Biden Asks Congress For $33 Billion For Ukraine


Please go to and use the promo code Truth to save up to 66% off and Mike Lindell will give a generous percentage back to The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson show to support our free broadcasts.

Emerald Robinson: Biden's asking for another $33 billion for Ukraine, while Republicans largely support the effort. The other aspect of the Ministry of Truth you probably missed yesterday, we'll show you and talk about it. And what does all of this mean? Plus, we'll lighten the mood a little for your Friday to kick off the weekend. Today is Friday, April 29th. Welcome to The Absolute Truth. Third-three billion dollars, that's the magic number for this week. That's what President Joe Biden is now pushing for from Congress. Biden is attempting to convince the American people they need to get behind this massive donation and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. Now, Biden's billion-dollar plea was met with applause from Ukraine's president, Vladimir Zelensky.

Joe Biden, President of the United States: The cost of this fight is not cheap, but caving to aggression is going to be more costly if we allow it to happen. We either back the Ukrainian people as they defend their country or stand by as the Russians continue their atrocities and aggression in Ukraine. Basically, we're out of money, so that's why today, in order to sustain Ukraine as it continues to fight. I'm sending Congress a supplemental budget request. It's going to keep weapons and ammunition flowing without interruption to the brave Ukrainian fighters and continue delivering economic, humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainian people.

Emerald Robinson: Now, this is a very important step by the United States, said Zelensky. Of course, President Zelensky would be very happy he had been pushing for more from the US. The massive price tag also includes money for the US to increase its troop presence in the region. Another item on Zelensky's wish list as well, but President Biden has yet to clearly lay out how any of his actions to help the Ukraine best serve the US interests. Biden continued to appeal to Americans' emotions on the ideas of democracy but struggled yesterday to get out a coherent argument as he continued to brag about seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs.

Joe Biden, President of the United States:  We're going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and other ill-begotten gains of Putin's kleptoc — yeah — kleptocracy and keep- — the guys who are the kleptocracies. (Laughs.)

Emerald Robinson: Now, it's taboo to draw attention to the president's mental health. It's extremely important to do so, especially at such a time as this, because not only is the American public watching, but so are bad actors around the world. Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Wednesday threatened to use nuclear weapons against any country that assists Ukraine. The Russian state media has already urged Putin to wipe out the UK with its nuclear weapons over its assistance to Ukraine. The war rhetoric is dangerously ramping up. Now let's welcome in national security expert and a retired US and CIA station chief, Scott Ellinger. Scott, thank you for being here.

Scott Uehlinger: Thank you.

Emerald Robinson: Now, the Biden administration wants to pour more money into Ukraine. Thirty-three billion sounds like a lot because we've already, you know, allocated 14 billion. There's been more in assistance. Is $13 billion necessary? Should we be giving this to Ukraine from the United States?

Scott Uehlinger: It's a good question, Emerald. Frankly, I think that it bears more scrutiny. Thirty-three billion is a huge amount of money, to give some perspective. The defense budgets and annual defense budgets of countries such as the Netherlands, Romania, and Belgium combined are slightly less than $22 billion. So, we're talking about giving the Ukrainians the equivalent of several nations' worth of annual defense expenditures. So, I'd like to see an itemized list of this, and certainly, while I certainly believe very much in supporting Ukraine, in giving the invasion by Russia. I think that that amount of money needs to be carefully looked at. It's one thing to allocate equipment, howitzers, and various weapons systems, but this seems like a lot of it is going to be in the form of cash money, which I think we need to track extremely carefully. But I think that the Republicans should be giving this much greater scrutiny than they are.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah. I think that's the point that I was curious about because trying to find out exactly how this money would be allocated is very vague. You know, there's, I think it was $14 billion that's going to humanitarian aid through various, I assume, NGOs, is that correct? Even via different countries, they say, going into humanitarian assistance?

Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, that's probably correct. That's a huge amount of money.

Emerald Robinson: That is a huge amount of money. I think that I don't understand sometimes and some of the American public how that money actually is disseminated. There are questions about how much money has gone through Ukraine and political figures, family members like Hunter Biden, who have benefited from funds and contracts with countries like Ukraine. So, how do we push Congress to bear more scrutiny on this money?

Scott Uehlinger: Well, I think I guess people should be contacting their congressman about this. But obviously, the way to do this is to demand far greater scrutiny. And I think in this case, scale back the amount of money because already we have a great flow of military equipment, and that can continue. However, this huge amount of money even if it's being funneled to humanitarian NGOs. Having seen and worked with some NGOs in the past, this is a huge amount of money for even several organizations to properly digest and disseminate aid. Basically, invites things like corruption and such. So, I believe that although we should continue to allocate money even for humanitarian funds, this amount of money at one time is simply a bridge too far.

