs. He was for mass migration. He was for legalizing prostitution and pornography. And, you know, basically he embodied

[00:30:36] Stuart or John Stuart Mill's philosophy, which is that as long as it doesn't harm anyone specifically, then you should be able to go ahead and do it. Then it should be legal. And this is not what the founders of our nation thought at all. They understood that the family was the foundational unit of civil society and our nation, and that there were ways in which individual liberty trampled on and hampered family life from being established and grown, specifically gambling

[00:31:03] and a whole bunch of other vices. At the time of the Constitution's passing, you actually had blasphemy laws in the United States, you know, let alone allowing pornography. And so you have this libertarian wing of the Republican Party that has placed the individual above the family and the common good for too long. And this is a big part of the reason why marriage is at an all-time low in this nation, why fertility has an all-time low in this nation, while we are not successfully projecting ourselves into the future. And so as Republicans, as a party that seeks to conserve

[00:31:31] something, we must conserve that common good and conserve our values and project them into the future. Otherwise, what are we really even doing here? Yes. And you wrote that Madison, about Madison on, you quoted him on wanting rulers with the most virtue to pursue the common good. Let me just say that again. The most, the rulers with the most

[00:31:58] virtue to pursue the common good, and also that John Adams instituted for the common good. It's mean what the founders were talking about at this intersection between liberty and the common good. Right. Well, the founders understood that you can't have a constitutional republic. You can't have a republican democracy without a responsible, virtuous people. If you don't have that, then you can't

[00:32:25] have a republican democracy. And they understood that the best way, not even the best, but the only way that you can have a virtuous people is where you have the family as a foundation of civil society, where you have parents transferring, passing their values on to the next generation. So that next generation then has the future to have been the leaders. And that when family falls apart, when you don't have people getting married, when you don't have stable families where both parents are there,

[00:32:54] then that all breaks down. And that is something that the libertarian wing of the Republican Party just does not understand. Okay, now we're going to go to Rod. And by the way, I really like that article a lot, Khan, and I shared it with a few people on my team. It's really well written. So thank you for writing that. Rod, yours is on a much different subject. You wrote that America finally has a plan to

[00:33:20] close a dangerous undersea gap. And now we're going to build it. We've got the piece up, but you're saying that we're going to be working on submarines. What is, what does this mean exactly? And why is, why is it important that we're working to fill the undersea gap? Oh, there are many, many reasons. And of course, you know, one of the biggest is that we've simply

[00:33:46] let our shipbuilding capabilities in this country atrophy to nearly nothing. We have exactly one, one shipyard in this country that can build a nuclear surface combatant. We have two shipyards in this country that can build a nuclear submarine. Well, that's a bit of a problem. What if you get sabotaged? What if somebody lobs a missile into it? It doesn't have to be nuclear to put us back years.

[00:34:15] That's just dumb. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. But it's worse than that, because we also don't have the capacity to adequately maintenance the fleet. We aren't building anywhere near enough ships to replace the existing fleet. For example, we have four Ohio class formerly ballistic missile

[00:34:38] submarines redesignated a number of years ago in consequence of an arms control treaty, SSGMs or guided missile nuclear submarines. These things are a huge component of America's total naval firepower. Over 600 missiles on those four boats alone out of a total of about 8,300 spread across the entire

[00:35:05] U.S. Navy. Okay, they're all retiring. They are all going to be out of service no later than 2029. And this isn't something you can really extend. Their nuclear power plants are running out of fuel. You actually have to retire these boats. So what the president is doing, which is so essential to

[00:35:29] America's long-term security, is first of all, announcing plans for a fifth public shipyard. Public shipyards maintain the fleet. Private shipyards build it. He is giving Electric Boat and Newport News a long enough contract. We're looking at 10 Virginias and nine Ohio, not Ohio's, Ohio replacements,

[00:35:53] Columbia class. No, no, no. I'm sorry. That's wrong. 14 Virginias, five of the new Columbia class. That's enough upfront money that these shipyards can add staff. They can train skilled workers. They can add production. They can buy in bulk. They can bring down the total cost of the program, where Washington, as you all know, is much more infatuated with the idea of building one or two or three

[00:36:22] ships at a time and then completely re-debating the whole program. So you never get anything built. If you build anything, you know, it'll be one or two ships or, you know, three like we had with the sea wolf class submarines. You know, it's just ridiculous. This is not helpful and it balloons the cost. Trump always has his eye on the cost. This is a guy who has done incredibly, incredibly

