is sleep with awe, as i've been doing news for 30 years in 2 languages around the world. and here in the united states, i've interviewed for presidents and co founded a $1000000000.00 business. and i believe, after all of that, that new should be honest and direct and impactful. this is direct impact the news. so let's begin with this. did you see what happened with president by the last he met with his chinese counterpart using think, remember this president as well as most of his predecessors and the us media as a coalition has spent the better part of the last 67 years,

making china and g out to be monsters. then this happened the 5th. so is that an authentic truce? probably not. in fact, before she's meeting our government, had chosen to freeze out the chinese government essentially treating it as if it doesn't even exist as if it's a voice in washington is not worthy of recognition. now is that a smart play? or as recently written by politico one that the biden administration could live to regret, you see usually, usually governments, even if they don't catalog here to the agreed upon rules of international decorum by respecting each other's diplomatic cory diplomatic representatives that they're sent to your country at least you talk to them, right?

give them court. but when it comes to china, the by the administration had chosen to abide by a different set of rules. like ching gung, the china ambassador to the united states. he is one of the most powerful people in . busy the chinese government, but that gentleman, mister gong, the ambassador, mister barton, decided that he and his upper echelon would not talk to him. they refused to meet with them. they refused to talk to him. that since arriving and washington, the ambassador from china, chin has been limited to a handful of meetings with low ranking us officials. the chinese embassy has repeatedly asked for meetings with higher ranking administration officials, but it's been repeatedly turned down again and again. and so we're left to ask the question why, what gives why you do that, right? why would our government want to give the chinese government the edge of seeming more conciliatory, more reasonable thinkers,

say what you want about the chinese government thinkers. say what you want about teaching big for example, but allow me to say this, ignoring their ambassador, right, makes them look like victims. and it makes us in the united states. look not so welcoming, maybe even bad, maybe even bullish. and what does that say to the chinese people are for that matter to the rest of the people in the global community. by the way, it's not just the united states government, it's heavy handed when it comes to china in an increasing sign that our media is less than a watch dog, as it was once designed to be. and it is, as it has been in the past. it's become more of a cheerleader of our government officials when it comes to our foreign policy and specially our foreign policy look what happened recently when china held its national congress gathering, who endow 79 years old. his frail, often appears like he's kind of out of it. i know my mom is about that age and she

kind of looks the same way. nonetheless, because he's the nation's former president. he was invited to the congress. he seemed to have what some would describe as a bit of a senior moment during the congress. but our western medias conspiratorial coverage of the event made it seem as if for sure what took place was a plot. that's what they wrote. maybe even a qu, that's what they wrote. was it really? and there was also an extraordinary thing, the closing of the communist party congress trying to formulate me to see the predecessor who didn't, how, seemingly forcibly scolded from the stage. now it looked like he was frightened, that he wasn't feeling well. quite obviously he didn't want to go mister, she was sitting next to him as were other top later. and it looked like mister who in the end had no choice. now this has become a topic of the bite within china for those who have seen it. could it be possible

that it was just, maybe a disagreement, maybe even a political power move between the sheep people and the who people i don't know. and by the way, if that's the case, yeah, just like the type of thing that occurs in congress isn't in parliament's all over the world, probably on a daily basis. and gets a lot less coverage than that. and usually isn't called a cou, or a conspiratorial play. so why did they overplay something like that? why the extremely negative, negative coverage? why does it seem like our media is making a relentless effort to go beyond what is just normal critical analysis of china, which is well deserved and more into a realm of hype and over play riddled with conjecture and coming to conclusions without the necessary facts. so let's talk about this. joining me now. sure, i've got days, an expert on the geo politics of us and china relations sort of thanks so much for

joining us in most of what is it with, especially at the beginning where the by the administration really was given the cold shoulder through the chinese ambassador to, to, to, to what end do you do something like that? the biden administration has been craven in terms of engaging china because us china relations ro, very bad. during the trump trump time. and the democrats wanted to stabilize the relationship, but they did not have the political courage to go and do that immediately. so they did that increment little bit 2 steps forward, one step back. well, why, why, what was what, what would be the fear of reaching even to your worst enemy? reach out to him, find out, hey, listen here, you got something to tell you, but i'm going to talk to you. you're not going to have meetings. this is, this engagement thing is what i'm really questioning 1st and foremost seems lots even if it doesn't seem to win for anybody. and especially for you, if you're that disengaged, you're right. exactly. you want to tell them,