Emerald Robinson: Let me ask you. The president hasn't really laid out the US interest in this war and really a clear position. Clearly, we're supporting Ukraine, but there is all this you must do for democracy's purposes. Are we handling this in the right way?

Scott Uehlinger: I think that perhaps the message can be communicated a little better now. As somebody who has basically been dealing with the Soviet Union and Russia since I was 22 years old in the Navy. I've been watching the Russian threat throughout my entire life, and as someone who's participated in many native operations, I'm a strong proponent of NATO. Certainly, as it was originally envisioned as a way to prevent Soviet and Russian incursion into Europe and now Eastern Europe, I believe that anything we can do to basically support NAITO and support the members of NATO to counter this Russian aggression is in order. And I believe that part of that strategy should also be assisting Ukraine, being that they are basically on the board of NATO. They are not a NATO member. But I believe that the humanitarian concerns of this invasion demand a response. However, I think that that does not constitute a blank check. So, anything that we do should be looked at very carefully by our representatives and by the people of the United States to make sure that the money is well spent. Given that, for instance, we have an undefended border. The Biden administration has been unable to find any money to fix our southern border. So, things like that do not resound very well with the American people.

Emerald Robinson: Also, as you said, you've been a study of Russia for a long time now. You speak Russian. Do you believe President Putin when he threatens nuclear warfare, or is he just bloviating?

Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, it's a good question. We need to be very careful with this because miscalculations could potentially be disastrous. However, Putin is meeting considerable failure on the battlefront, whether it's at sea or with his land forces. So, right now, he's trying to resuscitate a losing position, and that includes things like extending the nuclear threat. However, I think that we should look at that somewhat skeptically. There are actually some indications that the Russian nuclear system has been sort of crippled by President Putin in the earlier years because he sought to prevent the military from exerting some kind of a takeover on his government, a coup d'etat. Because of this, the story is that he has actually kind of hobbled the Russian nuclear weapons network, so that's something else that has to be taken into account when we look at his threats.

Emerald Robinson: Then there's the issue of Sweden in NATO, and, clearly, Ukraine would love to be part of NATO, but President Biden says that won't happen. What is your perspective on adding these countries to the NATO alliance?

Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, it's another good, very good question. I actually operated with the Swedish and Finnish navies in the mid-nineties; basically, they were affiliated with NATO at that point. These countries have borders with Russia, and they have long-standing concerns. If it is the desire of those countries to enter NATO, then I say we welcome them based on Russian aggression. They feel less secure within their borders. Their militaries are small but quite capable. They will basically be a plus to NATO. They will not be dragged down onto NATO. So, I welcome their request to join NATO.

Emerald Robinson: You know, that's a very different perspective than we hear from a lot of guests on our show who feel like that data was based on this agreement that you wouldn't have NATO, particularly on Russia's borders, and that this will further provoke Putin. But do you feel that Putin is so weakened at this point and Russia is so depleted that it's safer to go ahead and do it now than before? Because that's always been a hesitation.

Scott Uehlinger: Well, that's true. I believe that it is appropriate at this time. But I also am very wary of anyone who states that putting NATO on the border of Russia is provoking, is a provocation to Russia. Norway has been a member of NATO since the 1940s, and it borders Russia in the extreme north. So, basically, the way I try to explain it is NATO is sort of an alarm system for your home, and if your neighbor becomes excessively angry, you have installed an alarm system in your own home. Then that prompts the question, Well, were you planning on robbing my house? Why are you so upset that I have an alarm system in my home? I kind of compare that situation to the NATO situation. Countries like the Baltic nations, Sweden, and Finland have long suffered Russian invasion and, in some cases, annexation in the past. So, these are legitimate concerns of these countries. If they wish to join NATO to feel more secure, then I think it's appropriate. You know, basically, if Russia were a better neighbor, there would be fewer nations willing and able to join NATO.

Emerald Robinson: Well, everyone has a different perspective. I really appreciate you just got coming on. I had wanted to get to one other topic with you. The $7 billion worth of equipment is left back in Afghanistan. Glad to have you back, and perhaps we can touch on that the next time. There's just too much to talk about. Thanks, Scott.

Scott Uehlinger: Thank you.

Emerald Robinson: Now up next, only ten House Republicans voted not to streamline the process to send more military aid to Ukraine. We'll tell you who those are next.

