Alex Swoyer on Supreme Court Legal Battles and Memphis Barker Takes on Special Forces Training
01:12:20 Share

I say this every election cycle, and I'll say it again. The 2024 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2025. If you're running for office, the first thing on your to-do list should be securing your name on the web. With a yourname.votedomain from godaddy.com, you'll stand out and make your mark. Don't wait. Get yours today.

Welcome to a brand new episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with yours Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. As always, jumping right into it, our first guest of the day, Alex Sawyer, is a friend of the show and legal affairs reporter for The Washington Times. Follow her on X at A-Swayer, S-W-O-Y-E-R, for those who want to know. Great. Hey, thanks for joining us today, Alex.

Of course. Yeah, thanks for having me. So FBI Director Kash Patel announced this morning, like within the hour, that the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on charges of obstruction after evidence of the judge obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week. That seems to be ramping up things. Yes.

of the day you'll hear. How do you think the legal community, just what people you know, how do you think they're going to react to this? So a couple things. I haven't taken a look at this case or story, so I should be careful with what I say. I do have a coworker who covers immigration matters, and most of the time, obviously, those are interceding with court stuff right now. And he noted to me that there was something similar that happened, I guess, like five years ago out of Massachusetts, where

But that judge, I don't think it was ever the judge was never arrested, but it made news. So I guess what we can take from this is that this FBI director, this FBI is not playing any games. There is definitely a move within the current administration to address some of these. I guess you could call them activist judges, right?

And I think that that's possibly what people take out of this. We've already seen some of these nationwide injunctions being issued, especially by Biden appointees and Obama appointees trying to halt a lot of the president's agenda. And then this, I think, is an example of taking that another step forward.

you know, combating this administration in another way. And it's actually two judges in two days because yesterday they arrested the New Mexico judge. Well, he was harboring. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, a gang member. Right. But, you know, that story hasn't gotten the coverage because it's muddy. It muddies the waters for the story for the left is a lot more than this other one. Right. But and it's also New Mexico. It's New Mexico. Right.

Would anybody miss New Mexico? That's really the question. The video of that judge playing with the gun that guy handed him. I know. Anyway. Pretty wild. Yeah. So, okay. So there's a pretty big Supreme Court case right now happening. It's about Montgomery County's policy requiring public school students to set through a very heavy instruction of LGBTQ tolerance without any chance for parents to opt their children out. And it's being taught to kids as young as three.

Give our audience a background on what's happening here and what is the court saying?

Yeah, so I was in the courtroom for these arguments. It was very interesting. So essentially, I think this inclusivity reading program was rolled out, quotation marks here, was rolled out in 2022. And its targets, basically pre-K, you know, three and four year olds all the way through like fifth grade elementary school and high

They originally, the Montgomery County School Board, right outside of D.C. here in Maryland, a well-known, respected school district, very wealthy area, had basically at first given parents notice of the readings and allowed their parents to opt their children out if they wanted.

In 2023, for some reason, the board, the school system decided to reverse that opt out option. What was said was that it became unworkable. So during arguments, I think it was the lawyer for the county, the school board basically kind of said, well, you know, it came out to like one student per class or something to that figure. But.

Others have kind of wondered, like, what does unworkable mean? Was it because there were so many opt-outs? Like, maybe that means revisit the curriculum. But in any event, this has come all the way to the Supreme Court, and, like, you know,

it's kind of united all sorts of parents from different faiths, Muslim, Catholic, you know, Protestant who objects to some of these readings and having their children basically taught by a teacher, uh, certain things about gender, about, uh, sexual, they say it's not sexuality. It's not taught in health class, but you know, again, it's,

It goes into pride parades. It goes into, like, there's books about same-sex couples, that sort of thing. Well, there's a book called Pride Puppy, which introduces three- and four-year-olds to pride parades. And students are asked to spot intersex flags, drag queens, underwear, and leather. And then there's another book, Born Ready, the true story of a boy named Penelope, promotes letting children decide their gender.

I get that doctors only guess at birth. That doctors only guess at birth, right? Why does Montgomery County feel this is appropriate for three- and four-year-olds? Yeah, that's a good question. You know, basically what the lawyer kept saying before the justices was that this is supposed to teach civility and respect.

I think that there's, I think a lot of people, it doesn't take lawyers to respond, but maybe just common sense that civility and respect can be taught through other means, right? Or, you know, especially the idea that maybe these books, I think some people might say,

they'd be comfortable with them being on school property, in the library, on the shelves, but not necessarily being part of the top curriculum. If a child wants to go get it, they can, but they shouldn't be forced to read it. That was kind of a weird point that kept coming up during oral arguments, which was just kind of head-scratching. Some of the justices were like, well,

you know, is this just on the shelf or was it actually taught in the classrooms? And both lawyers, from the one representing the parents and the one representing the county, the school district, basically said, yeah, it's like some of these were taught in the school classroom. And so I'm not sure why there was, you know, for quite a bit during oral arguments, this notion that, you know, there was some sort of confusion about that, which, you know, I think take from it what you will. The problem is part of this

the classroom instruction. They even read some of what the teachers are told to say, which is, you know, basically instructing kids, like, not to think badly of, you know, I guess, the choice of same-sex couples or whatnot, talking about gender issues. They're

tool to push the use of preferred pronouns, that sort of thing that you can tell a parent might have a problem with if it conflicts with the religious teaching and upbringing of their child. Not to mention...

A really key point that's important is that the school system does have opt-out options for other parts of their curriculum, like health class. I think also musical options. Parents can opt their kids out. So one of the things that kept coming from Justice Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh, was like, well, why are there opt-out options for other areas of the... Right. Yeah, exactly. Well, it's an agenda. I mean, you know...

It also said in the article you wrote that teachers are instructed to tell students that not everyone is a boy or a girl. Right. And some people identify with both, sometimes one more than the other, sometimes neither. Again, I don't understand why this should be taught to any elementary school student. There's a lot. I agree. You know, go ahead. I mean, where have we just gone completely crazy that we just don't let kids be kids for a while? Right.

