Radio Show Hour 2 – 03/03/2025

[00:00:13] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West. You are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. All right. Happy to have you along, my fellow Americans. Sam Bushman live on your radio. Hard-hitting news the network refused to use, no doubt, continues now.

[00:00:40] This is the broadcast for March the 3rd in the year of our Lord, 2025, Hour 2 of 2. Promoting God, family, country, protecting life, liberty, and property. We had an incredible hour with Dr. Scott Bradley. Author of the book and DVD series, To Preserve the Nation. Check it out at freedomsrisingsun.com. You can also sign up for his weekly webinars every Thursday night, Q&As on the Constitution and more. Check that out. We talked about today marks the National Anthem's 94th birthday.

[00:01:06] We talked about shame, in my opinion, President Trump and VP Vance eviscerated Zelensky on the world stage from the Oval Office. Zelensky leaves the White House without signing any minerals deals. Trump erupts when Zelensky suggests that the U.S. might feel it in the future. And sadly, I think Zelensky might be right. We might feel it in the future, and I pray we don't. But if we continue to be the hegemonist nation that we've been, continue to provoke. And wow.

[00:01:35] Zelensky rejects calls for an immediate ceasefire amid continued war with Russia. Our founding fathers, ladies and gentlemen, rejected U.S. hegemony. And I say shame, now Donald Trump has relaxed limits on these drone strikes.

[00:01:54] Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a directive restoring, quote, authority to commanders in the field, cutting barricadic red tape and allowing for, quote, quicker, more decisive action against threats. So now you've got literally field commanders making decisions to make airstrikes downstream from the president. Congress is supposed to be in charge of all this stuff.

[00:02:21] They've given their power and money to the president, and then he's basically turned it on its head. And shame giving it to these commanders out in the field. These changes reflect a broader shift towards a, quote, stronger, more decisive military posture, one that basically prioritizes American strength and security over what they call endless deliberation. I don't think so. What I think we've done is take the checks and balances out of this. And if we're not very careful, we're talking wars and rumors of wars.

[00:02:51] Tucker Carlson issues warning to Ukraine saying, hey, all your crimes are going to be brought forth. Well, that's true. But you've got crimes on the United States part, Russia's part, Ukraine's part. I don't know that that's going to do any good. But meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson backs, quote, temporary spending bill, says Congress should codify Doge proposed cuts later down the road.

[00:03:21] So we kick it off, and Donald Trump and all of his commanders are pushing for war, and we're picking sides. It's schizophrenic. You've got Joe Biden picking Ukraine. Now you've got Donald. I don't know if he's picking Russia or not. Time will tell. But very strange. Now we've got an opened up international question. Europe on one side of it with Ukraine. We're, I don't know if we're on the other side or what we are. Nevertheless, we're committing airstrikes, increasingly so.

[00:03:51] Lowell Nelson, welcome to the broadcast. Your summary of all this. What do you think? This is disaster. Well, it's certainly kind of a mixed up world. I think the Trump administration has injected some new thoughts into the international dialogue. And, of course, that's what we're going to talk about a little bit this morning.

[00:04:16] Regarding the Zelensky incident, you know, if Trump really wants to make nice with Russia, he's not going to be able to do that if he continues to supply munitions and bombs and offensive weapons to Ukraine. Of course, that's what Zelensky came over here for. He wanted more support from the United States.

[00:04:38] And Trump wasn't willing to give him that support because he wants to make nice with Russia because he has something else in mind. So, you know, he's mixing it up a bit. And, you know, this isn't all bad. So we'll talk about that as the broadcast unfolds. Sam?

[00:05:28] Yeah. You know, back on February 13th, which is just a couple weeks ago, Trump made a really strong statement. He said there's no reason we should be spending a trillion dollars a year on the military and that we should cut defense spending in half. He said we should not be building any more nuclear weapons when we already have enough to destroy the world 50 or 100 times over. And he added he hoped to get commitments from Russia and China to do the same.

[00:05:56] Well, that precipitated the next day a huge drop in defense stocks. They had their biggest one-day drop event ever. And, you know, so Duncan is writing here. He says, I know that many millions hate Trump with great passion, but I hope they can get past this hatred to at least support him in this area. All peace-loving Americans should get behind this effort. End of quote. Well, unfortunately. Let's be clear what the effort is.

[00:06:24] We're talking about decreasing the war budget, if you will. Right now it's about a trillion dollars, and he's proposing to make it a half a billion or a half a trillion. I'm sorry. It's a trillion dollars now. We're saying to make it a half a trillion. I agree 100% with that agenda as long as we do it right, though, and keep our nose clean. If we go ahead and defend all these leaders around the world and create this blowback and then we try to cut the budget at the same time, I don't know how well that's going to go. But I support reducing the budget.

[00:06:51] I just think we need a George Washington-esque humble foreign policy to back it up.

[00:07:24] Yeah. We need a hegemonic nation, and yet that's what we are. We need to change that. So in this article by Representative Duncan, where he's talking about, you know, Trump is going to reach out to both China and Russia and invite them to reduce their budgets as well. Here's something I never heard before.