Commercial: (Commercial Break)

Emerald Robinson: Well, technically, this is today's Rhino Watch, but maybe we should actually dub it the Non-Rhino Watch because we're focused on those ten Republicans in the House who actually voted not to immediately streamline military aid to Ukraine, as you can see on the screen here. Now, Congress voted 417 to 10. That was it, to expand Biden's authority to arm Ukraine. Now this comes after the Senate unanimously passed the legislation earlier this month. The bill seeks to revive a World War II-era program that allowed the government to lend or lease military equipment to our allies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said quote, "Today we send to President Biden's desk legislation to revive the consequential lend-Lease initiative that turned the tide of World War II and will ensure the efficient delivery of further supplies to Ukraine and other Eastern European nations. So, let's discuss this with one of the best rhino hawks that we've got. That's Chronicle magazine's editor, Pedro Gonzalez. Pedro, it's good to see you, first off.

Pedro Gonzalez: Thanks so much for having me back.

Emerald Robinson: I'm going to assume that you're not too surprised that only ten House Republicans stood against this effort to streamline more money to Ukraine.

Pedro Gonzalez: No, I'm not, and I think they should be commended. The lend-lease thing is really interesting because a little-known fact about lend-lease is that we basically, by we, I mean Washington, FDR's administration, essentially underwrote the sum of some pretty serious crimes that the Soviet Union actually committed in Europe. There's actually a very good book on it. It's called Stalin's War by a scholar named Sean McMeekin actually shows that lend-lease was in many ways a kind of tragedy in the sense that, again, US taxpayer dollars went toward subsidizing the Soviet Union's crimes against anti-communist forces in Europe. Now, this is a kind of unknown aspect of US history, but it's worth trying to remember this because the war in Ukraine was not as advertised. It's not a war for democracy. It's not a war for nationalism. Any time that you've got this kind of lockstep bipartisanism in Washington. It should make you worried that this is something other than what it's being sold to the American public. I think a great point that your last guest, I think, made was that the amount of money that we're already pouring into this conflict dwarfs the amount of money that would have cost to build the wall along the southern border where we're actually dealing with an immigration crisis. No one seems to ask, you know, is it appropriate to give Ukraine an additional $33 billion on top of all of the other money that we've given them? And what is that money even going towards? Well, a big chunk of it is going towards independent media and fighting Russian misinformation in Ukraine. What does it even mean? And is that connected to the new office that Biden just created that is also committed to fighting disinformation, also about the conflict in Ukraine but in the United States? These are great questions, and no one seems to be asking them. Thankfully, you've got a handful of Republicans that are at least, you know, saying we need to slow down. We need to say no, but it's not enough, not nearly enough.

Emerald Robinson: I was also trying to find the breakdown of how the money supposedly is being allocated. And when you look at it, you know, they give $14 billion to humanitarian aid. That's just a very vague term. It says it could even go through other countries, and in this, we're talking about NGOs. Those are also very ambiguous NGOs. So, when this money goes through these organizations, how do we know that it's being used for what it's supposed to be used for, and what really happens to it? Do we have any idea, Pedro?

Pedro Gonzalez: No, I think that's a great point, is that we don't actually know how this money is being used. I mean, it's been called a kind of international law, money laundering operation. The way these things actually tend to work in the sense that, you know, officially, the money is going towards helping the Ukrainian war cause. But in reality, this money is partitioned up between NGOs, defense contractors, and government officials. Ukraine's government is notoriously corrupt. I mean, again, all of this was not really news. This was not up for debate until very recently. Until very recently, the world knew that the Ukrainian government was extremely corrupt, and it had been involved in all of these international schemes. I mean, the most obvious one is the whole Biden family Burisma thing, right. With Biden pressuring this investigation to shut down in Ukraine and stuff like that. But again, suddenly everything's fine. We can send basically unlimited amounts of money over there and trust that it's going to go where it needs to go. And we don't need to actually look very closely and even demand oversight. Demanding oversight is, you know, you're slowing us down. We have a war to win here. So, obviously, I mean, there are so many problems with this. The fact that we're pouring this much money into Ukraine right now during wartime actually means there will be necessarily less oversight of how that money actually gets spent.

Emerald Robinson: There's 16 billion that's going to the DOD. It looks like they're allocating five 6 billion to go directly to Ukraine for security assistance in the form of weapons. Yet, I think everyone thinks, oh, well, this money is all going for weapons assistance. I think it's interesting that this also comes on the heels of the debacle in Afghanistan, where defense contractors, the military-industrial complex, was also extremely upset about pulling out of Afghanistan. We left $7 billion worth of equipment there. How much does this also factor into what we're seeing with the allocation of money from Congress, the fallout over Afghanistan, if at all?

