[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West. You are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Q&As on the Constitution every Thursday night. Mark Kelly, Pete Hegseth, Iran submarines, J.D. Vance, $1.8 billion.
[00:00:34] Yeah, Thomas Massey, the DOJ, Raul Castro. Yeah, we got a lot going on in the news, ladies and gentlemen, and we're here to talk about it. Happy to have you along, my fellow Americans. I'm Sam Bushman with Hard Hitting News, the network of views to use, and it all starts now. Dr. Bradley joins me on the Freedom Lovin', Fantastic, Faith-Filled, We're Taking America Back, One Heart, One Mind, One Issue at a Time, Friday. Dr. Bradley, welcome back, sir. Well, thank you very much.
[00:01:03] We did have that Q&A last night. I mean, we missed the week before because of a travel issue. Yes, sir. Then last night, I mean, our software for the link that we do this over, boy, they had upgraded their software, and I have never seen a software upgrade that is really an upgrade. And it blew up on us terribly. We got started late. But to make up for all of that, we had kind of a marathon.
[00:01:31] I did 10 questions. I've never done that before. Three hours? No. I mean, it should have been. I mean, with all of the topics that we had. How long? It was an hour and a half. Dr. Bradley got 10 topics done in 90 minutes? That's not even 10 minutes of topics, sir. Well, you're assuming I got them done. I mean, yeah, we talked about them, but none of them were done. Yeah, to Dr. Bradley, it's never done, ladies and gentlemen.
[00:01:58] But I'm learning that you can summarize and get things done in quite a bit of a hurry if you really try. Is it completely vetted and completely well done the way it ought to be? No, it's not. But you're only going to get a certain amount out of modern times, right? Yeah, I think you're right. So anyway, we do what we can. But the 10 questions for me in an hour and a half was, I mean, it was monumental. Yes, indeed, ladies and gentlemen.
[00:02:28] Let's kick off and talk about some of these because they are critical. Let's talk about this Arizona Senator, Mark Kelly. The question is, did he divulge classified information on CBS, quote, face the nation? And the debate's out. Pete Hexeth says, yes, he did. Whereas Mark Kelly said, no, I didn't. What are you talking about? And so the debate is about whether he did or didn't.
[00:02:57] Because the meeting, some say, you know, the reality, it was classified. Others are saying, no, Hexeth kind of babbled about it in a public forum already anyway. So he did not. And the debate really is, you know, what's the truth there? And it's hard for me to know because there's so many things that are classified that ought not be classified in the first place. That's a problem. Secondly, when people give pieces of something, if you explain something slightly different, did they not cross the line? But you did cross the line, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But you know what?
[00:03:27] It seems like everything these days that matters is classified. And that's kind of the problem I have with it. Now, I'm not really here to defend Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, whether he divulged classified information or not on CBS's Face the Nation. But I don't know why these clowns go on these popular TV shows in the first place or whatever. I don't think they have real discussions. I don't think they focus on the real issues that we want to hear about and focus on in the first place. And so to me, to some degree, it's a clown show. I don't care if, you know, what the story is.
[00:03:55] And sadly, in America today, they can make up whatever they want to make up and they can accuse you and run you through the ringer and use lawfare on you. And pretty soon you're just beat up as if you had done something wrong, whether you did or didn't. And so it's a very big issue. But to me, they're making too many things classified. Everything seems to be classified these days. But, you know, did Arizona Senator Mark Kelly really divulge classified information? He says no. Hegseth says yes. Yes.
[00:04:23] The mainstream press says, hey, Hegseth did divulge the details in an open hearing. So the answer is no. What do you say, doctor? Well, you know, we got disconnected here for a little while because of the technical issue. But so I don't know all you talked about with when I was gone. You know, talk behind my back is what you're doing.
[00:04:45] But at any rate, unquestionably, this thing is a there's a target on the back of Kelly from from Hegseth. Hegseth got real heartburn about him on Face the Nation CBS. Yes. Senator Kelly, basically. And I've gone back and checked. You know, I mean, that's the thing about the Internet. It's never gone.