[00:36:49] complex luxury real estate developments all over the world. He understands the benefit of this and this is reinvigorating, not just the attack submarine fleet that we have to rebuild, not just the ballistic missile submarine fleet that we have to rebuild. This is reinvigorating American shipbuilding in a way that can save us from a Chinese fleet that will outnumber our submarine fleet by 2030 already

[00:37:18] outnumbers our surface fleet. Fine. Those ships aren't as good as ours. Doesn't matter. At some point, quantity has a quality all its own. That's really important information. And it's something that I haven't seen a lot of reporting on. It's probably out there, but I just have missed it. It hasn't shown up in my feeds. So I'm glad that I was able to take a look at what you wrote and that you're elaborating on it. All right. A quick favor with the audience before we keep moving forward.

[00:37:47] If this kind of conversation is something you think you cannot get from the mainstream media, hit like and subscribe right now. It's free. It takes you about two seconds and it's how we get around the spin and we're able to put more of this constitutional conservative conversation on the air. All right. Let's go right back to it with Khan. You've also been writing about culture and as a mom of an Eagle Scout who later, my son, the Eagle Scout through hike the entire

[00:38:13] Appalachian Trail last summer from Georgia to Maine. And in college, he worked at a Boy Scout of America camp as a counselor. So this article that you wrote really made me sad as well as angry. You wrote about how the New York Times is celebrating the death of Boy Scouts in America. Explain why you wrote this and what your thoughts are. And by the way, I learned you too are an Eagle Scout. So

[00:38:42] congratulations on that. It's true. It's true. You should have also congratulated my son. My article mentions that my oldest is also an Eagle Scout. But yes, so this is all in response to a New York Times piece, opinion piece that talked about what a tremendous success the bringing girls into the Boy Scouts was. And of course, now the organization isn't even known as Boy Scouts of America. Now it's just, it's just scouting America. And you know, I, what I went through it through the

[00:39:11] piece is that her, this New York Times piece talked about how wonderful getting rid of the Boy Scouts was and replaced with scouting America was for girls. But it said absolutely nothing about how this benefited boys in any way whatsoever. In fact, in the limited amount of spaces where it mentioned boys at all, it was dismissive of them, you know, saying that they annoyed how to act around girls. That's what we need. I had to force girls into there so that boys could learn how to act around them as if they're not out, as if boys aren't around girls all day at school. And then they just had any

[00:39:40] reason why boys wouldn't want girls because of the jealous of their achievement. And all this is just, you know, not true. There's just been a huge decline in the amount of spaces for men, but more importantly, I think for boys to be together as boys. And this woman, a lot from the other people at the New York Times, they just don't have any concept of why gender specific spaces are necessary

[00:40:04] for boys so that they can see what it means to become men. So they don't have the distraction of hormones and girls around at the time. And, you know, I tell the story of an incident that happened while I was an assistant scout master at a scout camp where one of my, you know, scouts I found consensually with a girl from another troop. And, you know, just having to deal with the

[00:40:33] subsequent disciplinary steps for that, which is complicated, but it just changes the boys' behavior in noticeable ways to have girls there. And it just, it changes the nature of the event. And it's just something where, you know, we were talking about before in the common good, if we're not raising our boys to become men and father and husbands, then we're not preparing ourselves for the next generation. And again, what, what are we even really doing?

[00:40:58] Yeah, you're exactly right. And one of the things that I oftentimes still sit there and they'll talk about everything that's so good about this for, for the women and the girls who are going through the scouting program, the scouting, not the boy scout program. And it's an incredible program, the boy scout of America and the Eagles scout track. It's an incredible program. It teaches amazing,

[00:41:23] amazing things. And if they want to have an equivalent for girls and create a Eagle scout for girls program of America, like there's already the girl scouts and apparently that's not good enough for girls. And also it doesn't have the same kind of track that the Eagle scout does. But when you start merging the boys and the girls together, you get, it winds up being a completely different

[00:41:48] dynamic. Now summer camp is more about what, who's hooking up with who? Yeah, it is. It's about who's hooking up with who, especially once you're in a middle school and high school, it's not about learning how to do all the skills that you're able to learn how to do as a boy scout. Otherwise it really is just about who's hooking up with who. And my, um, son said that one of the things that he noticed is that when the girls started coming to the camp, the, the girls were,