Pedro Gonzalez: Well, I think the defense control element is huge. Last week, the Pentagon met with the CEOs of the top defense contractors in the United States to discuss meeting Ukraine's arms needs for years to come. Again, that should be a tremendous red flag because this kind of unelected Congress that's essentially what it is. Right. The top officials of the Pentagon are meeting with the top CEOs of defense contractors to basically decide this war will continue. We're going to provide the logistical resources for that. Where do the American people come in here? Do we get a say in how long we're going to be involved in this war? Or does that only come down to a decision made by a few people behind closed doors? And obviously, there's a lot of money involved here, but I think that is really significant. These people got together and privately discussed how the United States would be indefinitely involved in this war. And, of course, you're going to be paying for it.

Emerald Robinson: And you know what? That was a throwaway line in the press briefing the week before when press secretary for the Department of Defense, John Kirby, announced that Austin would be going to meet with these other officials from foreign countries. He added that it was also for the future of weapons assistance and arming Ukraine. I don't think anyone in that briefing asked him or followed up on it, and that immediately stood out to me because I mean, what are we doing there? But I do want to turn to another topic. You noted that they don't seem to care to spend too much or secure our southern border. And in fact, some of these rhinos are going even further than that. You got North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and Texas Senator John Cornyn; they're reportedly participating in bipartisan talks on immigration. They've done that a lot before. Remember, even during the Trump years, they were pushing the Trump White House to give amnesty. Both Tillis and Cornyn are in favor of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. They're working with Democrats now. You know, it also seems interesting timing while everyone's focused on the squirrel over there in Ukraine that they're now trying to push through this amnesty, Pedro?

Scott Uehlinger: Yeah, right. Well, the Biden administration and Democrats create an immigration crisis, and Republicans come up with the solution in the form of amnesty. I mean, this is really the difference between the stupid party and the evil party. You can figure out which one is which. But I think this is the problem when you're looking at the big losses that I think Biden and the Democrats are scheduled for. Right. Americans are angry about the way that this country is being governed. Okay. But what are Republicans offering as an alternative? I think this is significant. Right. We're talking about all the money we're spending on this war. We're talking about the immigration crisis. Okay. So, what are Republicans offering while they're being critical of Biden for not giving enough money and assistance to Ukraine? Their solution to the immigration crisis apparently is amnesty. This is the problem that Americans face that there is no clear solution for. If you've got one party that's created all of these problems and the other party, that solution is, I wouldn't even call it a Band-Aid. I mean, what is the medical analogy for this? Right. I don't. I can't think of one, making it worse.

Emerald Robinson: But Pedro, our Senators like Cornyn and Tillis are stupid, or is there an ulterior motive for them? Because I don't think they're that stupid.

Pedro Gonzalez: I think it's a combination of both. You can't exclude the fact that if you're a cynic, right. You're someone that doesn't really believe that we should accept, you know, an unlimited amount of immigrants. Instead, you're doing this because your donors like the cheap labor. I think if you actually do it enough times, you go along with the lie enough. You start to actually believe in it. So, I think the motive question is almost a secondary one. The fact is that they're doing it, whether they're doing it because their donors want cheap labor or they actually believe in this ideology of invading and inviting the world. The result is the same. Americans get put last regardless of who is in office, Republican or Democrat.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, exactly. I remember when Senator Lindsey Graham was working with Jared Kushner's office in the summer of 2020, right before the 2020 election, to try to work out an amnesty deal. They tried to deny it, but it turned out it was absolutely true. Thank you, Pedro. We appreciate you being here with us.

Pedro Gonzalez: Thank you, Emerald.

Emerald Robinson: Now, we wanted to bring you an update on a story we discussed earlier this week. President Joe Biden is clearing up some of the confusion surrounding his plans for student loan forgiveness. Democrats told reporters that the president was getting closer to cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debts per borrower. Biden said, though, quote, I am considering dealing with some debt reduction. I'm not considering a 50,000-debt reduction. Biden went on to reassure Democrats that he is looking into more debt forgiveness options, however. Up next, DHS wants to tackle, quote-unquote, "disinformation." We'll tell you all about their plans to do so ahead of the midterm election next.

Commercial: (Commercial Break)

Alejandro Mayorkas: Is a leading effort. Our undersecretary for policy, Rob Silvers, is co-chair with our principal deputy general counsel, Jennifer Daskal, in leading a just recently constituted misinformation, disinformation governance board. So, the goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat. I just read a very interesting study that underscores the importance of the point that you make. The spread of mis and disinformation in minority communities specifically, and we are focused on that.