[00:05:15] You could go find things. Yes. And that's why I don't think Hegseth. I think I don't think Hegseth is right on this. I think Hegseth did release this stuff in a in a public hearing. And I don't think there's anything here. I just think it's a clown show. I think it's eventually an attack on the senator, whether you like the senator or not, isn't the point. Yep. And the senator also has protected speech as in his assignment. But you know what?
[00:05:39] I, you know, it's been years and years and years since I've been in the closed door sessions about, you know, classified stuff. But my impression is that the first and almost only response about classifying something is that, yes, it must be classified. Stuff is classified about mouse droppings in the kitchen. Well, and that's the problem here is that everything seems to be classified these days that matters, which means you can't talk about anything ever.
[00:06:07] And at what point do you lose freedom of speech, First Amendment rights? What point do you have a right when they work for us in the first place and then they classify things against us? I'm not saying there's no room for classifying because I think there's some things that do need to be. The problem is that it's supposed to be very narrow in scope when it is classified. We make it so wide you can drive a semi through the thing. And so we've got a lot of issues with relations to this discussion. But did he break it or is he? No, I don't think so. I just think it's a target on his back.
[00:06:34] Again, Donald and company want to replace everybody they don't like. And they want to do it by hook and crook and money. And at the end of the day, it's not about elections anymore. Right. The First Amendment was not written to protect pornographic material or profane words or anything like that. It was written to protect political speech that needed to be aired if there were concerns about the direction something was going. It needed to get a public hearing.
[00:07:04] And that's exactly what this is intended to prevent. And so it's an exact, exact. It violates the First Amendment just as much as an establishment of a national religion. So here's the question. What was the information that was supposedly discussed that is classified that's a problem? Do we dare discuss it or do we get in trouble too? Well, neither you nor I have access to any of this kind of stuff. We can only go on what's the public record.
[00:07:33] And, of course, I do search. I try and scrub a lot of different sources out there and try and cross-check and, you know, piece together things. You know, the idea that bits of information can be strung together is a unique art, I think, the way things happen today. But at any rate, what was discussed was the fact that we have expanded, dangerously expanded, high-priced missile systems to the point that we are, you know, basically running on fumes.
[00:08:01] Yeah, so the bottom line is what basically Kelly said and what others have said, and we've read this in multiple news reports, and that's why I say it's not classified. And that is that, hey, our reserves for, you know, military capabilities have been depleted so bad over the, you know, Ukraine-China or Ukraine-Russian thing, now over the Iran thing, to where we've depleted our reserves so bad that when anybody speaks out about it, the administration goes berserk and says, oh, it's not true.
[00:08:30] But yet we hear and see it everywhere. Mark Kelly's just the latest to articulate it. And now he's getting abused for this. My response is, let's do an audit of the Federal Reserve like Donald Trump promised. Let's also just roll in and do a kind of an assessment. Where are we really? What's the truth? And you could say, well, Sam, no, we can't let our enemies know how depleted we are. Well, you don't think they already know? They have a good idea of how much you've expended already, probably more than the average American does. So you're not really hiding anything from anybody in this classified debate in the first place.
[00:09:02] There's no question about that. And the fact of the matter is, which is even kind of more scary. I mean, yeah, it's scary where we are right now in our stockpiles. But in addition to that, they are not being replenished. You don't wave a magic wand and suddenly, presto, changeo, all the assembly lines have come up and everything's running through. And there's water coming out of the pipe at the end of the pipe and they're catching them in their arsenal and everything's going to be hunky-dory. It will be years in some instances.
[00:09:32] And in fact, you know, while they say, oh, we've got all these 155 millimeter artillery rounds out, we're good with it. No. And that's where our real depletion came was in the Ukraine thing. It may be eight years before we can catch up, five years at least, I would say, on so low. That's a mainstay. That's like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for kids.