go to them, tell them very clearly what you ask. so what your demands are, where you stand in the relationship and make it crystal clear and the bi limits richness. try to get to that point that it has done so very incrementally and that's why it's been so wishy washy and you don't do a credit at the end of the day for that that has been progress, not enough progress because the vitamin nutrition isn't 2 minds whether we really want to stabilize this relationship, all have some sort of stability while continuing to throw darts. how do you think she perceives our president? there is a difference between where the chinese government perceives the administration and president biden and the president she perceived present bite. and the reason for that being mister, she's a tough man, but he has also a very long standing relationship with mister biden. and i let me tell you one thing, which i think so by the way, i didn't know that he has. how's he, how does he have a long standing relationship with mr. by 1st of all,

my father. yeah. as well. for this item, it's been an offer in politics for ages. okay. yes. as we had that, they were both wise presidents and in, during the obama administration and she was going, was the incumbent president going to be the president. so it was known he was going to be president and so they were, was that relationship interesting? but i will tell you this, that in 2030, when she did become president, while biden was weiss, president still and biden was traveling to ship. it could have been very easy for me to she to say, oh, obama runs a show that biden is just his clerk. what's the point of meeting? we'll have a profile mom meeting, but he engaged him for hours and hours on the substance of us. china relations he knew whether by didn't if becomes a privilege some day or not. but this is a man i can do. i have done business with and it's important to create these connections. washington at that level. they're thinking that far ahead. they're not, they don't know if he's going to become president,

but they know he's an important interlocutor and you need to engage him sincerely. and that's what they did for why can't by be more of a mixer and engage and say, you know, i'm going to break the ice here. and you know, reach out especially coming out of what was in terms of china, us relations, a disastrous for years with mr. trump. that's a great question. and i'll tell you this. last you was a, this year, this year was the 50th anniversary off, the shanghai communicate nixon kissinger and mo, in china set up the foundations of, of that relationship. i'll also tell you, i said the democrats, on the concrete, even in terms of foreign policy engagement, because the republicans come at them and say, look at these people in the weekly people. but i will say this in the post school wall era. we had 3 democratic president, clinton, obama, and now biden clinton obama. the 1st terms was pretty fraught with china. they couldn't step up and say we want in gauge me,

and of course clinton did push for my phone and get that done. the n t our thing, but it was truly in the 2nd term when he felt assured that they really had very a pretty good relations. clinton she, she jung some in, in 1990. there was a debate about time. was there a strategic partner strategic competitor because the republicans thought paid china and there'll be a strategic partner with obama. so the 2nd term was very, very productive in the us china relations. and so there's a potential even in this new normal in us china post 2017. that if we do have biden, in the 2nd term, if that we may have a productive opportunity to really stabilize and ground those studies and make it be fully co existent. but i don't anticipate that happening now or for the next 2 years because domestic politics is going to. all right. and i said, the democrats just don't have a backbone on this because they're fearful they will be called comedies. exactly. or even he talked to she, he must be

a communist. we were seeing more and more military exercises off the coast of taiwan. and these exercises, i would think though, basically uncovered by the us media. they are covered in that part of the world. and it has to be scaring the hell out of the people, whether they're in the philippines or malaysia, even australia. that rim is looking at what could look like the brinkman ship of war, whether we get to it or not. and the thinking i would imagine, and i don't want to put words in your mouth, has to be that america maybe pushing a little too hard there as well. you know, america is pushing hard in the, in the pacific and the, and the real hit against americans in this regard has been that we, there is a kind of a system which is an inclusive system in the, in the pacific. and the u. s. is looking at veges out there to create an us versus them situation and is also in the process over militarize it. and at the end of the

day, i think this will, which comes back to hark america, because issue issue is still a part of the developing world. most countries an issue cherish development. china means tori to issues. let's grow together and develop together. while when america goes there, like common harris in apec, has nothing to offer from an economic standpoint. she has only gone from an military toys to offer, and they look out there and say, no, this is not what you're looking at. yes, we are richer security. but we want to grow, we want prosperity, prosperity will engender piece. what do you have in this regard? and there isn't an answer. and that's why, because at the end of the day, even if you're going to compete with china in asia, you will need a plurality of ation steps to back you. but when they're min reason for them in primary purpose is to grow economically,

they start offering questions on these questions and i'll start off let people who are fairly profoundly the singapore you know. yeah, they're coming on very clearly that where the anglo americans be the australians, the brits and the u. s. is going is not where they want to go. they say they're things like digital trade agreement like the c p t p p, the trade agreement. and they've been very forthright in thing we want china in, while australians on the, in the us, obviously out of it is like, no, no, no, china shouldn't be out there. yeah. and these rituals is not going to be very helpful strategy issue. it almost seems and your points a good one that you know, push too hard on guns, guns, guns, security, security, security. and you run the risk of turning your friends and enemies. because what they care about, just like what americans care about what you care about, what i care about as the safety of my, my children and my grandchildren in my family moving forward. so when someone talks to me in terms that make me fear a war, i trust them