[00:42:17] were trying to not to my son, but they were like trying their teenagers and their kids. And this is what kids do, but they're kind of being flirty with the counselors and that's not good. It puts those counselors in a terribly awkward, very awkward situation. And the boy scouts already had to go through so much to make sure that they're two level deep so that no one who is over 18 is ever

[00:42:43] with another child alone. And then you throw in this mix. It's flirting with it. Just, it's a, it is a mess. And I don't think that the people, they want something good for the girls and I can appreciate that. And at the same time, they would be really upset if boys were flooding into the girl scouts of America. It's just, it's not right. Boys deserve the same kind of treatment that we advocate

[00:43:08] for when it comes to no men and women's sports. I think it's the same. I totally, if I could just bring in one more aspect of this, you know, as I mentioned in the, in the story, uh, you know, my dad passed and I was so I didn't have a father figure in my life. And one thing that the boy scouts really offered me in addition to leadership and everything else was being able to go on, you know, week long back hiking trips, uh, or scouting trips where you not necessarily, you know, uh, had those dads there to

[00:43:34] mentor you, but you could watch their interaction with their sons. And so you could model what ideal, uh, fatherhood, what ideal, um, uh, being a dad was about. And you don't have those kinds of, uh, opportunities in, in mixed gender settings. And so I think that's another aspect of, you know, when we're trying to find ways to impress upon young boys, what real manhood looks like, getting rid of the boy scouts of America was a huge loss.

[00:44:00] It, it really was. And I'm glancing down right now because we're running out of time and I want to make sure that we, um, get through everything. Rod, very quickly before we take another break and we go to the final section. Let's talk about your focus on energy. You've talked about how energy dominance in the, in the liquefied natural gas revolution separately, what India, Indonesia, and Vietnam

[00:44:24] are doing beyond coal with, I, I don't follow energy policy. So teach me about it. And, and I love reading what you write because you're, you're talking about things from the geopolitical perspective. And it gets me out of that Washington DC focus and looking at the whole world. Well, and, and the whole world is what Washington is trying to manage. So it would be helpful if a

[00:44:49] few more people in Washington actually understood some of it, uh, that would be a good thing. Look, everything runs on energy. Everything runs on energy, take away energy, and you have a subsistence economy in that is, uh, in Hobbes's phrase, nasty, brutish, and short because, you know, women are spending 14

[00:45:11] hours a day just on housework. The man is behind a wooden plow and a, and a mule. And, and that is the high point of civilization. Maybe there are some wealthy people who become so by raiding another kingdom and they build a castle as a result. That's not a good world. The world began to be what it is

[00:45:36] now when we started harnessing crazy things like coal, which made it possible to build factories, made it possible to automate things enough that 80% of the population of the world didn't have to be a sharecropper or a serf or a slave. They could actually follow the gifts God gave them and go be whatever it was they were made to be. You will notice that when that happened, we didn't end up

[00:46:03] with 80% of humanity in a bread line. Exactly the opposite. When that number was true at the end of the 18th century, there were only about a billion people in the world. There are closing in on, right now, we're a little over 8 billion. Theoretically, we're going to hit 9 billion before that begins to reverse. And we feed all of those people on a third of the land we had in agricultural production when I was born.

[00:46:32] So, you know, what changed? Well, kids like me didn't have to become a sharecropper. I could go to graduate school. I could go to law school. I could have choices in life. I mean, who am I going to talk to about geopolitics on a farm? Am I going to talk to my mule? I mean, this is just silly. So all of humanity has been liberated by the advance of key technologies, all of which run on energy. So what

[00:47:02] is Donald Trump doing? Bottom line, Donald Trump's entire policy, whether you're talking about a trade deal with the EU, whether you're talking about a defense deal with Japan or South Korea, actually, even our trade talks with China, every single thing we're doing is moving the center of gravity of the

[00:47:23] entire energy industry from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of America. We are becoming the energy region of the planet. We now outproduce Russia and Saudi Arabia put together. I have it on good authority from people who ought to know that we're going to add another five million barrels a day of oil capacity over the next five to seven years. That's up from, by the way, when Bush left office,

[00:47:52] five million barrels a day total. You know, so now we're at almost 14. We're going to add another five. That's before you get to LNG, which is powering the world. And before you get to the five nuclear reactors that Donald Trump made possible to go critical in the last year, we had 40 years where we brought two nuclear power plants online. We've done five in a year. We intend to be energy dominant.