[00:07:50] Representative Duncan writes that President Eisenhower, in one of the earliest drafts of his famous farewell address, planned to criticize what he called the military-industrial-congressional complex. However, he and or his advisors decided to remove the word congressional part from the final speech, end of quote. You know, that's amazing, Sam, that Eisenhower would indict Congress along with the military-industrial complex.

[00:08:20] Now, that term I've heard a lot of, Sam, military-industrial complex. We've heard that for a couple of decades. And, of course, you know, Eisenhower knew 70 years ago that it was really the military-industrial-congressional complex. Yeah, and let me explain why so people understand this. Sure. The House of Representatives controls all spending. They hold the power of the purse, if you will. Go look at your supreme law of the land and the Constitution if you don't believe me.

[00:08:49] And so the House of Representatives can clearly shut it down or crank it up at their will. And the reality is they've been – so when Speaker Mike Johnson comes back and says, Yeah, let's go ahead and back this temporary spending bill. Let's leave the Doge stuff for later. Yeah, Congress should codify Doge spending cuts later but pass this temporary bill. I'm saying shame on the Speaker. This is exactly what we're talking about. What a best – what a great way to come out of the gate and say, Look, we chopped military spending in half.

[00:09:20] We're going to move forward with a George Washington-esque foreign policy. Wow, what a message around the world we could send, lol. But we're missing the opportunity right now. Absolutely right, Sam. Because Eisenhower was really echoing George Washington, who in his farewell address warned that large military establishments are, quote, inauspicious to liberty, end quote,

[00:09:45] and are, quote, particularly hostile to Republican liberty, end quote. Also, James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, said liberty would be, quote, crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. The best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support, end of quote.

[00:10:11] So Representative Duncan in his column here explains the problem with having an immense military is not only the cost, but also the eagerness to go to war. As President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said, quote, What's the point of having this superb military if we cannot use it, end of quote? Wow. I mean, that is a huge temptation, right? You've got a shiny new car you want to drive around. Go ahead and skip the break. Continue, Lowell.

[00:10:40] Shiny new military. You want to lord it around the world, which is exactly what we've been doing for 70, 80 years, unfortunately, Sam, in a hegemonic way. And exactly what we point out to be the problem. The solution's right in front of us. Cut the spending. Trump's right. Chop that military budget in half. But we don't need to pick sides in Russia and Ukraine. We don't need to pick sides. Why do we need to do that? Why don't we just basically give them a framed copy of the Constitution, both of them, and say,

[00:11:10] Gentlemen, good luck. Our prayers are with you. If you have any questions, here's our email address. If you have questions about clarity, how to set this up, you all can do it. And you can have the greatest economic engine the world's ever known. You can have the checks and balances and the peace. You can look to God, not government. You can do all these incredible things. And, man, we're going to give you a copy free. What about that idea? If you have any questions about that, ask Scott Bradley and Sam Bushman. Yeah, we love you. And if you want an email address, we can get some questions from constitutional scholars answered

[00:11:39] and get you on the right track. We're ready to go. What do you need us to do? See, that, in my opinion, is the diplomatic move we need to make. We don't need to pick sides. Why make Zelensky look like a fool? Now you've got this clown congressman basically going, or no, Senator Lindsey Graham, going, Yeah, I tried to warn Zelensky not to start a fight with Donald. Now Zelensky's probably going to have to be replaced. So what? We're going to force a regime change over this? How did Zelensky get there in the first place, Lowell?

[00:12:07] I mean, you dig in and we're involved at every turn. That's exactly right. One other point that Duncan makes in this column, Sam, I just want to end with this. You know, this is something I'd never heard before, never read before reading this column. Apparently, there is a book named Ike's Bluff, written by Evan Thomas.

[00:12:30] And basically, when Defense Secretary Neil McElroy warned Eisenhower that further cuts would harm national security, while Eisenhower reportedly replied, quote, If you go to any military installation in the world where the American flag is flying, then tell the commander that Ike says he will give him an extra star on his shoulder if he cuts his budget. There will be such a rush to cut costs that you'll have to get out of the way, end of quote.

[00:13:00] In other words, And I'm saying that's sound advice. Bring it. Yeah, absolutely. In other words, folks, But what we've done, Lowell, right now, it's in the New York Times right now. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a directive restoring authority to commanders in the field, cutting bureaucratic red tape. They can literally call their own strikes without even checking with the president or Congress now. Wow. Yeah, that's dangerous. Very dangerous.

[00:13:29] Yeah. It is insanity. And so the problem that I have is this. Trump is conflicted. On one hand, he wants to be the tough man. On the other hand, his military leaders are cranking up the military industrial complex machine. Congress sitting idly by as they give their support. But that goes against Trump's instincts. Trump's instincts are, hey, cut everything, even the global defense budget. I commend Trump for this. And the reason that I bring this up like this is I'm for Trump.

[00:13:58] I'm for America. I'm for a humble foreign policy. And so when Trump's conflicted on this, look, Trump, you cannot give your commanders in the field the ability to conduct these strikes spending endless money. Taking the power away from not only the president, which he shouldn't have in the first place, but from Congress. You've got to restore the power to Congress. You've got to reduce the spending. So the problem is I see a conflict here, and I'm trying to point out the solution to this conflict.