a little less and i fear that we could be using that brickman ship in the wrong way in those countries as well. so, you know, it's always a pleasure to talk to you soon. thanks. feels thanks so much for stopping by and having this chat. this is really important. there's an important conversation for all of us, no matter where we are in the world, by the way. i have a podcast where i as a journalist, as well as tino and the co founder of a 1000000000 dollar company, tell my story and share with you what i've learned about how to succeed, how to grow. it's called the rick sanchez podcast, and i write you to check it out, go there. i'll see you there. but when we come back, well russia says no more disinformation. if you report ally especially about our military, you could go to jail too much. not enough, just right. what rushes doing, let's talk about the

ah ah ah museums are important for preserving our history so that it is lost to future generations. but our physical museum spaces themselves a relic of the past. this is one of the best museums in the world, the human touch in saint petersburg. how roughly is the director here and i bet he

has met november 22nd 2022 outraged orthodox christians confronted ukrainian security service offices, looking entrances and exits to keith's oldest monastery. they were looking for alleged russian spies among the monks. we mean dealer seaman nurse, it was no violent foam reason for the brutal crime down one church. his parishioners had song, a song about russia. ah, it's long been reason enough to condemn any old jokes. christian attack, imprison, and even kill them. russia, what are you russia finance because when you loud store new store grow slider, when you, when you started a shoe used me stop a signal. i used to miss dodd,

this seems neat. you just saw them. ah . so russia has updated its laws regarding fake news, fake news, that's kind of a loaded word, right? that i'd personally never like to use because, well, i mean, unless i'm making a joke about it, right, which is now what people do with that work. that's how they use it as a joke, because it's been so over used. it's kind of lost, its meaning. it has come to mean much more than the meaning for which it was originally intended. unless the international community and journalist, especially in the west, have re acted with such an aggressive stance. the bdc, for example, has recently stopped reporting on russia. why? well, there are of the opinion that their reporters are now in danger for simply doing

their jobs right? are they right, is that really what russia saying is that really what russia is doing? when they say they don't want people putting out misinformation? ok 1st, let's look at this law that has been so reported on in the west, and let's look at it both in context and let's look at it as well in historic se. okay, so in 2019 russia passed this law, establishing fines for publications of unreliable information. right? that's what it was in right? think news on there, by the way, on reliable information 2020. the laws were then expanded to include all other unreliable information, especially when it came to covert 19. busy because the government thought it was unimportant health matter and you should be lying about information when it comes to govern. i t are putting out this information. and now in 2022, the laws have been expanded once again to include publishing,

false information about the russian military, certainly a lieu of what's going on in ukraine. and doing so could actually send you to prison for a number of years. that's why the bbc said, well then we just get covered the story. so we're going to pull our reporters. so forget all that because there's always going to be a lot of miss cost with everything having to do with war and opinions about stories like these that are so heated. here's the real question. and, and this really isn't so much about russia as it is about what happens when a government has a right or does it to try and tap down what is regarded as mis information. does a government have a right to deal with this information or. busy missed information. remember, one government or one woman's misinformation is another man's truth. so this is where the wicked gets really tricky. so what do we do? what do we do?

not just in russia, what do we do with twitter? what do we do with facebook in the united states that are making decisions about who gets him? who gets to share information, who doesn't get to share information? this is a, this is a fascinating subject, not just because of the russian law, but because of the situation all over the world. so joining us now is somebody who is certainly has a lot to say about this because he's been looking at it and he's been writing about it. ted rall, who is a syndicated editorial cartoonist, a columnist, and an author. ted, thanks so much for being with us. we appreciate your time. thanks for having me, rick. appreciate it. so what do you make of this? i mean, i use russia as an example and you know, they're going to have their reasons for wanting to have what many in the west call this fake news laws. but isn't this something that almost every government is going to have to be dealing with all over the world? well, every government always has to deal with messaging,

positive and negative no matter what. so the question is, how do they do it? and culturally, and politically, every regime has its own way of doing this. the u. s. tend to try to do it through their connections to corporate media and to sell access to public officials. and they tend to, you know, you can't really say that they call up the new york times and tell them what to say and what not to say, but the influences there, it's more subtle. russia says that if you're reporting on their country and you go there and make a, what they would call a blatant ally, a blatant statement that is not true about their military, that that's harmful to their government, especially when they're in a state of war or military interventionism or whatever, we're going to call our battles nowadays. no matter what country we come from,