Well, exactly. I have a three-year-old daughter and I can tell you what she has interest in all kinds of toys, like girl toys. She likes to play with cars. I don't really think, you know, for her, she thinks of boys and girls. The difference might be long hair, short hair right now, you know? So I just, I agree. I think that some part of this was like the question about age and appropriateness.

and that was going to take a actually brought up she is of course the democrat appointee appointed by obama and she can't get well you know she can tell how some parents even on a little time wouldn't be thrilled about the box and but then she can't wait acted in question about like some sort of a limit or laughing what if i can adopt it out and then it upset that they're excluded from the classroom that thing was like you know we're talking about religious opt-out you know anyone should be able to

obtain that no matter your age. It's not like, you know, oh, well, we can allow religious opt-outs for this certain age. No, like, you know, if the same religion applies to someone in high school, they should be able to have an opt-out as well, right? So I think that was kind of a weird point. I'm not quite sure where she falls. I definitely felt, having left oral arguments, that the majority of the court, the GOP appointees, if you will, are all going to side with the parents,

That's my prediction. And it's possible we see Kagan as well in some respect. I don't know. Sometimes they each issue, you know, it may be a concurrent, a current concurring opinion that agrees with the result, but maybe different reasons. Yeah.

I'm sure that they haven't targeted this young cohort because there's extensive research that points out that indoctrination between the ages of three and eight is most effective. That's quite possibly. But I mean, I have to say, like, I just wonder, like you mentioned Pride Puppy in this book that goes to three and four year olds. I just it's like to me, I think.

question the author's, you know, motivation. Yeah. Yeah. And like the thought that that's appropriate for that age and like just makes you wonder. Fundamentally, Alex, what drives me nuts about this is that

Where did this idea that we could start in immersing prepubescent children in adult sexual politics and content in school became a thing? The whole thing is disgusting. Yeah. I mean –

Go ahead. No, go ahead, Alex. I was going to say, I think that the positive aspect of what I thought, the oral arguments, was that there seemed to be an overwhelming majority that were like just...

like kind of like what about this, like even within the press group. So I think that that's like, you know, I guess at least there might be this district doing this, pushing this, but the majority of the response seems to be on the side of parents, which, you know, is promising. Hopefully we'll see, I guess, because the decision is expected at the end of June. Yeah.

We have about 90 seconds left with you here before we get you off. And thank you for joining us today. We have a lot of judges appointed by Obama and Biden who are really hamstringing President Trump's agenda.

Do you see a way around this, like the Daryl Isabel dubbed the No Rogue Rulings Act that maybe the Senate passes? I mean, what do you see happening here? It does seem a bit too broad of a stroke these district judges are going about.

I don't see the Senate having 60 votes to pass any of this legislation out of the House. You would have to have some Democrats crossover. And, you know, I think that a party likes what they're seeing the judges do if they're in the minority. So I'm not sure if you'll have any sort of bipartisan support for that. What I could foresee happening is the Supreme Court has granted the birthright citizenship challenge. It's going to be heard May 15th.

which is a pretty expedited basis to hear this. And that's President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. But the key issue that's really being argued in briefing is the judges, the lower court judges' use of these universal injunctions. And so it's really becoming, it's coming before the justices this term where they have an opportunity to address like,

you know, when possibly it's appropriate for a lower court judge to issue some sort of like widespread injunction, how far that reach should go. It'll be interesting to see if they take that opportunity up, how directly they go and guide the lower courts. But it's something that definitely needs to happen. Yeah, absolutely. Alex Sawyer, thank you so much for joining us. We look forward to having you back again here in the near future. Thank you.

All right, imagine this: you're running for president. Yes, president. What's the first thing you need? Well, besides the million dollar fundraising, you need to secure your web domain. You need your name, .vote. Easy to remember, straight to the point, and a direct link to your campaign. No, but seriously, whether you're getting out to vote or convincing people that yes, you can fix the potholes on Main Street, a .vote domain helps you stand out. It's not just a website, it's a call to action.

Head over to GoDaddy.com or Name.com, type in your name, .vote, and boom, you're ready to make a lasting impact. Get started today with your .vote web address.

Folks, this is Sam Stone for Breaking Battlegrounds. Discover true freedom today with 4Freedom Mobile. Their SIM automatically switches to the best network, guaranteeing no missed calls. You can enjoy browsing social media and the internet without compromising your privacy. Plus, make secure mobile payments worldwide with no fees or monitoring. Visit 4FreedomMobile.com today for top-notch coverage.

digital security, and total freedom. And if you use the code BATTLEGROUND at checkout, you get your first month of service for just $9 and save $10 a month for every month of service after that. Again, that's code BATTLEGROUND at checkout. Visit 4freedommobile.com to learn more.

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. Our next guest up today, Memphis Barker, Senior Foreign Correspondent at The Telegraph. You can follow him on X at Memphis Barker. He's been doing some very, very interesting and insightful pieces. So we're excited to have him on. We wanted to start out with a piece you had out. Trump wants to make the U.S. military bad bleep again. Am I tough enough to pass the test? Memphis Barker, are you tough enough?

Well, the short answer is not really. I had a great day out at Port Bragg. I was about half the size of all of the real Green Berets who kindly had me over for the day. It was a really fascinating day, to be honest. What they were basically doing is they were trying to show the physical standards required to make the cut for the Special Forces for the Green Berets. We were taken into the gym...

at one point, massive gym, you know, more weights than I've seen in my life. And just as a kind of taster session, they got us kind of running up and down a bit of artificial turf, carrying some, and I say some, of the weights that actual recruits are required to carry over vast distances.

I kind of hobbled backwards and forwards. I got very, very tired. And there's a rather embarrassing video of me out of breath at one end of the forge under the watch of the of the real instructors. But they were, you know, they were really insightful and they gave us a lot of information about kind of the challenges that they're facing in terms of recruitment. Now, Special Forces out

applicants usually pass a rate of about 30%, but Lionel Strong, the command sergeant major who's kind of in charge of the recruitment process, he told me that the rates have actually been on quite a steady decline, which was interesting. He says a lot of the recruits from the army itself are showing up kind of overweight, sometimes just not fit enough really to even take the test.

He said they started running kind of training, pre-training for several weeks to get people in shape in order to go through what is a grueling several week long process out in Fort Bragg. I mean, in the real thing, and some applicants were, you know, at Fort Bragg at the time taking the test. They're out in the woods. They're carrying weights, you know, as heavy as a Volkswagen Beetle. They're on 60K walks. They're doing it through night and day. And part of it, which I didn't actually even have time to get to in the article, part of it they told me was about character.

So they're not just measuring your physical strength. They're measuring your teamwork. And because they're watching you all the time, they can tell if you're skimping on the requirements. Maybe you've walked too close to a road. Maybe you're not kind of engaging physically.

with the teammates helping out as much as you should be. And in this environment, none of them are leaders at this point. They're kind of having to work out who should be a leader, who should do what role, and they're really, really carefully drilling down into that, as well as, of course, the fact you have to have biceps sort of popping through your shirt to really make it.