[00:14:26] The solution is to have a humble foreign policy that matches your great instinct, President Trump, which is to cut everything, including the military industrial complex budget that seems to be congressionally. I don't know what you want to call it. Sidestep, but funded? Shame. Speaker Mike Johnson says, hey, let's go ahead and pass the temporary spending bill. We'll worry about Doge later. See, that's disaster. We're doing the absolute opposite.

[00:14:54] So you've got a schizophrenic foreign policy going on right now. Well, that's the problem. Yeah, that's well stated, Sam. You're right. Because Trump's instincts are right, but we need congressional backup, right? He needs Congress to have the guts to cut, and they're not willing to cut right now.

[00:15:17] Both parties have been spending big money for decades, right, for years and years, both on warfare and welfare. And so they just ratchet it up and up and up. And so he's got both parties. He's going against the grain. He's swimming upriver, and it's a hard slog, Sam.

[00:15:42] But, you know, he's got to make it happen, and the people have to support this direction, cutting everything, at least by half. Just cut everything and then rein in your own foreign policy. I mean, I'd look forward to the day when the dollar would collapse, Sam, only because it would mean that U.S. would not be the world's bully anymore, the world's policeman anymore. And, you know, people in countries around the world would finally have an opportunity or a bigger opportunity anyway to have peace.

[00:16:11] Well, and Zelensky warns, hey, you Americans are going to feel it. And Trump just kind of gets in his face and gets his back all up and gets all crazy. But you know what? Sadly, I think Zelensky's right. If we keep this hegemony idea, if we keep basically dismantling our checks and balances in America to where we just create trikes everywhere and everything else, we are going to someday feel it. They're going to get sick of it. And the world's a smaller place, as Dr. Bradley said every single day, hey, they can reach out and touch somebody when they want to. And we won't be able to stop them. And it's just not good.

[00:16:39] But you know what? Alistair Crook jumps into this discussion. Lowell? Yeah, he does so in a way that reports what Defense Secretary Hegseth said at the Munich Security Conference just recently. Basically, he answered four questions or he gave four no way type to these four points. Ukraine and NATO, no way. A return to pre-2014 borders?

[00:17:09] No way. Peacekeeper backstops? No way. U.S. troops in Ukraine? No way. That's what our Defense Secretary said, right, at the Munich Security Conference. Four big no's. And he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not there forever, which even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO. Now, clearly, the U.S., you know, according to this speech anyway, U.S. is cutting away from Ukraine. And I hope that's the case.

[00:17:39] You know, he says that's the case. I hope that becomes the case. And that the U.S. intends to normalize relations with Russia. And there again, I hope that's the case. I hope we would normalize relations with all countries. Amen. Agreed. A hundred percent. And then Vice President Vance criticized European leaders for retreating from shared values and that they were repressing and censoring and jailing individuals for their speech. He excoriated them for their actions.

[00:18:07] Quote, of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your democracy? End of quote. Right. And so it's a good point, right? If European leaders are so, you know, if they're confident at all in the way they're running their countries, then why would they be frightened by the, you know, talking points of a few activists in their countries, right? I mean, it's a good question.

[00:18:33] Vance clearly implied that the U.S. would no longer support Europe if Europe continues to suppress political constituencies and arrest people for their speech. He said, quote, if you're running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. End of quote. Well, my question, Sam, is were Hegstaff and Vance, you know, are they just talking without backing up their talk with action?

[00:18:58] I mean, is it just bluster or does the Trump administration have well-founded plans to deliver on these threats or promises? And Crook, Alistair. And I will tell you, I think it's a mixed bag. I think on one hand we have a schizophrenic policy. We've got a lot of leaders that are against us on this that love war. Okay, Mike Johnson's proof. He's like, hey, fund this whole thing and we'll talk about it later. Why would you want to do that?

[00:19:23] When the President of the United States is saying chop the budget in half for military spending? Mike, you need to basically chop it in half and your next bill needs to have half that in it. Did you do that? No, you're just saying, hey, let's worry about that later. See, but what you're doing is you're continuing to undermine the President of the United States. Do I believe Donald Trump genuinely wants to cut military spending? Yes, I do. Do I believe he thinks that he's getting out of a lot of these problems that Joe Biden put us in?

[00:19:52] I think he thinks that, yes. But I don't think he's schooled enough in the humble foreign policy of a George Washington is the problem. And so what he needs to do is get a Ron Paul or somebody to give him some guidance on this stuff. I think he means well. And so do I think that we'll gain some ground? In some ways we will. Well, but I'm telling you right now that on this foreign stage, if we're not very careful, the warmongers are going to swamp Trump over this. You watch. He won't have a choice.

[00:20:20] Because once you get involved so much and tie yourself to the hip to certain things and place it, then they'll be like, oh, well, we can't pull our troops out. That would put them in harm's way. We have to keep funding this. We have to keep bombing these people. We have to. We have to. And you get trapped into this lie, lull. Yeah. Well, and that's why Eisenhower was right as rain when he called it the military industrial congressional complex.