[00:09:56] I mean, that's stuff that gets used continually in a military situation, particularly when you have a large-scale war. Well, and that's why I say there's no secret, though. You can see what we've been firing. They've got – I'm sure they've got watchers in China, watchers in Iran, watchers all kinds of places that are doubling down and verifying what we've expended in this thing thus far. We've got reports that we've already spent over $25 billion in just the first few days of this thing where the real number is we don't know.
[00:10:23] So there's a lot of ways that you can back into those kind of things to realize that, hey, you know, how much did we start with? How much did we have – you know, nobody knows the facts, but at the same time, how much can you really have versus how much can you expend? You know, so anyway, sad deal. Kelly's got a target on his back for nothing, in my opinion, and I think we need to have candid discussions that everything can't be classified. Okay, that's the problem here. That's my take.
[00:10:53] All right, Iran's summary capabilities. Summarines, baby, let's talk about it. Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit legal foundation committed to protecting our unalienable right to publicly acknowledge God. The Foundation for Moral Law exists to restore the knowledge of God in law and government, and to acknowledge and defend the truth that man is endowed with rights not by our fellow man, but by God. The Foundation maintains a two-fold focus.
[00:11:22] First, litigation within state and federal courts. Second, education, conducting seminars to teach the necessity and importance of acknowledging God in law and government. How can you help? Please make a tax-deductible contribution, allowing foundation attorneys to continue the fight. You may also purchase various foundation products as well at morallaw.org. Located in Montgomery, Alabama, the Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501c3, founded by Judge Roy Moore.
[00:11:51] Please partner with us to achieve this important mission. Morallaw.org. Are you watching what's happening in our country and asking, what can I do? Join the John Birch Society in Salt Lake City, June 6th, for a powerful one-day conference. The day includes a host of respected speakers, two meals, and meaningful connections. You'll gain clarity on the issues and walk away with practical steps you can take to your community.
[00:12:17] Reserve your seat today at JBS.org forward slash SLC26. That's JBS.org forward slash SLC26. Okay, so Sam mentioned this Iranian submarine stuff just before the break.
[00:12:43] And this is something that nobody puts in the mix ever. It doesn't seem to me. So, here's the deal. We have been told time and time and time and time and time again, every time Trump's beaten his own back with his hand for his accolades, he says how we've decimated everything military in Iran. Not even close, my friend.
[00:13:07] Well, I'm thinking this is off topic a little bit, but I don't think that they've destroyed even 30% of the missile response capability that Iran can do. I think it's closer to 20%, but, you know, what do I know? Well, China can replace it in two seconds anyway. Well, China does have access, and they've got a really good transportation system. But that's different than submarines.
[00:13:36] And he always talks about how the Navy is on the bottom of the ocean. In this case, it may really be true. Because Iran has a fleet, if you will, of kind of mini-subs. I think they've got like seven crew members. And they're only like probably 95 feet long. They're little tiny guys. They're called Gatter Class, right, or something? Yeah, and they can sit for extended periods of time. I don't know how you say that.
[00:14:02] Yeah, the thing is that they're designed to perfectly operate under the conditions that are found in the Straits of Hormuz. They're only like, you know, maybe 160 meters or something like that. Well, they say they're tiny. They're considered basically midget submarines or mini-summaries or whatever. They're designed for shallow waters, like the Straits of Hormuz, right? Absolutely. And they can sit on the bottom. They don't have to break the surface to launch.
[00:14:32] I mean, it's really, you know, really the water is probably only about 60 meters deep. So it's under 200 feet. Yeah. So our big submarines don't operate well in that. They're not deep water things. And they can be quiet on the bottom and suddenly, poof. Now, they may be there and they may not be there. But here's the issue. With the threat that they might be there, with the impression that they might be there,
[00:15:01] the people that are owning the boats and are insuring the boats are going to say, not on my watch, baby. I'm not going to send in this multi-million dollar. Of course they are. That's exactly what they're going to say. Now, these Gatter class submarines or whatever, it's G-H-A-D-I-R. It's a good deer. I don't know how to say it. But they're small, tiny subs, folks. They're used for ambush tactics, mines, torpedoes, and shadow water.