But it was a fantastic day. I mean, obviously at the end of it, I get a bit of shooting training. I'd never fired a gun before and, well, it was exhilarating. But, yeah, for a Brit, it's not often you get to have a place with an M4 in your arms and told to just...

far away. A little bit different cultures between the Brits and the Americans on that issue, right? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, me and the photographer were kind of flabbergasted. They just sort of said, come on, have a go. I've got naturally...

I forgot to turn the safety off, which they were very impressed with, to say the least. But, you know, I think one of the interesting things about the day, which, again, I'll be getting to in a future piece, is that a lot of it was based around the scenario of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Oh, wow.

It's a great kind of medivacs. And then you see the special forces and the rangers sort of hove into action. Again, pretty stunning for a Brit to see. They're rappelling down onto the roofs in Chinooks. They're firing, you know, what was frankly a huge quantity of ammunition at targets on the range. And at one point they even, you know, released a HIMARS missile.

over and above the crowd, which, you know, we've been reporting on Ukraine for years. It was fascinating and frankly a surprise to see one in action. So let me ask you a question I want to ask. So there's a report out this morning in the Military Times that more than two-thirds of reserve troops are overweight.

And that's the United States. I can't even imagine what it is in other countries. I mean, I think we like to think in America we're a bit of a warrior culture. But this came out to me as because – They don't have this problem in China or Russia or Iran. A colleague of mine – well, I don't even know about the Russia because look what Ukraine has done to them. So I'm not even sure that's true. Oh, no. The fitness levels coming in are very good. I have a colleague of mine whose stepdaughter just joined the Navy.

And she went through basic training and went with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend did not make it through basic training. And they had graduation for a couple weeks ago. And I asked him, I said, how many dropped out? And over half the people that went through basic training with her for the Navy dropped out. And she told my colleague that it wasn't really that hard. So as you went through this training process,

What I would like to get your opinion on is why is it important that these people in special forces be in the best shape you possibly can be in? I mean, Sam and I were talking about it earlier. It seems like it's sort of a life and death issue that they therefore would focus a lot on this if you're a soldier to be in the best shape possible. Are we wrong on that?

Oh, absolutely not. I mean, you know, some of these things, they're phrased in the terms of your ability to do an exercise in the application process. So, you know, pull-ups, can you do 30 pull-ups? But what they're really thinking about isn't your ability to yank yourself up on a bar. They're thinking you need to be able to pick your mate up, put him on your shoulders and run, you know, 100 yards or more, uh,

in an active war zone. This isn't just sort of, you know, looking, looking in good shape, having a good body. These people need to be at the right of the, you know, super elite end of physical fitness. If they're going to be, you know, crack soldiers, uh,

It's not just sort of, you know, window dressing. And I think some of the exercises that we actually saw were really testament to that. I mean, these guys are dropping out of helicopters. They're running from room to room. They're carrying extremely heavy bags. Well, certainly...

certainly for me, what would be an extremely heavy bag. And they're doing it for hours and hours and hours. I mean, these guys on a mission, it's not like they're going to be pulled back from the front, given time to rest and go again. They may be going for days on end. But this is behind enemy lines stuff. It's not...

You know, it's not a cushy drill they're going to be taking part in. And the kind of missions that they may be called to take on, whether it's, you know, they've done stuff famously in Afghanistan. They were, you know, fighting on horseback in the mountains against the Taliban. They need to do things that are right at the limit of human endurance. So, you know, these tests aren't just a game. And I think they were saying, at least the special forces guys were saying, we're kind of worried about,

about the basic fitness standards, some of those things you've just described in kind of the test to get into the Navy, they would really, I think, like to see that basic level raised so you get people coming in fitter. Even if you're not, you know, necessarily going to be a special forces soldier, I think, you know, certainly appears like Mr. Hegseth's views is that

You know, just didn't join the military. You need to have, you know, enough fitness that you could drag someone along the floor. You could get someone out of a really hairy situation because, you know, as we saw in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, front lines change all the time. You could be a cook, you know, and a bomb lands on your base.

And all of a sudden, you're no longer a cook. You're someone in a life and death situation. The famous case of the Jessica, I forget her last name, but who was captured, you know, as part of a convoy and became a big deal. So we're going to be coming back with more from Memphis Barker here in just a moment. He has a great piece about how Russia and China are seizing on Canada's carelessness. Breaking Battlegrounds, coming right back.

Support American jobs while standing up for your values. OldGloryDepot.com brings you conservative pride on premium, made-in-USA gear. Don't settle. Wear your patriotism proudly. Visit OldGloryDepot.com today. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. On the line with us right now, Memphis Barker, senior foreign correspondent at The Telegraph. Follow him on X at Memphis Barker. You also mentioned a point in your article, Trump wants to make the U.S. military tough again.

You said that selection to special forces has always been gender neutral. Only four women have ever passed the test. In fact, no combat unit has separate criteria for men and women, according to the Center for New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. In the decades since women were granted entry to combat positions, 143 have joined the Rangers, an elite infantry force out of more than 40,000 recruits.

Did you come across females training on your day there? Did you get any insight into how many are trying to join? Because it does, you know, Sam and I were talking about this earlier. At the end of the day, the military is to defend and kill bad people. That's their job. And I think sometimes we try to go and do the diversity thing too much when realize they have one job and that's to protect a country.

Did you talk this issue through about the gender neutral and requirements and so forth with these instructors? I did, yeah. And they were broadly of the view that because the standards were so hard and pretty close to impossible for any kind of person who's not physically strong to pass, they would be that if you pass the standard, it doesn't matter whether you're a man or a woman. Now, that said, there

there are very few women even trying really at the moment to get into the special forces. I think there were something like three or four, maybe. They said three or four women were currently in the various stages of the application process to see if they would make it into the Green Berets, a long, long way to go. And that was, of course, you know, vastly outweighed by the number of men who were coming from, you know, some of them college athletics programs,

some of them the Rangers unit, and others, of course, from the army. And I did actually manage to speak to Joanne Nauman, who's a Special Forces commander. Now, she joined the military early in the 2000s, and she didn't, as she wasn't joining a combat unit, she didn't have to take, at that time, the same kind of brutal, frankly,

physical assessment that recruits are currently going through. She was working more in the intelligence field. There are separate criteria for people who aren't going to be joining those combat units. But again, again and again, I heard from these guys, if you want to join a combat unit, it doesn't matter, man or woman, the standards are pretty elite. That's why you see those numbers being so small, frankly. So they were of the view that it wasn't really a massive...