[00:20:47] Because congressmen receive big, big donations, campaign contributions from the military industrial complex. And because they receive these huge campaign donations, they're obliged to vote for more war. Right. Because they are basically bought by the military armament manufacturers, by the defense contractors. And so they have to go ahead and vote for more war, more munitions.

[00:21:17] And so that's why Eisenhower rightly called it the military industrial congressional complex. So there is one bit of good news in this in this Crooks article here. He's talking about all the presidential executive orders. He says that Trump's flurry of orders at the outset of his presidency were not whimsical.

[00:21:38] Leading U.S. constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley and other lawyers say that the orders were well drafted legally and with a clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. End of quote. What is going on? He writes, quote, the newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management, Russ Vought, or Vought, as his name, I guess, Russ Vought, says his office will become the on-off switch for all executive expenditure under the new executive orders.

[00:22:08] Trump has now issued the executive order that reinstates the primacy of the executive as the controlling mechanism of government. This Russ Vought, who was in OBM, meaning the Office of Budget Management, in the first term, Trump's first term, is carefully selecting the ground for an all-out financial war on the deep state. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court, which the Trump team expects confidently to win, since Trump has a 6-3 conservative majority there.

[00:22:38] The new regime will then be applied across all agencies and all departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain. End of quote. So, again, Sam, I find this encouraging. I hope that this will actually be the case. But, you know, until now, the administrative state has taken a lot of control, right? I mean, they've taken this idea that they're immune to dismissal, for example. They've arrogated authority to themselves, which has created this dual system,

[00:23:07] which you're calling this morning a schizophrenic system, where you've got the elected officials in office, like Trump, who want to do one thing, but then you've got the administrative state, which does another, and basically has evolved into what we call the deep state. Yeah, so I don't think Donald Trump – let me get this clear so people understand. I don't think Donald Trump's schizophrenic. I think he's trying his best to reduce spending, to keep us out of wars.

[00:23:32] I just believe he's being undermined and betrayed by the deep state at every level, okay? And Congress is one of them. When Mike Johnson says, hey, you know, let's just go ahead, and right now, if you want a chance to decrease spending, now is your opportunity. You've got a president that says he's for it. You've got Doge at the helm pointing out where you can save money. Rand Paul released an incredible money-saving list as well. But Mike Johnson just says, I back the temporary spending bill.

[00:23:59] Let's kick the can down the road, and we'll worry about Doge later. Well, when Trump says let's chop military spending in half, does that – you know, is that in the bill? I mean, I don't see why you wouldn't take every opportunity you can to streamline government right now, Mike Johnson. But your very stance undermines the president, in my opinion. Well – Yeah, because they can't cut that out of a bill, Sam, because that's money that is going through the deep pockets of the military-industrial complex.

[00:24:30] Of the congressional military-industrial complex. That headline is brilliant. All right, hang tight, ladies and gentlemen. Lowell Nelson, yours truly on your radio. We want to stay out of war. We want to follow the Prince of Peace. Do you want to help us? Hang tight, more in seconds, on your radio. You're listening to Liberty News Radio.

[00:25:01] News this hour from townhall.com. I'm Greg Clugston in Washington. Ukrainian President Zelensky believes his country's relationship with the U.S. will continue despite last week's contentious White House meeting. He says a deal, though, to end the war with Russia still very far away. The diplomatic upheaval prompted European leaders to hold an emergency weekend summit to show support for Ukraine. Britain's prime minister said Europe must do more of the heavy lifting to defend itself.

[00:25:31] We've agreed that the U.K., France, and others will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting. Then we'll discuss that plan with the United States. Britain now says there are several proposals on the table for a possible Ukraine ceasefire. The White House has been reluctant to criticize Russia for its invasion, and President Trump says he trusts Moscow. But House Speaker Mike Johnson says Russian President Vladimir Putin is dangerous and not to be trusted.

[00:26:01] In an interview on CNN, Speaker Johnson was asked, what is your view on Vladimir Putin? Johnson responded, quote, I think Vladimir Putin is an old school communist, a former KGB agent, and he's not to be trusted, and he is dangerous. Johnson's comments follow a tense Oval Office meeting between President Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Vice President Vance on Friday, which the president and Zelensky argued over U.S. support for Ukraine. Johnson said that Trump is, quote, trying to be a change agent, to broker peace, and to put an end to this conflict,

[00:26:30] and you have to have both parties at the table to do that. Bernie Bennett reporting. President Trump says tariffs on Canada and Mexico will start tomorrow. The tariffs are necessary because we've been treated very unfairly by many, many countries, including our friends, friend and foe. Honda today reportedly will start producing its Honda Civic Hybrid in Indiana instead of Mexico. Reuters says it will start production there in 2028 to avoid potential tariffs. Townhall.com. Charlie Kirk here.

[00:26:59] I've been thinking, why does it feel like losing weight is harder than ever before? Mixed messages, fad diets, and quick fix solutions. Many people are left stuck and exhausted trying to fight a battle they can't seem to win. If you feel this way, you're not alone. I used to feel that way too. But let me tell you, it's not your fault. Your body is working against you. And delaying action only makes it harder. I took a step two years ago and called PhD weight loss and nutrition and lost 40 pounds. I feel great and have kept it off.