[00:15:30] And they've got, you know, a bunch of them. And so they don't really have a nuclear, they claim. But I don't really know. Are you confident they don't have any nukes subs? I'm pretty confident they don't. I mean, but here's the deal. If there's a possibility, I mean, see, that's one of the things that, you know, if somebody thinks you might be carrying a concealed carry handgun, they're less likely to be belligerent and come and try and, you know,
[00:16:00] assault you and your family. If they think, wait, mate, this guy, Gadeer is the submarine. Is that how you say it, Gadeer? Yeah, whatever. All right. So here's the deal with the possible threat of a response. I mean, it's just like in a one-on-one conflict. If somebody thinks you've got a concealed carry handgun on you, they're less likely to come at you with a knife.
[00:16:28] And that's kind of where we are in this. And that's one of the reasons, not the only reason, but one of the many reasons that the Straits of Hormuz are still closed. And even if you don't have enough to really stop everybody, if you could make one good hit or one good something to where people believe it's real, then, you know, people will believe that the fleet's way even bigger than it is. So there's a lot of those tactics being used along with stealth that are really making a difference too, right?
[00:16:59] Absolutely. So I tell people all the time, the conditions that existed on the 27th of February, 2026, are never going to return. They never will. Somebody is going to be a gatekeeper at the gates of Hormuz, whether it's Iran, whether it's one of the Emirates or whatever, whether it's the United States Navy or whatever. Or China.
[00:17:28] China is a very real possibility. And the fact of the matter is that if you think that it's going to return, presto chango, back to what it was, the 27th of February, it isn't going to happen. It's not going to happen this year, next year, or ever. No, we've changed the world forever. We've also changed the reality of ports and waterways forever. You know, Donald Trump started out battling about the, you know,
[00:17:57] canal we gave away, right? And he started out his administrations that way. And now that's being battled about by China. And now this. And pretty soon it'll be, you know, five or ten different hotspots. And I'm convinced that what you're going to see is nothing but pause and halt in trade over and over and over and over related to this stuff going forward. You're not going to see a stable trade routes in the world anymore, I don't think ever. Well, and boy, I'd love to talk at length about how the different deck they're playing with now
[00:18:27] in terms of weaponry and how that is modified. But let me just, because of the trade routes, let me just, what you just said about that, I'll briefly touch on something. China and Iran, for example, have been working for years, a long-term relationship with methodologies of overland routes, rails and roads. And the interdiction of those is so different than the interdiction on the high seas. And let's say you take out a bridge or a, you know, a road or something like that with an airstrike.
[00:18:57] You got the little worker bees out there the next day, put them back together. That's what happened in World War II even. And look at what happened in a Ho Chi Minh trail or this. Well, and even the Israelis have become expert at that. You blow something up and they basically go back to business the next day. Exactly. So what's happened is I believe that the resupply routes for China to Iran are very viable at this point. And you said, oh yeah, presto change.
[00:19:26] Oh, they resupplied them when they run out. People were saying, oh no, how are they going to get in? They can't get in with the ports are closed. The naval block, you know, yes, naval block. And don't be so not quick on the draw. Well, they're even talking about overland deliveries of things now in certain situations too, which will change the game too. They are doing it. Right. They are doing it. That's their roads and bridges and rail routes. They're well-developed and they've been working on it for years.