massive issue at the top end of the US military because, you know, if you are a woman going through that process, you will have to be able to carry a man on your back. And the women who do pass, you know, the four have been able to do that. But you're talking about thousands and thousands of men who are going through and passing at least, you know, comparatively with greater ease. One of the issues that was actually raised, you

by this piece was the army combat fitness test. Now, the guys, the Green Berets, the instructors, they really said it's a good test, actually. They weren't unhappy with the requirements. Again, a lot of them are about chucking heavy balls around. A lot of them are about carrying. Again, carrying people on your back, being able to do pull-ups. But...

um, this is an annual test that runs, um, basically, uh, every year you have to take it as a soldier. And the rate, this test, um, it has been made, uh, graded by gender. So women can only do a sort of slightly different, slightly reduced version of it, um, every year to make sure they're up to standard. Um, because, um, yeah, it's, um,

One of the things that maybe is attracting the ire of Mr. Hegseth as he looks into, you know, the question of whether physical standards have fallen across the U.S. military. I've got to say, before we wrap up, we have just about a minute left and then we're going to be coming back with more from Memphis Barker in our final segment.

I think Hegseth is a little bit off base on that. I think the issue is overall fitness within the military. And, you know, should there be different standards for men and women in non-combat roles? I'm fine with that. Right. Like you said, the combat roles are different. The combat test should be the same. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and I think, you know, they set them at that elite level, right?

And I don't think having seen that day, I didn't leave thinking, you know, your guys groups are falling victim to sort of, you know, the, you know, quote unquote standards that are undermining the fighting force. I saw was, you know, a frankly very lethal looking operation. I understand that's the Green Berets. But they, you know, they were they were more they weren't concerned about your infantry at all. They said, look.

look, these guys are out there fighting, shooting guns, killing bad people. They're pretty damn fit. And,

As they would be. We're going to be coming back with more from Memphis Barker here in just a minute, folks, so make sure you stay tuned for that. If you're not already, you need to be a subscriber to the podcast segment. Go on Substack, Spotify, Apple, anywhere you get your favorite podcasts, you can subscribe, and you get extra content every week, including Kylie's Corner, which is kind of our fan favorite here, so make sure you're downloading that.

And tuning in for that as well, Breaking Battlegrounds coming back in just a moment. In today's digital world, standing out is more important than ever. Whether you're running for office, leading a cause, or hosting a vote for the cutest pet in town, you need a web domain that's simple, memorable, and action-oriented. You need a .vote web domain. It's clear, impactful, and establishes a lasting presence for your campaign.

Don't wait. Head to GoDaddy.com or Name.com, type in your name.vote, and get started today. Because after all, every pet deserves a web address that's as special as they are. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with yours, Chuck Moore, and I'm Sam Stone. Continuing on the line with us, Memphis Barker, Senior Foreign Correspondent at The Telegraph.

Memphis, you wrote a great story, which Sam and I were just fascinated about, how Russia and China are seizing on Canada's carelessness in the Arctic. For our audience, just so you know, Sam and I do not want Canada to be the 51st state whatsoever. They are our neighbor, though. We care about good relations. But there was a quote you had in your piece that said, Canada...

has woefully underspent on its military, says Glenn Cowan, a former Canadian Special Forces soldier and founder of 019, a defense-focused venture capital firm. We have neglected our military obligations to NATO, and we've been held to account not just from President Trump but from our European allies as well. Can you tell us a little bit what Canada's reluctance or just outright unwillingness to

take part of their responsibility in NATO has meant for the defense of the Arctic? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in Canada, it's just the military doesn't appear to have been a particularly salient issue in elections stretching back decades. I mean, they've got the security umbrella. They've got NORAD. You know, your southern neighbor is the most powerful military in the world. You can kind of see why their politicians thought, well, you know, we'll put that issue on the back burner.

or we're going to spend around 1.3% of GDP on our military. No one's really that interested, they thought at the time, in the Arctic because vast, unpeopled, absolutely freezing, not unpeopled, obviously you've got the indigenous Canadians there, but very, very few people over huge tranches of land.

But then the world changes. You obviously get Russian aggression, Russian expansionism. You also get climate change. It starts to melt the ice around the Arctic, revealing, as we learn more and more, about the huge natural resources in the area. So they talk about billions and billions of barrels of oil that could be drilled out in the area. They talk about all kinds of critical minerals. All of a sudden, you've got...

massive threat from the Russians and also, you know now along with the Chinese and you've got a kind of resource battle going on across the Arctic now The Russians have been aware of this for decades, you know, they've got a really they've paid, you know invested a lot in their northern fleet They're building, you know hundreds of structures in the Arctic across the parts of territory that they control They're building icebreakers They got nuclear-powered submarines

And that, for America, seems to be one of the key worries, that these nuclear-powered submarines are very difficult to track. But they can also go under the ice for a very long time. They can hide under the ice. And in a DEFCON 1 situation, God forbid, one could surface around the kind of shores of Canada, potentially fire a missile across Canada.

and into, you know, Washington, into New York. That's kind of the absolute worst-case scenario on the minds of, you know, U.S. military planners. And now it has to be on the minds of the Canadian government. You know, they can no longer basically sustain the trajectory the country was on. I think partly, you know, Mr. Trump's kind of threats have really brought it home to them that that security partnership no longer exists anymore.

in the same way that it has done for decades. But I also think internally... Let me ask you the question. Is it fair to say that's a security partnership? It seems like a very lopsided relationship. I mean, again, I'm not anti-Canada. I want a good relationship with Canada. They're our neighbor, right?

But I think a partnership is a very lousy term. And I think that's where Trump – look, Trump's a bull in a china casa. There's no other way to describe it. But he's not wrong on this issue that they need to step up. I mean you wrote in it that Canada is only set to meet their NATO 2 percent military spending target by 2032. If then. Let's be honest. And it won't happen. It just – it won't happen. And so – and then who knows what they consider military spending? Right.

Right? No. Yeah, totally. Yeah. I think it's, I think, you know, a fire has been lit under Canada, it's fair to say, but, you know, it's got to be sustained, this kind of thing. Correct. It can't be a kind of three-month...