[00:27:29] If you're ready to make a change for life, call 855-696-2020. That is 855-696-2020 to schedule your weight loss consultation. The first 11 callers who mention healthy will get two free weeks added to their weight loss package. Call 855-696-2020 and mention the word healthy. Visit them at myphdweightloss.com. That is myphdweightloss.com. It works, everybody.

[00:27:54] Check it out at myphdweightloss.com. The 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 men but by God. The Foundation maintains a two-fold focus.

[00:28:24] 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.

[00:28:53] Please partner with us to achieve this important mission. Morallaw.org. This is a battle. A battle between truth and deceit. A battle between forces that would enslave this country in darkness and between a media that wants to present you with the truth. We are being censored. America's news outlets no longer provide the truth. 90% of news outlets in the United States are controlled by six corporations.

[00:29:22] The mission of the Epoch Times is to chase the truth. To ground all statements and facts. TheEpochTimes.com Looking for an IT partner that truly understands your needs? Managed IT services is the answer. We meet with you regularly to discuss your goals and form a tailored technology plan. Our customers have called us a trusted advisor who delivers. When it comes to IT, we do it all. Firewalls, cloud storage, server migration, and more. Say goodbye to long-term contracts and hello to a team that earns your business month after month.

[00:29:51] Call 801-706-6980 now and let managed IT services transform your IT experience. From atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West, you are listening to the Liberty

[00:30:20] Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Hi, this is Lowell Nelson riding shotgun with your host this morning, Sam Bushman, here on Liberty Roundtable Live. We've been talking about the world situation, right? Trump wanting to do something different than his administrative state. And so, you know, he seems to have the right instincts. But we need to pull back.

[00:30:47] Not only do we need to cut everywhere, but we need to pull back everywhere. And there's a writer, Don T. Pine, who has a great article entitled, Trump's Brilliant Plan to Forge a New U.S.-Russia Entente, relationship, basically, which goes into some of the details, the nitty-gritty details of what that would look like. I mean, what would peace in Ukraine look like and how would we get there?

[00:31:14] What concessions would Ukraine have to make? What concessions would Russia have to make? And so forth. You know, David Pine is president of the Task Force on National Homeland Security. He's a former U.S. Army HQ staff officer. So he has a lot of experience in the national security arena. What he does, he tries to provide expert analysis on what is the best U.S. national security strategy and so forth.

[00:31:43] And his column on Saturday goes inside Trump's endeavor to neutralize the Sino-Russian military alliance by creating a strategic partnership for peace with Russia. Why? Well, to counter communist China. Very interesting, right? Because he believes that China represents a larger threat than Russia on the world stage. And that might be true. He says this, quote,

[00:32:12] In the realization that Russia, unlike the PRC, which is the People's Republic of China, is a manufactured adversary, and U.S. security interests are very different from Ukraine's, President Trump is moving full speed ahead with his new plan to forge a grand new strategic partnership for peace with Russia that could secure the U.S. and its treaty allies and restore peace and stability to Europe.

[00:32:38] Unlike the U.S. relationship with communist China over half a century ago, the U.S. and post-Soviet Russia have many interests in common which could provide the basis for a lasting friendship and transformational geopolitical cooperation that could entirely neutralize Russia's military alliance with the PRC, or China, and ensure the safety and security of the U.S. homeland for half a century or more to come, end of quote.

[00:33:07] So basically, folks, time is suggesting that Trump wants to make nice with Russia so that Russia and China don't combine forces to beat up on us. By winning strategic partnership with Russia, he believes we can delay China's attack on the United States because Russia would be our ally and then China would be less likely to try to beat us up if they've got Russia on their rear.

[00:33:32] So, you know, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has made it very clear that Russia will not agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine until the main points of a peace deal have been agreed upon. And Hegssef and Vance both, you know, when they were in Europe this past couple weeks ago, have essentially agreed that Ukraine would not join NATO and that Ukraine would not regain the territory that it has lost to Russia.

[00:34:00] And both of those are real sticking points with Russia. It would appear that President Trump wants to move quickly toward peace with Ukraine and Russia. Zelensky was disappointed, as we talked about when he left the White House last Friday, because he did not get a commitment for additional military support from the United States. But, you know, like I said before, it's hard for Trump to make nice with Russia if he's giving weapons to Ukraine, on the other hand.

[00:34:28] Trump wants to stop the death and destruction in Ukraine, as do I, and more importantly, end the threat of escalating into a full-scale nuclear war. Quote, Trump has been working overtime to normalize U.S.-Russian relations, reduce tensions, and eliminate the potential for future conflicts. During a White House press conference with French President Macron on February 26th,

[00:34:53] President Trump said the U.S. would not provide any security guarantees to Ukraine and that we are going to have the Europeans do that, virtually eliminating the chance that the U.S. could be embroiled in a future NATO proxy war with Russia. Defense Secretary, I'm still quoting here, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth informed America's NATO allies that from henceforth, they would have responsibility for virtually all military assistance to Ukraine.