Emerald Robinson: That's Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in announcing the Truth Ministry, or, well, officially the department's new Misinformation and Disinformation Governance Board before Congress yesterday, shocking a lot of freedom-loving Americans across the country. But should we really be that shocked? The Biden administration is now just giving it an official name with official faces like Nina Jankowski. The new disinformation czar, who, as we told you yesterday, is one of the biggest spreaders of lies on the internet, even when it comes to benign delusions, such as people who want to see a picture of her. Like she said in this tweet here, but also, especially when the stakes are high, as a presidential election and about the president's son. But people like Jankowski and Mayorkas have been telling you this was coming since day one of the Biden administration when Jen Psaki took the podium to tell you that the Biden administration's number one focus is, quote-unquote, "Domestic terrorism." They let you know that the department would especially be monitoring these terrorists' social media for their spread of disinformation. But the definition of said domestic terrorism or misinformation is something I couldn't ever quite get out of Jen Psaki when I would ask in the briefing room, and now Psaki still claims not to be in the know.

Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary: I really haven't dug into this exactly. I mean, we, of course, support this effort. But let me see if I can get more specifics. We know that there has been a range of disinfo out there about a range of topics, I mean, including COVID, for example, and also elections and eligibility. But I will check and see if there are more specifics.

Emerald Robinson: And Psaki said she's pretty sure that no one really opposes this new thought police.

Jen Psaki, White House Press Secretary: Well, I don't have any comments on the laptop, but what I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I'm not sure who opposes that effort.

Emerald Robinson: And the Biden administration wants other countries on board with this effort, especially when it comes to policing the Internet. You probably missed this yesterday because it pretty much escaped coverage, but national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a virtual ministerial meeting on the future of the Internet.

Jake Sullivan: But we also have to be clear-eyed about the challenges. Every day we see headlines on digital tools being used to repress freedom of expression, to deny other fundamental human rights and fundamental freedoms. And we face every day a rising tide of disinformation that sows division and conflict, and hate around the world. It's no secret that the Internet and its future have become a key part of the battle for democratic principles and democratic progress and to push back against democratic backsliding around the world.

Emerald Robinson: Democratic principles and Democratic progress are Democrats' goals and progress for the Democrat agenda. Joining me now to discuss is a senior analyst at the Center for Security Policy and an expert on propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion. Welcome, Dr. J. Michael Waller. I know you as Mike, so I'm just going to call you Mike. Thanks, Mike.

Dr. J Michael Waller: Good to see you.

Emerald Robinson: It's good to see you. You know, you were immediately the first person I thought of when particularly when I saw this from Jake Sullivan. And I was thinking, how do I explain this to people? Because this is a pretty big deal, all this coming out all at once. There clearly is a huge push though there has been since day one. But with the culmination of this board and now this new, you know, turn to the future of the Internet. What exactly is the Biden administration doing here, Mike?

Dr. J Michael Waller: What they're doing is they've taken a KGB term of tradecraft, disinformation, which is the deliberate creation and planting of false information to achieve an intelligence operations objective. And they're turning it into a domestic political weapon against the public.

Emerald Robinson: So, they're turning a propaganda machine inward, is what you're saying.

Dr. J Michael Waller: Right. Disinformation is the English translation of a Russian word that was coined by the KGB dezinformatsiya, and it's specifically a KGB term of tradecraft. And what you see the Department of Homeland Security doing now is applying that KGB term of tradecraft as a weapon against American free speech.

Emerald Robinson: And what I've noticed with this, and it does remind me very much of Soviet-style language, is that it's very vague, right? There are no real concrete definitions of what misinformation is or what the goals or directives of this new board will be. Now, this is the most we've gotten so far. This is another sound bite of my orcas testifying before Congress. Let's listen.

Alejandro Mayorkas: We have just established a mis and disinformation governance board in the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively combat this threat, not only to election security but to our homeland security. We are disseminating information to the secretaries of the state. We are counseling them and providing resources to ensure better physical security. We are addressing all aspects of election security. Given, of course, the midterm elections that are upon us.

Emerald Robinson: So, a lot of this is very focused on the midterm elections, and I wonder, and maybe you can have some more insight, given that, you know, how these techniques work. What exactly will they do? What kind of power will the governor's board have if they see disinformation and misinformation? What actions do you expect they will take?