We'll say everything right for now. Maybe maybe Mr. Trump gets other ideas in a couple of couple of months. Attention goes elsewhere. This needs to be a prolonged, sustained commitment. I think, you know, people like Mr. Cohen, who is fantastic to speak to, you know, really profoundly experienced soldier, spent a lot of time in the Arctic himself and just described, you know, frankly, how difficult it is to operate. And they're still learning, frankly, to.

you know, how best to run a military in temperatures that can reach, you know, minus 40 degrees. This really needs to be jumped up the priority ladder in Canada. And you're seeing the beginning of it now. But we'll see the effect in 10 years' time. And hopefully, you know, not 2032, 2027. That's what the Defence Minister said the other day. That's when he wants to hit. But, you know, it takes money.

So Memphis, one of the things you just touched on is the difficulty of operating in an environment like the Arctic with the temperatures, with the challenges of the terrain. It's something that Russia has taken very seriously and spent the money and resources to build the capability to operate there. Canada hasn't been doing it. The U.S., for obvious reasons, hasn't been doing it. Would it behoove the U.S. to say, listen –

We'll worry about the intercontinental bombers and missiles, but you guys got to figure out how to hold the land in the north. In other words, kind of narrow their focus. Well, that's a partnership. Yeah. No, absolutely. I mean, I think that...

I really loved reading about some of the proposals that people are putting forward. You know, people said you need to basically think of this, you know, for want of a better word, like just constructing a whole new series of towns in the North radar stations, correct bases. This needs to be come kind of more like a porcupine than a kind of frankly an open door. And, and,

You know, they are thinking about building, I think, three bases, three new military bases at the moment. But people will, you know, people will certainly, who are hawks on this issue, say you need to go much further than that. You know, you need new roads. You need infrastructure. You need infrastructure to be able to move troops around.

should it come to it. And you need the kind of radar facilities that allow them to basically look across this huge, huge land and be able to spot threats. Now, once you spot the threat, then you need to be able to get people there quickly. And the question, I think, is being asked now, do they have enough of the kind of material that would be needed to respond to those kind of threats? Some of these...

discussions come down to what do you prioritize, right? So at the moment, there's a talk about procuring like 12 nuclear, well, ice-bred, under-ice submarines, sorry. Now, that would be just hugely expensive. And if you put the money into that,

Are you going to get the money to go and build that infrastructure on land? These conversations, I think, would really be usefully had with America, with the Pensacola. And maybe it's, you know, some kind of partnership, some kind of understanding could be struck there. One of the other things, Memphis, that your article touched on, and Chuck and I were talking about this briefly before the program today.

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, all of our global geopolitical adversaries do not have the issues we do that you touch on in your article with concern, for instance, with the indigenous community, with the environmental issues. All these things where we've tied ourselves in knots and made everything we do vastly more expensive, they just go out and do it. Well, everything we have is a five-year study. Right.

Right? Everything's a five-year study. Now, I don't want to be – Putin doesn't care about these people. The man's a thug and a warlord, right? I don't want to be Putin. But, yeah, when you go and you have to say – you have to spend five, six years studying this. I mean, I was just doing a little simple math on the graph you put on. So Russia has 41 icebreakers. They can truly – they have major icebreakers, right? Forty-one. If we combine Canada and what Canada's also ordered – so that's not even there yet –

Finland, Sweden, and the U.S., we have 41 together. And that's minus eight that we still haven't ordered. I mean, we've got to get serious about this. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I think I was kind of struck by an article in the local press in the National Post, which was saying, listen, this red tape, we understand why it's there. We understand what...

you know, that Canada has, you know, has a very tense history with indigenous people up in the Arctic, to say the least.

but, you know, this is an urgent and pressing security threat and some of this red tape will need to be reduced, these time frames need to come down. A road can't take 10 years to build at the moment. It just can't. And so, you know, that's going to be a series of quite delicate negotiations but I think, you know, National Post was certainly calling for a kind of hard-nosed approach on it and Pierre Poilievre, the candidate for Prime Minister, he's...

you know, he's actually been taken to task by some indigenous leaders saying, you really need to come and commit to us to tell us that you're going to bring us on board in this construction project that you're promising for the Canadian military. It just shows that there's going to be, you know,

certainly an amount of negotiation to get these projects through. But it has to be done now. Absolutely. Before we let you go, we have a little over four minutes left here. You were formerly based in reporting out of Pakistan. I don't think most of the world is really aware that a crisis, a potential war is brewing there between India and Pakistan right now. Can you give us a little insight on what's going on and what to expect? Yeah, sure. I mean, I'm

I'd say it's pretty worrying. I was there for two years, you know, 2018 to 2020. I think probably in all the years since, this is the tensest things have been on that border. You're seeing a Pakistani military build-up there at the moment. Pakistani fiscal leaders have said that India has basically declared war on

by cutting off the flow of the Indus River into Pakistan. Now, Pakistan relies on the waters from that river. A long-standing treaty basically says India cannot interfere with the supply of water into Pakistan, you know, very dry country, you know, certainly as I was there, absolutely baking in great tranches. And so, you know, while it looks like kind of diplomatic, you know, to-ing and fro-ing,

I'd say that we're on the brink of something potentially very serious. And, you know, I know that the world's attention is on various other wars, various other borders. But, you know, certainly in newsroom here, all of a sudden people's attention is returning to that old conflict. Now, India has long...

uh, accused, long suspected, and, you know, rightly so, at least initially, that, that Pakistan was, um, sending, you know, or, or backing, um, uh, terrorists in the Kashmir region to carry out strikes against, you know, military targets, even, you know, potentially civilians. Um, now those ties, we, we know historically to be true, uh,

Um, in this case with the, uh, the massacre of tourists, um, in a terror attack earlier this week, again, too early to say if that was, had any involvement, um, from the ISI, not for the Indian media, of course, they've gone right ahead and said, uh,

this is just straight out of the playbook. And, you know, the Indian government is responding, you know, Modi is a hard, is a nationalist leader. He's seizing on it. He's pushing hard. Pakistan's not in a brilliant situation at the moment. Economically, Modi has the backing of Trump. Obviously, they're becoming increasingly close. Trade deals on the horizon, you know, may even be sealed in the coming weeks. He's certainly going to feel buoyed. So could you see, you know, India pushing the envelope here? Yeah.

Well, you know, I think we're about to find out. Well, what's really frightening about this, because, you know, Europe absolutely has a meltdown because, you know, Putin talks about tactical warheads, right? I think both India and Pakistan have roughly about 170 nuclear warheads each. Is that correct?