[00:35:22] Furthermore, the fact that there have been no Ukrainian long-range missile attacks on Russia greater than the 50-mile range since Trump became president strongly suggests his administration is withholding satellite targeting information from Ukraine, essentially ending U.S. participation in the conflict. End of quote. So, Sam, you know, I'll kind of stop here and let you comment. I find these developments are really quite encouraging.

[00:35:51] I sincerely hope the Trump administration can help to secure a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. And it turns out that Trump even set a date on May 9th to finalize a comprehensive peace agreement. What do you think, Sam, about this particularly uplifting column from David T. Plath? I think several things.

[00:36:14] I think the effort to work with Russia is a good and necessary one. I think we should have tried to be... I get that Zelensky tried to litigate this, you know, force us to back him 100% and double down our backing of him, and that was a mistake on his part. But rather than shut him down so hard, we should have just shifted the discussion and said, look, we're not doing that. We don't think that backing you promotes peace.

[00:36:44] What we want to do is, you know what, really stay out of it. But in the meantime, okay, so there's a lot we could have done diplomatically. But I agree with the brilliant plan to forge a new U.S.-Russia relationship, and I'd like us to reevaluate those relationships around the world and bring a lot of our troops home. You know, Germany might say, we don't need you guys here anymore. Great, we're out. Thank you. And I think there's a lot we could do.

[00:37:10] And so this is what I mean by I think Trump's instincts are right and his efforts are good. And what we need to do is not fall for the military-industrial complex that just wants to continue to foment war at every turn. Now, there's some good encouraging things, and I support that because that's what George Washington would do. Okay, but I'm going to give you a warning as well. We need to be on guard, though, because Russia's not our friend.

[00:37:36] Let's not think that Ukraine's way out in the weeds and they're bad and Russia's good and China's bad and Russia's the key to just create world peace and everybody's going to sing kumbaya. Look, the Soviet Union, quote, topple was a fraud. It didn't topple at all. They just feigned weakness. But they still have all their hardcore communist thugs in Russia, too. So let's not think that Russia's your best friend. Let's be leery of them all. Let's be cautious.

[00:38:05] Let's reward them when they promote peace. Let's say politely but boldly, you know, when they do things that are wrong, like Zelensky, hey, you're warmongering, Zelensky. Stop it. We're not doing that. We don't play that game. We're not picking sides. When you both embrace peace, we'll embrace you. Okay? So it's good news, in my opinion. And I think Trump's right on this.

[00:38:30] I'm just afraid that the enemies of liberty and the pro-war mongers are going to try to, you know, flip this on Trump. But if we get too cozy with Russia, it can backfire, too. Again, part of this idea, this humble foreign policy, is that we're kind and respectful and peace-loving to everybody. We set the example of a free market system. We set the example of checks and balances and looking to God. And we become a light on a hill. But that doesn't mean that you buddy, buddy, buddy, buddy with Russia either.

[00:38:57] It means you hold them all at arm's length a little bit, not by force or mean. But you know what? We're not going to have any appearance that we're picking sides. And I've got a little bit of tidbit that backs this point. I don't know if you know this. U.S. is setting out a halt offensive cyber operations against Russia. Yeah, Carly Page over at TechCrunch with this piece. And I'm saying this is great news. I think we should stop that.

[00:39:27] Why would we have an offensive cyber operations against Russia? We don't need to do that. Okay, that's what we claim they're doing to us that we don't like. You think they're going to like it when we do it to them? So my whole point is there are good things happening, Lowell, but we've got to keep a proper, healthy balance of understanding on this. Just because you don't want to back Ukraine, that doesn't mean you run into Russia's arms either. It means you go ahead and say, hey, we back you both when you promote peace and kindness to your citizens. When you don't, we've got a problem.

[00:39:57] And we're not going to get in the middle of your internal affairs. I'm just telling you, on the stage of free markets, on the stage of, you know, peace, we're going to lead by example. And you do that by bringing our troops home, by getting out of the affairs of other nations, by basically saying we're not picking sides. So this step by this halting cyber offensive or whatever, it's great news, Lowell. It's a step in the right direction like the other steps you've highlighted. I'm not doubting these steps. I'm just warning about how we need to go about it.

[00:40:27] We need to be very careful. You know, it reminds me of a girl fight. You know, one girl's in the middle and she's on one side and then all of a sudden she switches to the other girl. And, okay, it's disaster. What you need is a common sense idea that says, look, we love you both and hope you both come to your senses and we want peace everywhere. We're ready to provide the leadership when you guys want to come to the table. That's what we need, Lowell. Yeah, absolutely right, Sam. Totally agree. A couple other nice points from Pine's article here.

[00:40:57] He's talking about the toll that has been taken on Ukraine's population. And, you know, I think these are some pretty significant numbers, Sam. This senseless and unnecessary war in Ukraine has caused Ukraine's population to shrink by 30%, Sam. So if you had 100 people before, now you've only got 70, right? That's a shrinkage of 30%. And its territory has contracted by 20%.

[00:41:23] And while killing and wounding a generation of Ukrainian men totaling well over 1 million, a demographic catastrophe from which it will likely take generations to recover. That's the damage that has been done just in the past four years of war in Ukraine, right? And so Pine also writes this. He says, Putin is not a war criminal.