Dr. J Michael Waller: Well, first of all, the Department of Homeland Security is not empowered by federal law to combat foreign disinformation. The FBI has that authority. Then internationally, the State Department and CIA have that authority. So, DHS is operating outside the law with this new office. That's the first thing. Second thing, as you just said, they don't define disinformation and misinformation. Here's an easy way to tell the difference, and when you see people like Mayorkas or Jen Psaki using the terms interchangeably as if they mean the same thing, it shows that they don't know what they're talking about. So, disinformation in shorthand is de for deception or deliberate. It's the deliberate planting of false information, and again, that's a KGB term. Misinformation is simply a mistake. I made a mistake. I said something wrong. I was incorrect in my facts, and that's not a lie. It's not evil. It's just, okay, we all make mistakes and say the wrong thing sometimes. So, if you're combating that as a national law enforcement agency, you're criminalizing freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and by collecting intelligence on what people think and say, you're creating a national database of thought criminals.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, this is very 1984.

Dr. J Michael Waller: This was supposed to be to fight COVID. Remember, they started all this, we're going to fight COVID disinformation, and now it's to fight election fraud. Now we're going to aim it at minorities. Meaning, oh, this is if you're against this, you're against minorities. Therefore, you're racist. It's to perpetuate these types of narratives against people who oppose what they're doing.

Emerald Robinson: The event or the meeting that Sullivan held yesterday also caught my attention. I was surprised that it didn't get more coverage. I barely saw it just because, you know, I get the notices from the White House about what to look out for, for the day. And in the notice, you'll see that the language they use in it is an advanced and affirmative vision for the Internet and digital technologies. What exactly does that mean, Mike?

Dr. J Michael Waller: Well, that shows there is a political line or a propaganda line that they want to push. So, if you're using an office to fight disinformation, to push a policy line, it's a propaganda agency. It's not defending against hostile, deliberate foreign intelligence, service-related planting of false information in our dialogue. And go back to what you had earlier in your segment. You had Secretary Mayorkas saying that it's under the Deputy Homeland Security secretary for policy. That's the policy shop. It's a political shop to determine the political agendas of the agency under the secretary appointed by the president. It's not a real office for an honest look at what foreign disinformation threats there are that might be corrupting people's opinions in our country. So, this is all just a domestic propaganda operation.

Emerald Robinson: Final question, I have to say, because I don't feel like this is just come up, right. We've been prying for this for decades now, and you, as an expert, know how there's been a push. We've been infiltrated in a way to turn Americans to accept this. Are we too far gone at this point? Or is there still time to stop efforts like this that we see that are so pervasive now in the Democrat Party overall? They largely accept this as the way to go.

Dr. J Michael Waller: Sure. Yeah, there's still time and the ability to stop all of this. The first thing that I think senators should put holds on all Department of Homeland Security appointees appointed by the president. Don't allow them to be confirmed by the Senate until these types of operations are shut down. We can go after and look if you look at Nina Yankelovich, who's running this program. She's a hack from a very, very liberal center of the Woodrow Wilson Center. But I went through her scholarly work on disinformation. She never defines it, even in her scholarly work. It's a garbage scholarship that she has. She gave congressional testimony in 2020 about how the Russians are influencing our elections, which they were trying to do for Hillary. But she said they were they spent $80 on social media advertising in the DC area. Can you imagine $80, and this is a fundamental threat to our freedoms. She exaggerates. She doesn't define keywords. In any scholarly work, you always define the terms you're using so the reader understands what you mean. Is she either deliberately obscuring it, or she's just a really sloppy scholar, and I think it's a combination of both. Then to see the hack-type stuff she's putting out on Twitter where she said the CIA director said that Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation op, and she went along with it. That just shows that you don't need a person like that pushing a lie to be running any counter disinformation program that the government might have.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah. She's kind of walking disinformation, but I'm like you. I'm not sure which it is, but I tend to think with her, it's a combination of both. But again, she's the face of it, and there are people behind the scenes who'll probably be pushing the policy, and we'll talk more about it in the future because clearly, this isn't going away any time soon. Thanks, Mike. It is always good to see you. Thank you.

Dr. J Michael Waller: You too.

Emerald Robinson: It's now time for your Round Up. The FDA is proposing a ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra says quote, "The proposed rules would help prevent children from becoming the next generation of smokers and help adult smokers quit." The details of this proposal have not been finalized. Menthol cigarettes have already been banned in California and Massachusetts. The FDA will soon decide whether to issue final product standards once all the comments on the proposal are reviewed. And Florida has reinstated some of the math textbooks it earlier refused to accept. Florida education officials reinstated nine math textbooks after their publishers removed the woke content. The State Department of Education previously barred the use of 41% of all math textbooks that were proposed for use in the state's public schools. Talk about lawlessness. Take a look at these horrific moments for one New York City motorist. It appears that the group of six suspects attempted to pass this 53-year-old driver. They get into an accident while doing so. That's when the six suspects jump out of their car and surround his minivan. One even jumps on his car's roof. They take turns beating the man senselessly. Some of the suspects then steal an unoccupied Honda while the others steal the victim's minivan. Only one suspect waited for police to arrive at the scene. He was arrested. Awful seeing that. You know, New York has come to that. I try to avoid it like the plague now. And that's your Round Up. Up next, Elon Musk isn't only triggering Twitter employees. He's also triggered the Department of Homeland Security. More on that next.