I mean, it's something like that. Yeah, it's yeah, because I don't know. But I know it's a hefty and if even a tiny proportion goes off, it's all it's all hell to pay. And if there's two groups that pressfully push the button, it seems to be those two groups.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, you are... And just, you know, the rhetoric in both countries is, you know, maybe not in the top levels of government, but you have, you know, the talking heads, the columnists, the influencers, they'll reach, they'll push that nuclear button quite quickly. Yes. You know, there's the...

The rabble-rousing, the tensions can ratchet up very, very swiftly there. And so some would say, look, the fact that they both have nuclear weapons means you're much less likely to see a kind of exchange. But I know that the military planners spend a heck of a lot of time thinking, are our nukes ready to respond in time to theirs? Do we want first-strike capability? These are conversations that go on hour after hour, day after day, year after year.

in Raul Pindi where the Pakistani military is based and I'm sure the same is true in India.

Memphis Barker, thank you so much. We really appreciate having you on the program and look forward to getting you back on again in the future. We love your insights on all of this. Folks, Memphis Barker, the senior foreign correspondent at The Telegraph, follow him on X at Memphis Barker. And if you're not subscribed to The Telegraph, you definitely want to be. Chuck and I have found that's one of the great publications out there today. 100%.

Breaking Battlegrounds will be back on the air next week, but make sure you stay tuned for that podcast segment. If you're not already, go sub stack Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Breaking Battlegrounds is there. See you next week. Support American jobs while standing up for your values. OldGloryDepot.com brings you conservative pride on premium made in USA gear. Don't settle. Wear your patriotism proudly. Visit OldGloryDepot.com today. I say this every election cycle and I'll say it again.

The 2024 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2025. If you're running for office, the first thing on your to-do list should be securing your name on the web. With a yourname.votedomain from GoDaddy.com, you'll stand out and make your mark. Don't wait. Get yours today.

I don't think, because, you know.

The New York Times and others are lazy with international reporting. For example, completely ignoring Haiti. I was actually talking to Michael last night. We've had Michael Debert on the show going back to Haiti to report for us mid-May. And he got clips last night of a bunch of decapitated people in the capital. Just – no one's reporting on it. And, you know, I mean –

If you ever saw Escape from New York with Kurt Russell, that is what Haiti is right now. It is absolutely horrific. It's a definition of hell.

Absolutely. There's a lot of global hotspots we're not paying enough attention to. And India and Pakistan is one. Pakistan, North Korea. But we have Cheyenne to talk about Iran. That's what we're going to talk about. That's another one that's not being paid enough attention to. No, no. But Cheyenne, I think it's important for our audience before we start. We've had you on before. But explain your background.

Coming from Iran and that you can't go back. I mean, yeah. So explain this. Technically, I can go back. I'll just be escorted with a very nice van from the prison. So but basically you're on a list. Yeah. You can't go back. Since December 2016, I've been on a list that I cannot go back. And because of the work I do here, I work in defense policy.

And it will shock you that the government of Iran is not fond of people who want to overthrow it and work with the Israelis and Americans. You might be surprised to know that. Shocking. I mean, really. So Trump right now is trying to negotiate with Iran. Yeah. Okay. And I have always felt this. This is different than most people. I never blame any administration for trying to talk to him. I think lines of communication are important. Yeah.

What should people be aware of what's really happening now in Iran? How is the country currently doing economically? Is there really a significant minority of people who want to overthrow the government? And what should the United States be looking to do to make a deal with Iran or should we just let Israel go take care of what Israel needs to take care of? Yeah.

You wrote about this a few weeks ago, I believe, on your SobStack, that just immediately after Trump was elected, Iran's economy plummeted, the value of currency. Right. Because they were so scared of the reinforcement of sanctions that they...

withdrew dollar reserves, dollars they had from the market. And investors stopped investing and they were scared of having access to the dollar that the economy just plummeted. And there are significant energy shortages in Iran. They have been going on for a few months since Trump got elected because they have increased the production of cryptocurrency. And they're mining a lot of cryptocurrency right now in Iran.

It is. That's a new one to me. And they're up to no good with that, right? No, absolutely not. They're up to no good. But also imagine, for instance, my mother in Iran, she has...

daily power adages, and this is going on for everybody, and summer is about to arrive, because they're mining cryptocurrency. And it's hot in Iran. And it is hot. It is an issue they're dealing with economically. My suspicion... I want to jump in with... Has their focus on nuclear actually limited, I mean, for instance...

If Iran of all places is short of energy, you can just build a lot more gas-burning generators. So their argument is that because of the sanctions, they don't have access to the material they need for production of energy. For fossil fuel? For fossil fuel. That's their argument, which is – That's a spurious argument. Yes, yes.

It is absurd. They have enough to build. The issue is that Iran has a two-sided economic problem. One is that it is incredibly corrupt because of the economic structure. It's like Venezuela. You buy the loyalty of certain people by allowing corruption to...

go amok to enrich themselves and be loyal to the regime. The other one is that Iran is a quasi-communist economy. It is centrally planned.

And to the extent that small businesses exist, they don't like growing because if they grow, some oligarch is going to come in and confiscate your business. So you want to keep it small. They have significant economic issues, which doesn't allow for, as we know, doesn't allow for basic government function. So you cannot even go build oil refineries, for instance, or gas production facilities, etc.

They have that issue, but when you have that issue, nuclear energy is not going to solve it. You're going to run into the same problem. And they're not pursuing nuclear energy. They're pursuing nuclear weapons. And you were talking about India and Pakistan, and if you like what's going on there, you're going to love a nuclear-armed Iran. The argument I always make is that a nuclear-armed Iran is not going to be

Israel or Saudi Arabia or us, what it's going to do is multiply its existing aggressions, its current aggressions, using nuclear deterrence. Because when you have a nuclear weapon...

then what's going to happen? Nobody's going to dare to respond to your attacks. Yeah, they're holding you hostage. Yeah, exactly. They're not foolish enough to want national death. They just want the shield that that offers. It's like a good example is Putin in Ukraine. Putin has not used his nuclear weapons directly. He's using it indirectly by controlling our support for Ukraine. And that's what Iran is going to be doing. So,

What should we do about Iran? In the immediate term, we should use military action to take out their nuclear facilities. And is that U.S. involvement or do we let Israel do it?

Israel seems like they really want to do it. It depends. Actually, Israel wants us to do it. It depends on the extent of what you want to achieve. Israel doesn't have a bomber fleet. So what you need is MOP. It's a type of bomb. It's 30,000 pounds that penetrates the deepest underground facilities. Those are only carried by B-2 bombers. We only have 21 of them. So...

We can dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Israel cannot. Israel has fighters. What they can do is set it back by destroying the mouths of the tunnels and the underground facilities, access to water and air ventilation system.