[00:48:22] And when we are, we can shape the world and we can get a lot of American troops out of harm's way in places where honestly they were guarding the global economy and now they're not going to have to. It is a very positive outlook, Rob. And we're going to talk a little bit more about international politics after this short break.

[00:49:03] Welcome back. We're going to do a rapid fire round from around the world. And I will have to do kind of short answers because we don't have a lot of time, but they are a little bit heavy topics. So we'll get through as many as we can. Rod, I want to pick up where you just were, and that is talking about energy independence and dominance. And then we are talking about the Persian Gulf versus the Gulf of

[00:49:30] America. I want everyone to take a look at this truth social post that President Trump posted today. We're bringing that up on the screen where he's saying the street of Hormuz will be a new U.S. territory. Just quickly, what is your response when you're seeing that and what do you make of it? I'll start first with Rod and then we'll go to Robert and Khan. He's trolling. This is not actually going to happen,

[00:49:56] but it is a very real threat. There is some point at which, and it's of a piece with what he just said about bombing Oman. They're talking to the Iranians about setting up a joint toll booth over an international waterway. Trump's response is, okay, you can try. If you somehow magically invent an Omani Navy we care about, then we'll just take the territory. And that's really the key. This

[00:50:25] president isn't going to be messed with. These guys need to take that seriously. And then Khan, what do you think? Well, I think Trump's in a bit of a bind here. I think he was riding off of a high from Venezuela, successfully taking out Maduro. I think he overestimated what the military could accomplish and what the Iranian regime would be able to withstand. And I don't think the war has gone

[00:50:50] how he thought it would. And so now he's in a tough spot where what it would take to actually topple the regime or to actually bring stability to the Strait of Hormuz is probably beyond what he wants to do. And so now he's negotiating with the party, the remnants of the Iranian regime, of the Republican Guard that don't have the credibility or capability of honoring any agreement.

[00:51:17] Okay. And then Robert, what do you think? Well, Iran and Oman are overlooking not only international law, but also maritime law and what they can do here. So I would, I think you agree with Rod in the sense of looking back to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Qatar that early visit in the second term of the president Trump to really unite the Emirates and also the Arab world against what's become a longstanding enemy. Now with Iran,

[00:51:46] we've go back to the accords, the peace accords between Jimmy Carter, of course, Saudi Arabia and Israel. We could only imagine a time where you'd have peace throughout the Middle East with these longstanding enemies. They're now working hand in hand with the United States and Israel. And really, the bad actor in the region is now all sites, all targets on the Iranian regime. So I think it's a

[00:52:11] huge turning point what has happened here. And I think ultimately, President Trump will be remembered for taking a bold stance and really working towards denuclearization because we've been 47 years at war because of this regime. And he is the first president to address this and to stop it. Well, and let me add just one thing since we were talking about energy earlier. It's really crucial

[00:52:36] to understand that no matter how this war comes out, I mean, whatever the end is, it almost doesn't matter because the geopolitical consequence is this. We are now massively increasing pipeline capacity from the UAE across Oman to Fujaira, across Saudi Arabia to Yanbu, possibly from Saudi Arabia to Ashkelon. Definitely, we've got contracts with Chevron and Conoco already signed from Iraq across Syria.

[00:53:06] That bypasses the Strait of Hormuz with about 70% of the oil that was transiting the strait before the war. And that's in stone now. That is happening. So you de-risk the strait, you eliminate Iran's leverage over it. And meanwhile, everybody to get supply is having to buy from Texas and Louisiana. Those are in many

[00:53:30] cases 20 year contracts. This is all good. It may get tied up with a bow or not, but Iran is off the map in the way that it was previously. And the energy picture is just gonna get better and better. And they're not going to be able to have a nuclear weapon, which is one of the primary goals President

[00:53:54] Trump stated. And I appreciate that. And you're right. We've been at war with Iran, whether we want to admit it or not, for almost my entire life since I was a young child. And so now President Trump is doing something about it. Khan, I think that you are right. It isn't going exactly how probably people in the administration exactly anticipated. The thing about war is that the other side always has a vote.