do they have a right to do so? well, i mean, that's interesting question. i mean, do they have the legal rights? certainly they have the legal right. you know, the question is, do they have, is it a good idea politically, you know, and it might be a good idea politically, domestically, and it may or may not be such a good idea internationally, right? i mean, because they open themselves up to the criticism that they are censoring the news and they're trying to control the environment in a way that might not be acceptable to certain other western countries. even though they try to do the same thing in a different way. right, so the legal, right, absolutely no question about that in, you know, i mean the united states, for example, as a long history of controlling the narrative and allowing deciding, you know, which reporters get to get accreditation to be able to travel within a u. s. controlled war zone, you know, if you went to iraq as

a c n n reporter and you said things that the pentagon didn't like, they would yankers your credentials and you'd be on your way home. how could they do that? i mean, wouldn't see it and be responsible for assigning its reporters. well, cnn assigned to the reporters, but the military would say if you want or cooperation, if you want to be embedded, if you want us to care, if something bad is going to happen to you, it's like a protection racket. no, we can, we can't help. what might happen there, and there's plenty of examples of that having occurred and the us did that afghan and they did that in iraq for example. absolutely, yeah, no question. i mean, i covered the war in afghanistan in 2001 i was there several times since, you know, i never, i was never embedded. partly for that reason. i think it's better to travel as an independent reporter and find out what's really going on on the ground with local people. but that's my approach. and a lot of other reporters, corporate reporters preferred to travel with the us military. and if they didn't

tow the line, they were kicked out, it seems to me like there was a time when you and i were younger, where there seem to be rules that we all understood in terms of figuring out what was a story, what was it the story, i'm almost going to be is bold enough to say what kind of was the appreciated or conventional truths. and we had a media that we kind of trusted, even though you read back and you find out there was some inky stuff going on. but it least there was a general description that we all kind of agreed on about what the truth was, what the world and our policies were, what our institutions did for man. i gotta tell you, it just seems to me like that's completely gone today. it's gone, gone,

and i don't know in whose hands it resides, do you? well, it's so it's in no one's hands free and it's in everyone's hands at the same time. i mean, you know, i think there's a lot, it's a perfect storm. there's a lot of causes for this. you know, one thing is that everybody is discovered that opinionated news sells better than on opinionated views. it's also the fractional ization of the media where, for example, in the u. s, there were 3 or 4 channels for news when i was growing up and, you know, now you could get your new source from literally hundreds of internet sites and tv channels, including international ones. so, you know, i mean, i think it's, it's, everything's optimized and there's a tendency for people to seek out sources that confirm their own biases and preferences. yep. and not that, that, it's a fairly bad. it's just human nature. but you know, i, i think you're right, this shit, you know, the famously i, the senator from new york said that we're all entitled to our own opinion,

but not her own facts. that's no longer true. so great talking to you that i really appreciate the conversation was thanks, my friend. by the way, i do want to let you share my mission. it's simple really. i want to d, silo the world like i was just talking about with ted. and we've got to stop living in these little tiny boxes to start live in boxes, right? the truth doesn't live in a box. the truth is everywhere. i'm or sanchez. i'll be looking for you again, right here. or i hope to florida. direct him. ah ah. ah,

since the beginning of its history, the united states of america has officially declared the striving for freedom and people's rights to happiness. however, in reality, having won independence, american colonists headed for that total extermination of the indigenous population of the continent, american indians were deprived of their land. local residents were driven into reservations and given the worst agricultural territories. while the best land was appropriated by white colonizers, the strongest blow to american indian tribes was the extermination of buys of native americans lived by hunting these wild animal, colonists slaughter the bison, and in fact, made them nearly extinct. every buffalo dead is in india and gone, said colonel richard dodge a veteran of the bloody and vicious indian wars. cynically. the indigenous

population was simply exterminated us army general phillips sheridan expressed the essence of this policy. in the infamous words, the only good india is a dead indian, the genocide of native americans of north america lead to a demographic catastrophe. the exact number of deaths is deal unknown, but the number of victims is in millions. having been the majority on the continent before the indigenous people make up less than 3 percent of the us population today . so look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except we're such short or is it conflict with the 1st law? show your identification should be very careful about official intelligence. and the point obviously is to place

a truck or rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence, real, somebody with a robot most protective own existence with who at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from great, a, with

the food and medicines and supplies, and free with awe. we have never intentionally violated any countries territory. that's the message from china as the u. s. suggest beijing is deliberately using it to pollute the spy on them, inciting a tax on russian region. that's how moscow condemned us delivery a long range rock gets to you brain, which could potentially hit the russian region of pride near the g 7 nations and pose a price cap on russian oil products to call those revenue. well, president says the country simply will not export oil to states supporting the limitation.