So that will take a year, two, three, based on the destruction. It slows them down. Yeah, but the underground facilities are going to stay intact. And as soon as they reestablish access, they can go and continue their program. One of the other issues I've heard, and maybe I'm right or wrong, or the person who said this was right or wrong, but Israel does not have midair refueling capability for their fighter force.

They have... It's not enough, because especially if you want to use fighters, you have to make several trips back and forth. It might go up to... Fighters have two or four bunker busters, so...

they're going to have to use sequential bombings, which means you keep dropping these bombs to penetrate deeper and deeper. It might end up being... And there are several facilities. It might end up being up to 100 trips that need to be made by fighters. Whereas with...

B-2. With three B-2s, you can actually destroy the entire program. Israelis will have enough to make a few trips, but they're going to need us to help them if they are going to make actually 50 trips. I have a film in Hollywood in the movie Maverick. Why do you tell me how easy it was to disable an underground nuclear? You think? Yeah, I can't believe Hollywood did that to me. It doesn't take one bomb off an F-15? I can't believe that. Um...

So what – Iran – we cannot allow Iran to enrich this uranium further, correct? I mean that's just long story short. We just can't allow them to do it. Yes, because –

We have had this confusion in the U.S. government that Witkoff, Special Envoy for Middle East, said Iran cannot go above 3.67%, which is what Obama said. And if Witkoff had been paying attention for the past 15 years, you'd know the problem with that. Rubio corrected him. The issue is that the 0 to 3% is very difficult. As soon as you enrich at a low level, you can easily go to 80 or 90%, which is weapons rate. Well, it's the old line, you know.

How did you get rich? Well, once you get past that first million, and it's the same concept, right? It's exactly the same concept, yes. So you think the US military is going to have to get involved if we really want to stop this nuclear program? Because it's not going to be a negotiation because this is a – it's a talk fest. Yes, it's –

And there is a set. Now, you said, what do we do about Iran? I said in the short term, this is what we need to do. But this has long term, likely positive ramifications. I recently wrote for National Review. It's in the current issue that when in 1979, the Islamic Republic came to power, it had three promises establishing and forcing Islam on the people, economic stability.

equality and standing up to what they call the capitulation to America. I mentioned the economic problems Iran has. So that promise has been failed, has failed. Iranians are resisting Islam. Under a third of the population now calls themselves Muslims. Wait, wait, wait. Say that again because I don't think most people, including myself here in America, would understand that.

What percentage of Iranians now call themselves Muslim? The official religion is Shiite Muslim. The last survey was in 2020 that showed 30% of Iranians call themselves Shiite Muslims.

Most are some version of secular. Some have got up to four million evangelical Christians in underground churches, Ezraistianism, etc., etc. How brave do you have to be to be an underground Christian in Iran? Very, very brave.

I mean, I don't know if you saw that. I mean, that's the definition of a believer, right? Beijing has been running around the last few weeks rounding up all the Christians. Oh, have they really? Yeah. How did I miss that? Yeah. You're not sharing enough with me. Sorry. So you said there's about 4 million underground Christians? Yes, up to 4 million. So underground, does that mean during the day they portray themselves sectarian or devout Muslims, but they're really Christians? Actually, no.

No, because people – so that actually goes to the problem that the regime has. Nobody's even pretending to be Muslim in public. So when I was going to school, I would have to pretend that during Ramadan we were not eating at home. We were never fasting. My family was not religious, but we had to pretend. Nobody's doing that anymore. And that is –

making the supporters, the core supporters of the regime, 10 to 20% of the population, very angry. So what's left? It was foreign policy. This has been going for 20 years now that the first two promises, economy and religion, have failed. So it's only foreign policy. It's not a coincidence that as...

Iran's foreign policy became more aggressive. That was a bargain that the regime made. So where is Iran now on foreign policy? Hamas is done. Hezbollah is done. Houthis are being attacked. Their proxies in Iraq have been disarming. It has been a bargain.

Iran has lost Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Correct. The only thing it has left is the nuclear program. Out of all the revolutionary promises, the only thing that is keeping Khamenei...

the supreme leader legitimate is the nuclear program let me i'm gonna go quick because we're talking about these subsidiaries of iran let's talk about the houthis for a minute actually there's an article i got saved for reading tonight some jackass is blaming trump for the houthis which i just like whatever um i thought that it was biden who the yeah no whatever everything's trump's fault right um the you know the rain if it's not raining whatever um

The Houthis, what should the United States be doing about the Houthis? Should we just say you're clear in present danger, there will be no Houthis left? What should we be doing? I wrote for Wall Street Journal a year ago that we should sink Iran's navy because Houthis are getting their supplies from Iran and Iran doesn't have land access to Yemen. How many ships is that? Two.

Iran has a couple dozen ships, but we don't need to sink all of them. We just need to sink the main cargo ships. Yeah, be all in, man. Just knock it all out. It's not difficult. If you're in, you're in. Do it, right? Don't save one left.

On that front, I've got to ask. This is the podcast portion, so we've got to open up a little levity. Have either of you seen the YouTube videos by the fat electrician? No. Oh, my God. They're great military history stuff. You have to watch the one he does about when America destroyed half of Iran's navy in 24 hours. Yes.

Yeah. I mean, his narration of it is hilarious and most people would not. Well, yeah, I'll look that up. But let me ask you this. Did Biden and Obama make a mistake not letting Saudi Arabia just do what it needed to do in Yemen? No.

I don't think that we can really blame the Biden or the Obama administration as much as the Saudis themselves because they proved entirely incompetent. Why were they incompetent about it? I mean, that is a clear threat to Saudi Arabia. The answer is the same reason we proved incompetent in Afghanistan because our problem was we were attacking Saudi.

the Taliban in Afghanistan, which they should have been attacked, but the supply line kept coming, which was through Pakistan. We never went after the Pakistanis to stop the supply. And the Houthis have the same problem, or we have the same problem with the Houthis, which is as long as we are...

They're not a highly trained force. They can always recruit a bunch of ref-refs to come and join them. As long as the supply keeps coming from Iran, it's not going to work. Well, you're a military historian to a degree, and I've been reading some Civil War things recently, and just –

Right.

Well, the answer is that military planners have figured it out. It's a political problem. That's just... To be fair, the Saudis and the Emiratis, for good reasons, didn't want to enter a war with Iran. And...