[00:41:50] He writes, only 11,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed in the past three years of war. A remarkably low level of civilian casualties not seen in modern warfare, not seen in decades. Very interesting comment. You know, I mean, I think even one death is too many, but only 11,000 civilians killed in three years of war. I guess that's a low number. I mean, David Pine is a historian, so he knows these kinds of things.

[00:42:19] But I guess I'll take his word for it. I mean, 11,000 is way too many. But I guess that's less than a lot in other worlds. Well, here's the real question, Lowell. If we weren't involved in it and didn't back Ukraine and promote war everywhere, how many would it be then? Might even be less than that, right? A lot less than that, in my opinion, yeah. I think so. Now, also in Pine's column, he has a map, which shows why, perhaps.

[00:42:48] I'm trying to think deviously here, Sam, to work with me on this. Trump might be trying to make nice with Trump because the large stockpiles of rare earth minerals are in Odessa and Luhansk and the other old blasts there in eastern Ukraine, which is now Russian territory, right? Russian front has moved up significantly.

[00:43:15] And so those states of Ukraine are going to become Russian states. But that's where all the rare earth minerals are. And so if I'm thinking deviously, it might be that Trump is trying to make nice with Russia because he wants a relationship with Russia so that we can obtain those rare earth minerals, you know, because we're not getting them from Zelensky, apparently, because we're not supporting the war effort. Well, right now we're getting a lot of them from China. So I get this play.

[00:43:44] But rather than pick sides and back people and promote people and pit people against each other and everything else for our, quote, benefit, I think we're better off just simply saying, look, we're going to find these rare earth minerals in our own country. Best scenario. Or if we can't, we're going to find the most freedom-loving country we can partner with to get that done. And y'all want to come to the table? Then you get involved in the free market and quit abusing your citizens and doing things, and we'll let you play at this table, too. See, it can be a very easy discussion. We're consistent as all get out.

[00:44:12] When you embrace peace, when you embrace the free market, we'll work with you. And when you don't, we'll work with others. And it can be very peaceful. No, that's not a hostile statement. No, that's not a – it's just a statement of reality. So I think Trump has a brilliant plan. I just want to give a little bit of a witness and say it's great and a warning and say be very careful because they can turn on you in a heartbeat, too. They're not your best friend. Trust you me. They will cooperate in alliances that make sense.

[00:44:39] And the less you demonstrate, you know, this hegemony idea and the more you cooperate with and respect other nations and respect separations of powers in your own country and follow your own internal documents for guidance of your country, the more respect you'll get around the world. The less you do that, the less respect you'll have around the world. This brings up kind of the doctrine of the lesser magistrates in many ways, Lowell. It does, Sam.

[00:45:07] I want to make just one more point before we go into that doctrine. And that is it amplifies the point you're making that Russia, you know, we need to be very wary, right? It's like approaching a rattlesnake. You have to be very careful because we're dealing with rattlesnakes out there. And David T. Pine here, he says that Russia is stronger now, both economically and militarily, than it was when they invaded Ukraine in 21.

[00:45:37] It now has the sixth largest economy in the world. I'm sorry, propelled it from the sixth largest to the fourth largest, now head of Germany and Japan. Russia has everything they need to continue the war indefinitely until Ukraine's military collapses. And we've given it to them, Lowell. Yeah, yeah. And furthermore, the U.S. never agreed to defend Ukraine. In fact, the Budapest memorandum written by the Clinton administration

[00:46:06] would ensure that U.S. would not be required to send a single soldier or weapon to defend Ukraine from a potential Russian attack. So here again, this is evidence that the United States breaks its agreements, breaks its promises. How in the world can you trust the U.S., Glenn, when we make a promise 20 years ago and we break it this year? It's just madness, Sam. And Pine is a war historian,

[00:46:35] and he brings these kind of facts and figures out into the open. That's one reason I like reading his columns. You can find him on dpine.substack.com, P-Y-N-E is how you spell his name, dpine.substack.com, if you're interested. But it's, again, he makes, it sounds very encouraging,

[00:47:00] and I agree this is much better than the alternative course of heading into the World War III, which is where we were headed just a few months ago. And I sure hope that, Sam, I sure hope that Trump can successfully defang his own administrative state and get it aligned with his instincts so that we can, you know, promote peace throughout the world, not war. Sam? I couldn't agree more.

[00:47:26] And I will say this, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate we had on this wonderful gentleman, you went and saw him in person. A quick update on that's important. But look, at every check and balance, ladies and gentlemen, we can promote peace, not war. And that's what we need to do. So, congressmen and senators, even though Mike Johnson wants to promote war and worry about cutting costs later, y'all can stop him and just say, uh-uh, we're not doing that. Why don't you, first off, Mike Johnson, just chop that trillion-dollar budget in half on the military, and then we'll talk.

[00:47:55] That's a great start, right? Save a half a trillion right out of the gate there alone. Wow. And then look at Rand Paul's, he gave a whole list of things, and Elon Musk's given a whole list of things, and let's just start chop, chop, chopping. Mike Johnson, you've got to get to work. And what he wants to do is basically be the congressional military industrial complex, and shame on them for doing it. But the doctrine of the lesser magistrate is one way we can fight back at every turn, everywhere, all the time, Lowell. Peacefully done. That's right, Sam.