[00:54:21] And so you can't end unless the other side is going to end. And we're having to push through that. But the fact is for 47 years, Iran has not ended what they want to do with us. So we have to deal with it either on our time or we can try to find a way to pause things and hold them over until we have to deal with it in a few months or years or a future generation does. But yeah, I would I would

[00:54:49] just add one thing that I'm surprised hasn't come up over, which is China, which is that Iran's regime had signed to deal with China and they're about to get more missiles from China. And I do think one of the larger causes of why Trump did it when he did was to break up that emerging defense of the Iranian regime by China, because like, you know, it's now basically been taken off the map. And if Trump hadn't gone in there, you'd have a much stronger regime backed by China being able to keep fighting

[00:55:18] us and disrupting the entire region. And now now they can't do that. Yeah, that's a very good point as well. OK, we're going to shift gears a little bit now. I'm I'm mentioning Ukraine and Russia, but I I'm mentioning it for a slightly different topic than just Ukraine and Russia. In Ukraine, Zelensky has promised a response after 10 people were killed in a Russian missile missile strike and

[00:55:43] Ukraine launched a barrage of roughly 600 drones at Moscow. So that's what I want to hone in on is a 600 drones. And really, this is shocking because I think that the drone warfare is sliding under the radar for most Americans. In a war game recently, a Ukrainian drone regiment took out part took apart a 3500 strong

[00:56:09] United States armored brigade combat team and our tanks and heavy heavy armor were spotted and destroyed. Meanwhile, now in the past few weeks, the United States has agreed to have Ukraine deliver drones to us. So we're buying drones from Ukraine. And Rod, I really wanted your take on this particular subject and kind of be interested if you've been following what you're thinking as well. So this past Friday,

[00:56:39] I was on a flight and I was sitting next to a veteran and we were talking about the United States military. He said something to me and I mentioned that, well, I think we really need to to do something about drones and in America and our military. And he said, have you been, are you watching Lioness? And I said, I've watched it, but I haven't watched it this season. And he said this season, the third

[00:57:05] season so far has been about drones. And he recommended that I watch it. So I watched it over the weekend. There were only two episodes. So it wasn't like I binged on a whole entire show. Um, and I have to say that I recommend to everyone watching this show right now to go watch the first episode of season three of Lioness. Even if you don't want to get involved in the whole entire show,

[00:57:30] it is eyeopening how wars right now are being fought today. And that show really helped me conceptualize what, what is happening. So Rod, what do you make of drone, of the drone warfare situation in general and lessons we could be learning if from Ukraine specifically? Well, first it's only going to grow and we are getting better and better at dealing with it. And

[00:57:56] I really want to take hats off to Palmer lucky on this. Anderl is probably doing a better job on our side of the pond than anybody on this and on lower cost missiles. So hooray for Palmer. Uh, with that said, ultimately, this is not a cost game. You can win without changing the rules. We're trying to shoot down $35,000 drones with million dollar missiles. That that's crazy. And

[00:58:25] there's no way you can keep up with the enemy at that rate. So it becomes an energy story. You know, I don't want to be all energy all the time, but we've been talking about energy. So here are the two levels on which this is an energy story. First and foremost, for the United States to defend itself from the rapidly growing drone fleets that are emerging all over the world and that haven't

[00:58:49] even emerged yet. You can't be firing million dollar missiles at $35,000 drones. That just won't work. So what can you do? Well, a directed energy weapon can shoot them down for $2 a shot. And we're beginning to do that. Israel already has, uh, it's, it's iron beam system operational since the end of December. That's a relatively low power system. That's not going to shoot down everything

[00:59:18] we need to shoot down. Give it 20 years. You won't need missiles. Same thing for golden dome. The initial deployment of golden dome will be heavily missile based, but when you get out to 2.0 or 3.0, it's going to be heavily directed energy based and not just lasers, but also microwave systems like Leonidas that you just basically fire up a microwave oven at the air and a hundred drones fall out of the

[00:59:46] sky. It's really cool to watch. So, so these things make it incumbent upon us to have small modular nuclear reactors that can actually be transported near the front and actually charge these things up. It also makes battery technology all the more important, but the second level on which this is an energy story is that Ukraine has now taken 58% of Russia's oil refining and transport capacity