Commercial: (Commercial Break)

Emerald Robinson: As we've been referencing today, recently, there was a House Judiciary Committee hearing that provides oversight of the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security. And at that hearing, the DHS secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, explained that DHS was creating a disinformation governor sport. Again, what we've been talking a lot about today, and there's no legal definition of disinformation for the Biden regime, of course, and for disinformation, is simply accurate information that they don't really like. You know that the Biden regime wants to treat the Hunter Biden laptop as disinformation as well as anyone who likes to chant, Let's go, Brandon, at sporting events. In other words, the US federal government wants to police free speech, which is the most blatantly unconstitutional thing that the Biden regime has ever tried to do. Though there is some competition for that. The US government is not allowed to do this. The Constitution expressly forbids it, and the Biden regime is trying to do it anyway. How is this possible, and what are Republican politicians going to do about it? I don't know. Maybe Tim Young can answer that who joins me joins me now to discuss the most serious threat to free speech in our lifetimes. You are a celebrated author and comedian and a regular guest on my show. Good to see you, Tim.

Tim Young: Good to see you; listen, I think both of us would be locked in gulags according to this new committee. Right. You'd be in there first. You'd be in a worse one. I might get air conditioning in mine.

Emerald Robinson: I would be in solitary confinement with, you know, with porridge or maybe broth on a daily basis.

Tim Young: Well, like, you know you're on a list. I mean, you absolutely are. I probably am, too. But you're on a special list from being in the White House.

Emerald Robinson: You know, I think you're probably on a list, too, just because I look at your Instagram feed, and it is so funny and so devastating to a lot of their ideas and agenda, and it gets a lot of interaction. So, by now, you're for sure on the list too, Tim. At least we're in good company.

Tim Young: Yeah. I mean, I just assume we're all going to end up there. How many conspiracy theories have come true? Gulags have been the ones that we've kind of joked about the most. But when you see the disinformation, whatever committee run by this woman who looks like - I don't know if you guys ever watched the boys on Amazon, but she looks like Stormfront, who ended up being a Nazi who's lived for like 100 years. She looks exactly like her. It's actually very, very creepy what she looks like. We're going to end up arrested at this point and literally locked away. I wish I was joking about that, but at this point, literally, I think we're all in trouble.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah, I wish that was a bit. And, you know, clearly, there's lots going on that has prompted them to just go ahead and come out and say it and do this big push. But particularly, as you've noted on Twitter, I think Elon Musk buying Twitter, and suddenly the Biden regime needs to have its own disinformation department. I mean, the timing is coincidental. Right. That's not a conspiracy. As Alex Stein told me yesterday, the other day, he's a coincidence theorist. I thought that was a good term.

Tim Young: Yeah. I mean, at this point, you know, what was it like 48 hours later the ministry was formed. They have no excuse other than that is what they did for it. Let's put it that way. When I take a look at this, they're that worried about free speech. They're not worried about an opposing viewpoint that they have created a government agency to shut it down. I never thought it would go this far.

Emerald Robinson: You know, I did base on day one of the Biden administration when they talked about domestic terrorism. I'm pretty sure, Tim, that Biden's Ministry of Truth violates the Constitution. I mean, obviously. But where is the useless GOP on this? I mean, are they in favor of this, or have they seen any strongly worded letters since yesterday?

Tim Young: Yeah, Marsha Blackburn put a little video up. But I mean, what good is that? Listen, this has to be a shutdown of the government right now. All of them have to be united. Everything needs to be shut down right now, or they're for it. There's no other there's no other explanation. I don't trust people like Lindsey Graham to move forward on this. Obviously, he's one of our favorite hawks that tries to get us involved in everything and is trying to get to the bottom of it. He's always getting to the bottom of it while people get to the bottom of him. But I look at this, and this is a shutdown in the government scenario. Everyone should stop working on the Republican side and refuse to go into Congress if they aren't doing anything other than trying to shut this commission down.

Emerald Robinson: Yeah. Mike Waller was just on before said they need to not confirm any of these Biden appointees until this is taken care of or any committee. And I also like what you said about the reasoning behind this. You said, if the Biden administration were telling the truth, they wouldn't have to set up a Ministry of Truth to silence their opposition. And I think that makes a lot of sense.