The United States, for bad reasons, doesn't want to take the risk. But at the end of the day, the military planners would love to go for it. It's the political class that is resisting it. Well, I think, you know, the one thing about Trump, I will say, you know, there was the old saying, only Nixon could go to China. And I think there's only certain things.

to get done only Trump can do. And maybe it's just simple, you know, yelling out, he's got the Tucker Carlson's barking at him and things like this, you know, but it just seems like he's a person just say, you know, if we want peace for a couple of decades, I just, these ships got to go down. We're going to, we're going to stop this nonsense now. I agree. And I think what the world has not seen in a long time, really since Gulf war one was a U S military effort that is concise, concise,

No, no, because we have so many rules of engagement, right? We had earlier on a gentleman in Memphis from the Telegraph who went and spent a day training with the Rangers. And we were just talking about how grueling it was, and Sam and I were talking before is –

The mistake people make – and look, diversity is important. I agree. There needs to be many opportunities. And I would take – I don't care what color you are, what gender you are, what sexuality you are. If you do a good job, I'm going to hire you, right? Because it lessens my workload. I don't care. But –

At the end of the day, the military's job is to defend the country and kill bad people, period. There's no more to it. And I don't need diversity training for that. It would behoove the U.S. in multiple foreign engagements right now to go out and do what you said, wipe out Iran's navy, wipe out their nuclear facilities.

And just make a statement. We're not being pushed around anymore with this. There are going to be real consequences. Yeah, just thank me that you don't have to stand over the grave of your child in the future. Go ahead. I was going to point out, actually, you mentioned the Persian Gulf War and...

There is a book, very interesting, called Three Dangerous Men, about how that war was so effective in convincing the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians to turn into irregular warfare because they concluded one thing. We can never win a conventional war against the United States. And the truth is that the reason we haven't had such a victory since World War II

is that we haven't fought a conventional war since 1991. And what is an easier conventional operation than airstrikes against Iran? It is very easy to pull it off. Very straightforward for us. Yeah.

Well, Shay, as we close, is there anything else in the points you want to make today to our audience? Just to circle back to my earlier argument quickly, if we get rid of the last bastion of legitimacy for Khamenei, which is his nuclear program,

There is a possibility that within a few years, we could see a different regime in Iran. So it's not just about the nuclear program. This could end up solving our Iran problem altogether. Is there enough population?

in Iran that if that leadership change happened that they would become a little bit more secular, a little more open-minded? Is that there? I actually have the other worry about Iran, which is we see the problem of secularization that has

in our societies in Europe, in the United States. And I think that Iran is going to go that route of lacking any public religion, lacking any religion. Oh, really? And it's going to be just a nihilistic society like we are facing. But...

Still, better than what we have now. I want to ask one last question. Well, at least with that society, they're not keen on doing anything military. Exactly. Because they're so woke. That would be their own domestic problems. It wouldn't be our problem. But I don't see a bunch of people moving there. It seems to me, tell me if I'm wrong, that there is a general movement among –

the Gulf states, the Arab world to sort of move away from the radical version of Islam, that they're sort of pushing it out and they're kind of looking on Europe and the U.S. with a side eye

for what we're allowing. Even more Europe. More Europe. I don't think they're real. I mean, they were, but Europe is the one right now. You know, Europe setting those problems, their problems aside, the most underreported story in the world is how the Egyptians and the Saudis are using their mosques to change the Islamic teachings. And, you know, the change in religion doesn't come from

Reformation never comes from bottom up. It always is top down. Changing hearts. Exactly. But that changing hearts comes from – is state-funded. Even reformation was funded by German princes, right? And that is what you're getting right now in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which control the most powerful mosques.

to reform Islam. This Islamic reformation we've always wanted is right now happening, and that is not being reported. Let me ask you one last question. You deal a lot with foreign policy. You talk to people, I'm sure, over in Europe and so forth. Are they concerned about their immigration problem? I mean, we literally could have in England in 10, 20 years Muslim-controlled nuclear power.

The biggest concern they have is the same as ours. If you talk with the European elite, which is how it is...

far-right parties popular in Europe. But, I mean, listen, it's not the right way to look at it, but at least they have some incentive to face their problems. It's amazing. It's amazing Europe is so concerned about parties that want to limit immigration or supposedly far-right. I think it's an odd thing. I mean, I've been to London a bunch the last six, seven years. You see the change. And it

And it's not a good change. And I'm all for different cultures and not, you know. But they've let happen get out of hand. And the culture has just been too open to allowing people to come in and push them around. European leaders have lost their mind. I can't figure out where they are on any issue or see any logic in it. I mean, right now they're opening their doors to trade from Beijing, Washington.

Which will guarantee the final decimation of Europe's last remaining industries. Congratulations. That's moronic. It is ridiculous how – you know, immigration is a part of the reason our society remains vibrant. Correct. But there are two things to keep in mind. One, America has had a way to assimilate immigrants and Europe has never had that mechanism. And second –

Assimilation is something that has become negative for some reason. Even Americans are not doing it. You know, when I came here first, my dad gave me very important advice, which is if you're going to live in another country, don't create a mini Iran for yourself. Become a part of that country. My grandmother once caught my dad and his brother speaking Yiddish to each other at the park, and she smacked the crap out of them.

Well, being LDS and going on a mission, doing a missionary training center, I mean, you have hope. This is what you do. These are the customs. You're there to be part of the country, not do something else, right? And I don't see what's hard about that.

You know, your guest that wants to become part of the family. You know, I always one of the things that you take a lot of pride in is that it took many, many, many years until I had an Iranian friend in the United States because I went out of my way to avoid them to learn how to be an American before I could trust myself that, OK, I can have Iranian friends without acting like an Iranian in America.

And, you know, we need to rediscover that there is something inherently good about being American and being European. And we should encourage people who come to be like us instead of being as they want to be. There is some structure that you need in a society. We haven't completely assimilated you yet because you still think soccer or football, as you folks call it, is the number one sport. And we all know it's NFL. Yeah.

You know, it is becoming more popular than baseball among the kids. And guess what, Chuck? That's because the kids are too weak. They can't hit a 90-mile-an-hour fastball. Look, every kid goes, I can flop. I can flop too. I can do that. I said we're inherently good. I didn't say we're perfect. Shay, thank you for joining us today. Folks, thank you for joining us at Breaking Battlegrounds. Kylie will be back with us next week after she gets done with her bachelorette weekend with some friends.

On behalf of Jeremy, Sam, myself, and our guest Shay in studio, thanks for joining us at BreakingBattlegrounds.vote or wherever you get your podcasts. Have a great weekend.