[00:19:54] Iran has been preparing for this situation for decades. And the United States... They have and so has China. They've built up plans and everything else. And so, you know, we're basically being taken for a ride and they're watching the depletion of our military capabilities. They're watching us get spread out around the world too thin. We should have learned from the England folks back in the day that that's not a good idea. We shouldn't play the world's cops. We should defend America. I don't know why gas prices are going to hit $5 a gallon this summer in the United
[00:20:23] States since we don't even get oil from that region. But nevertheless, that's what we're dealing with. And the fact is people don't understand this either, but that transportation dollar is going to really back into and affect everything. And now we're starting to see less containers come to the ports of the United States as a result of all this. What does that mean? Less stuff on your shelves, doctor? Well, that's true. But it even goes back to the original source, the dirt.
[00:20:49] I mean, you look at the petrochemicals that are necessary for fertilization. And 30% of the world's fertilization chemicals, the precursors of that, come through the Straits of Hormuz. This whole thing, I mean, it is like we have had imbeciles running the program and people say, oh, you're being too harsh. Either that or people who want to destroy America. That's one or the other. I think it's interesting how we always think they're stupid or dumb or they don't know what's going on or they're clueless or whatever.
[00:21:18] I think it's all by design and they know exactly what they're doing. Roger that. And the problem is that maybe we'll get to this in a while, I guess. But but I think, as you infer, China may ultimately control that scene. And we're seeing that right now, even with the Trump-Putin visits. And we could talk about that. We'll get to those visits in a minute. But no doubt this is a serious thing. And we're battling so many different topics.
[00:21:47] It's not even funny. For example, J.D. Vance now has become the, quote, press secretary because of, you know, the real ones, I guess, on maternity leave and this kind of stuff gets more maternity leave than probably anybody in the country. But nevertheless, I guess they say, you know, the defenders say he's doing a great job. He's got an even hand. He's got a reasonable head. He's being set up for 28 to be president. And he's really looking good. And the critics are going, yeah, not so much. I don't see why we need to have the vice president, the press secretary.
[00:22:17] Can't we find somebody else that can do a good job of that? Or is it really that they're just kind of kind of previewing him, testing him to see if 28 works? I think that they're putting him on stage. Exactly. Because it's so easy to get somebody else to be the secretary. Does he really have time for that? And the answer is no, but he needs the public eye. He needs to prove that he can really do it. And if they say, well, he's been the VP, he's been a senator, he's been this, he's been that, he's been. And not only that, he can deal with the public and the media and everything else.
[00:22:44] He deals with more of a steady hand than Trump. Man, this guy's good. He's got to be. And so now they're debating whether it's Vance or Rubio. And they say Rubio comes across a little better. Problem is Rubio can't be president. So I don't know how that's going to work. Well, there's so many things you're talking about. I'd love to run them down to the end, pull on all the strings. But I watched the press secretary, what do you call it, tryouts, I guess. I don't know. Vance did.
[00:23:13] And honestly, I think that he is such a much more intelligent, articulate, communicative communicator of principles. And he shows so much better than Trump. Trump has worn out a few phrases. You're stupid. You know you're stupid. The newspaper you represent is stupid. But how could you guys be so stupid as to be? I'm not going to answer that. Are you still on the? He doesn't give answers.
[00:23:41] Vance at least made an effort to do a lot of those things. And like I say, it was much more intelligently presented. There was much more interaction with. And it was kind of a banter almost with the news corps that was there. It did get into a pushback with one guy. When we get back, let's talk about that pushback. Let's also talk about Marco Rubio. Because Marco Rubio is pretty slick, too. Marco does a pretty good job. I just have a problem with Marco Rubio becoming president.
[00:24:10] I don't think he's constitutionally qualified. So we'll get into that. I also want to talk about the $1.8 billion. I think I deserve some of that cash. Not just kidding. We'll talk about it. Hold on. Scott Radley, ladies and gentlemen. ToPreserveTheNation.com is website. Check out his weekly webinars. Get a ticket to write. Also check out his collegiate series for homeschoolers and collegiate professors. ToPreserveTheNation.com. FreedomSizingSun.com, I should say. I'm Sam Bushman. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.
[00:24:39] God save the Republic of the United States of America.