Tim Young: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that is all it is at this point, and that's the same thing with COVID. I mean, look at, Oh, we're allowed to talk about COVID on your show. How about that? You know, when you have Jen Psaki coming out and saying that COVID isn't over yet, are you kidding me? This is about emergency orders. This is about maintaining power at this point. That all this is with them. It's so blatantly obvious. The only people not paying attention are your college professors, your purple hairs that are making lattes at Starbucks that still think that Biden's doing a good job, oh, and groomers in schools.

Emerald Robinson: You made a really great point about COVID misinformation in another tweet where you noted that statements from Biden where he claimed that the vaccine prevented you from catching COVID should be flagged as disinformation by Twitter, right?

Tim Young: Yeah, I love it.

Emerald Robinson: I hope you'll be pointing this out to Elon Musk.

Tim Young: I hope he sees it, too. By the way, I love the segment. It's like the Tim Young segment. You literally have like a fanfare of all of my tweets, man. Can you, like, fill out my dating profile?

Emerald Robinson: I told you, I'm a fan. Maybe you should just put your tweets on Instagram.

Tim Young: Yeah, that'd be great. No, it's right. This is totally COVID disinformation from their side. You know all about this. They've been pushing a narrative there that's been false. Imagine if this goes unchecked, this new government agency, and we have another pandemic, which, by the way, Bill Gates and everybody else has said we're already going to have another pandemic magic prediction from those guys. So, I think we should be very concerned, and we've got to stop it.

Emerald Robinson: They're always right.

Tim Young: Yeah, it's magic how that happens.

Emerald Robinson: It's like they know something. Real quick, because there's this other trending topic that I want to get your take on because you talked a lot about it, and that's the Alec Baldwin shooting during the filming of that independent movie. What's going to happen? Is he going to get in trouble, or is he just going to slide by?

Tim Young: Yeah, he's going to slide by, and this is obviously at least him not checking his gun, which would be, I would think, some sort of charge. You know, you're not supposed to have a loaded gun on a movie set. The guy shot and killed someone. Has he even been brought before a judge at all? No.

Emerald Robinson: He said he didn't pull the trigger.

Tim Young: Yeah. It's always the guns' fault with the left. Right. It's never the actual shooter. Stick with the narrative. At least they're consistent.

Emerald Robinson: It just goes off itself, apparently, Tim. Thank you. Good to see you. Have a wonderful weekend.

Tim Young: You, too. Thanks, Emerald.

Emerald Robinson: Up next, we take a look back at this week's most memorable guests.

Commercial: (Commercial Break)

Emerald Robinson: All right, we're getting ready to wrap up another week. It was exciting and clearly eventful. But we want to end on a fun note, right. So, let's take a look back at some of the guests that joined us this week and the great things they had to say.

Dr. Ben Carson: Dr. Fauci knows that, and he's in a difficult position because he knows that, but he also has to carry the water for them, those who want to continue to use this for control purposes.

Alex Bruesewitz: Elon Musk did more for conservatism, and the Constitution than the majority of our elected leaders have done in their decades-long failed careers.

Darren Beattie, Revolver News Editor: Twitter is the crown jewel of our national security establishment, and every stakeholder in this regime is invested in maintaining control over information flows on this platform.

Mario Balaban: At Project Veritas, we don't opine. We don't give our opinions on stories. We get whistleblowers to come to us, or we get undercover video, and people are in their own words talking. So, to tell us that we have a right-wing bias or anything like that it's outrageous. We are quoting people.

Robbie Starbuck: Morgan got screwed here, too. I mean, she got totally dismantled by the Tennessee GOP for totally unfair reasons. And I think that at this point, like, we're both fighting the same system. We're fighting the same system that is trying to steal choices from voters.

Liz Harrington: This is a huge deal. It sends a message to the Democrats. It sends a message to the rhinos that, really, this is where the party is at. We want election integrity, and we want people that will actually get in there, who can win and who will fight once they win, who will make real change and make our system honest again.

Congressman Troy Nehls: And if our leadership in the Republican Party doesn't understand that, the American people are looking for action.

Dr. Naomi Wolf: The FTA represents us. It's a government agency that has to abide by disclosures of public documents, and they were hidden. It's worse than Watergate. I mean, it's much worse than Watergate. It's worse than the Pentagon Papers.

Emerald Robinson: You know what? I bet a lot of those statements would be flagged by the Biden News Ministry of Truth. But we appreciate you for being here this week. We look forward to giving you more truth next week. And that is The Absolute Truth.

Latest Podcast Episodes