[00:48:24] And here, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of the lesser magistrates. And by the way, let me just say, when people, here in Utah anyway, and maybe in other states, when people say magistrate, they are referring to a justice of the peace. Basically, someone who hears minor criminal complaints and citations. But a magistrate in this context means any public servant, whether they're elected, appointed, or hired, or whatever.

[00:48:51] But magistrate in this context is talking about any government official, right? So the doctrine of the lesser magistrates, in a nutshell, is this. When the superior or higher civil authority makes unjust or immoral laws or decrees, the lesser or lower-ranking civil authority has both a right and a duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority.

[00:49:16] If necessary, the lesser authorities even have the right and obligation to actively resist the superior authority. So, Sam, that is the doctrine. That's the doctrine of the lesser magistrates. Yeah, I want to slightly change that doctrine a little bit because I agree that it's when somebody, when we talk about superior authority, though, let's talk about perceived superior authority. Yeah. Because oftentimes we think something has superior authority when it really doesn't. Quick example, Richard Mack's case.

[00:49:45] You know, the president just said, shut up, Sheriff, I'll arrest you. I've got superior authority here. Sheriff Mack went, no, you don't. It turned out that Sheriff Mack had superior authority within his own jurisdiction. And that's really the crux of the discussion here is that, hey, the moral authority, God's authority is the highest authority. And when you dovetail with that, you become the superior authority. So when somebody else runs off the rails, they lose their superior authority status because they're out of their element. They're doing something wrong.

[00:50:14] They're crossing lines. They don't have authority to cross. Therefore, amen to the authority of that person or entity, if you will. Lull. And that's one reason why the framers divided authority, right? They didn't centralize authority in one person or one body. They distributed authority. They divided it in three ways, the legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch, and then they divided it horizontally. So you've got the general government versus the state governments.

[00:50:42] And the counties make up the states and the people make up the counties. And so it's all divided authority. The more you can divide the power out and distribute authority among numerous competing interests, the better chance you have of preserving liberty. And, you know, the historical example of this doctrine of the lesser magistrates really occurred at Runnymede in England when the nobles forced King John to recognize their authority and to sign the Magna Carta,

[00:51:11] which guaranteed their rights under the civil law, right? The Magna Carta, one of the most famous documents in all the world. That was done by lesser magistrates, by the nobles, when forcing King John to recognize their rightful authority. To recognize their superior authority because they were on the right side of morality. Absolutely right. And you've mentioned Richard Richard Mack. He refused to enforce the Brady gun control law in Graham County, Arizona.

[00:51:40] And he did so rightfully. And he was backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court in one of their correct decisions, opinions that they gave. And, Kings, when you take action against the people in immoral ways, you lose your superior authority. And the superior authority is to those who stop it. It's an incredible doctrine. Doctrine of the lesser magistrate. It's real. It's true. It works. You can read about it. You can learn about it in many, many ways.

[00:52:08] You've got to understand it's something that's not easy to do because it's hard to stand up. But Matthew Trahella is absolutely spot on right. We've got to talk about the penny before the end of the hour, Lowell. Well, Trump ordered the Federal Reserve not to mint any more pennies because it costs 3.7 cents per penny, right? So you're going to lose money if you mint pennies.

[00:52:38] But it turns out that, you know, he signed the death certificate. But who really killed the penny? Well, it's the Federal Reserve. And they do that by inflating the amount of currency in the world. They do it by just printing money and spending it into circulation, which devalues the dollars that you have in your savings account.

[00:53:01] And so this is really a call out, an invitation or a plea to everybody within the sound of our voice who lives in the United States to talk to your congressman, your U.S. representative, to co-sponsor H.R. 24. This is Thomas Massey's Audit the Fed bill. It's one that Ron Paul sponsored every cycle that he was in Congress. And now Thomas Massey has taken up this noble effort.

[00:53:31] And there are, what, 64 co-sponsors on this bill so far? 46 co-sponsors. And guess what, Sam? Who is not a co-sponsor on this bill yet? Anybody from Utah. Anybody from Utah. We've got to change that, folks. If you're in Utah, please call your U.S. representative and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 24. Thomas Massey's Audit the Fed bill. And let's get this thing on the move.

[00:54:00] We did this a couple decades, well, about a decade ago, decade and a half ago. We want to audit the Fed. Got to work on it now. Audit and then the Fed, ladies and gentlemen. We're about out of time, but I want to say this real quick. Yeah. They say the target inflationary rate for the Fed is 2%. That means you're getting ripped off two pennies out of every dollar every year at an increasing number. Got to stop it. Got to do it now. Call your congressman, H.R. 24. Say, hey, let's audit and end the Fed.

[00:54:30] Trump's even signaled he's interested. Elon Musk is. I'm just telling you right now, we've got to back their play and do it now. For Lowell Nelson, CampaignForLiberty.org and yours truly, LovingLiberty.net. God save the republic.