[01:00:15] offline. They're blowing up shadow fleet tankers like they're going out of style. This is how Russia makes money. This is also how Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviets ultimately by colluding openly with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to collapse the price of oil starting in 1985 and deprive the Soviets of the hard currency that they had to have to keep up with the arms race. That's what Trump is doing here indirectly

[01:00:45] through Ukraine. We're going to keep taking off that capacity until they cry uncle. And if they don't cry uncle, they're simply not going to be an important energy exporter by the end of this war. That won't come back because nobody has the technology to rebuild it except the United States. That is a very interesting take, Rod. I appreciate you sharing that. And then,

[01:01:11] Khan, before we go, I just wonder if you have any thoughts on drones, which I know is a weird subject. And also, you in the Washington Examiner have been writing about Chinese smart devices in homes and the surveillance risk. Is there anything you want to say about that before we head out? Sure. I think those are different subjects. I mean, on the one hand, you do have Trump's administration, the FCC taking action, regulatory action to make sure we do not

[01:01:38] have Chinese technology in our phones, in our computers. Because the United Kingdom recently found out a lot of their military equipment was transmitting information back to China that had Chinese components in it. So we need to make sure that doesn't happen definitely to our military, but I don't want Chinese components in my phone or my laptop either. So on the drones, I think that yes, the technology and energy are important parts of it. But I think we are

[01:02:07] gaining an invaluable insight into at least the next couple of complex by partnering with Ukraine and learning from their knowledge. The war game that you talked about, I'm so glad we're doing that. That is definitely something we need to do because whether it's Taiwan or any other theater, what is being learned in the battle between Ukraine and Russia right now is something we should be studying. And we should definitely be working with Ukraine to take what they've learned and apply it to our own military as quickly as possible.

[01:02:36] I completely agree. And it helps considering that America's what I just talked about with the war games and what happened to America with the war games regarding drones from Ukraine, the fact that we're now buying drones from Ukraine. It helps put in perspective some of the other things that happened a few years ago as the war broke out with Russia and Ukraine. Oftentimes hindsight can be 20-20.

[01:03:02] And I think now people might be going, oh, that might be why we wanted to make sure that we have a bit more of an ally or friendly relationship with Ukraine. And I understand we always can debate how much money should America spend in anywhere that we are overseas. But China, Russia and Iran have teamed up

[01:03:28] against America and Americans' interest. And paying attention and learning from what's happening with Ukraine and Russia, I think is something very important for the American military to do. And also, I think all of us as Americans really need to do it. It's why I know that it is a fictional show, but I really do encourage people to go check out that first episode of season three of Lioness. It

[01:03:55] just was, it really helped me visualize what I couldn't, what I was hearing in the news, but couldn't visualize otherwise. Rod, Kahn and Robert, thank you all so much for joining me today. I know we ran a little over, but you are always such a good panel to have. And I appreciate your time with me today and your expertise as well. Anytime, Jenny Beth. Thank you.

[01:04:20] You can find Rod Martin at the Rod Martin Report and Kahn at the Washington Examiner commentary page. He also has a book called Sex and the Citizen. And then Robert will be back co-hosting with me again soon. Now we're running over, so I don't have a whole lot of time, but let me just remind you of the call to action for this week. If you've not gone to a candidate's website and signed up to volunteer, I urge you to go to a candidate website today. It'll take you less than five minutes. Sign up

[01:04:49] and volunteer. Volunteer to make calls, to send text messages, to go door to door, to donate or leave a donation and donate. Leave a comment. Let me know you've done this. Let me know who you're volunteering for. We have to make sure we are working to get out the vote. And in the coming days, we're going to have more get out the vote opportunities for you from Tea Pretty Patriot Citizens Fund, our 527 Super PAC. But while we're waiting on those to be completely finalized,

[01:05:19] I just want to make sure that you're going ahead and getting active in a local campaign of your choice. Every single election matters, and they need you volunteering for it. We have 77 days until the election. I'm Jenny Beth Martin. This is The Jenny Beth Show, and we'll see you again tomorrow. If you enjoyed today's conversation, go ahead and hit like and subscribe. It really helps us reach more people who care about liberty and the Constitution. You can find this and other episodes

[01:05:47] at JennyBethShow.com, as well as Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, Instagram, X, and your favorite podcast platform. The Jenny Beth Show is hosted by Jenny Beth Martin. The Jenny Beth Show is a production of Tea Party Patriots Action. For more information, visit TeaPartyPatriots.org.