Ralph Nader Radio Hour Podcast Por Ralph Nader arte de portada

Ralph Nader Radio Hour

Ralph Nader Radio Hour

De: Ralph Nader
Escúchala gratis

Ralph Nader talks about what’s happening in America, what’s happening around the world, and most importantly what’s happening underneath it all.

www.ralphnaderradiohour.comRalph Nader Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • The Long War on Iran

    The Long War on Iran
    Mar 7 2026
    Ralph welcomes sociologist and historian Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi to discuss the United States' war of aggression on Iran.Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi is an Iranian-born American historian and sociologist. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Place, Culture, and Politics at the CUNY Graduate Center. He was the Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and Director of the Sharmin and Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at Princeton University. He is the author of four books on different aspects and historical context of the Iranian revolution of 1979 and its aftermath.The only countries that I see that are in constant violation of international law is the United States and Israel. And frankly, I am speechless, although I’m speaking, but I am speechless—in what universe can this war be justified as self-defense? You listened to Secretary Rubio’s speech in Munich where he laments 400 years of colonial rule being lost to this international law and laws of fighting wars because they want to go back to the way things were in the 18th and 19th century. This is a naked expansionist, extortionist administration here, and that’s the only reason they have launched this war, and there is absolutely no justification for it.Behrooz Ghamari-TabriziFor years and years, the Israelis have been assassinating Iranian scientists. They were sabotaging Iranian industries. And actually, the Iranian government showed tremendous restraint in responding to these Israeli provocations because they didn’t want to create the situation in which we find ourselves today. But then at the end of the day, calling Iran the aggressor here I think is a total ignorance of history and the context in which this war has started.Behrooz Ghamari-TabriziAll these things are not to suggest that the Iranian government in any form or shape is a democratic and just state. But the question here is about the sovereignty of the Iranian state. And the only inheritance of the revolution that has been kept throughout these forty-odd years was the question of sovereignty. Because that was one of the demands of the revolution. The question of social justice was thrown out of the window after the revolution. The question of civil liberties was thrown out of the window after the revolution. The only thing that is left is Iranian sovereignty. And according to every single intelligence study, what Iranians do outside their borders is a defensive posture. Iran does not have an expansionist agenda.Behrooz Ghamari-TabriziNews 3/6/26* Last week, Bill and Hillary Clinton testified before the House Oversight Committee on their respective relationships with financier and sexual predator, Jeffrey Epstein. Hillary Clinton, in a deposition described as contentious, maintained that she had virtually zero connections with Epstein, stating at one point “I am so tired of answering that question,” per PBS. Former President Bill Clinton meanwhile, tried to downplay his relationship with Epstein, describing it as “cordial,” and claiming that he had come to an arrangement with Epstein where the financier provided his private jet for humanitarian trips in exchange for Clinton discussing politics and economics with him. The committee pressed Clinton on this point, noting that Epstein visited the White House numerous times during Clinton’s presidency and that there are photos of the two men shaking hands. Clinton told lawmakers he “did not recall those interactions.” These answers leave much to be desired.* Meanwhile, another Epstein associate occupies the Oval Office today – Donald Trump – and on February 26th the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice, under the stewardship of Attorney General Pam Bondi, has been withholding interviews with a woman who accused President Donald Trump of sexual assault back in the 1980s. As the Journal writes, the suppression of this interview “raises new questions about the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files release and the pages that have been kept private.” The Journal adds that “Trump officials initially opposed the release of the files and then fumbled their response, including inconsistent redactions that exposed dozens of Epstein victims and initially kept some prominent men’s names hidden.” However, on March 5th, POLITICO reported that the FBI has now published a trio of FBI interviews with the woman who accused the president of sexually assaulting her in collusion with Jeffrey Epstein. Trump and his allies categorically deny any wrongdoing on the part of the president, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the allegations “completely baseless…backed by zero credible evidence, from a sadly disturbed woman who has an extensive criminal history.” This story also highlights what is sure to be the next flashpoint in this saga: on Wednesday, a House committee voted to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify ...
    Más Menos
    1 h y 11 m
  • War With Iran!

    War With Iran!
    Mar 3 2026

    Events are moving rapidly in the Middle East, so we wanted to provide our loyal podcast listeners with some context to help digest everything that’s happened so far. We hope to provide a longer view of the what, where, who, how and why and offer some perspective on this military action’s broader historical, political, and legal implications.

    Ted Postol is Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy Emeritus in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. His expertise is in nuclear weapon systems, including submarine warfare, applications of nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, and ballistic missiles more generally. He previously worked as an analyst at the Office of Technology Assessment and as a science and policy adviser to the chief of naval operations. In 2016, he received the Garwin Prize from the Federation of American Scientists for his work in assessing and critiquing the government’s claims about missile defenses.

    Ambassador Chas Freeman is a retired career diplomat who has negotiated on behalf of the United States with over 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and both Western and Eastern Europe. Ambassador Freeman was previously a Senior Fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d’Affaires in the American embassies at both Bangkok and Beijing. He was Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981. He was the principal American interpreter during the late President Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972. In addition to Chinese, Ambassador Freeman speaks French and Spanish at the professional level and can converse in Arabic and several other languages.

    Bruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.

    Ralph Nader Radio Hour is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    Thanks for reading Ralph Nader Radio Hour! This post is public so feel free to share it.



    Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe
    Más Menos
    1 h y 45 m
  • “I Am Somebody!”

    “I Am Somebody!”
    Feb 28 2026
    Washington Post personal finance columnist, Michelle Singletary, tells the moving story of how a visit to her grade school by the Reverend Jesse Jackson inspired her life and career as described in her column, “How the Rev. Jesse Jackson Taught Me to Keep Hope Alive." Then Ralph welcomes Professor Eric S. Fish from U.C Davis School of Law to explain how grand juries are no longer rubber-stamping frivolous cases brought to them by the Trump Administration. Plus, Ralph gives us his take on Trump’s marathon State of the Union speech and the Democratic response.Michelle Singletary writes the nationally-syndicated personal finance column “The Color of Money,” which appears in the Washington Post on Wednesdays and Sundays. In 2021, she won the Gerald Loeb award for commentary. She has written four personal finance books, including, What to Do With Your Money When Crisis Hits: A Survival Guide and The 21-Day Financial Fast: Your Path to Financial Peace and Freedom.The Trump administration’s destruction of diversity, equity, and inclusion—they misunderstand what that means. It doesn’t mean that you’re giving jobs to people who are unqualified. It means that you recognize that the playing field wasn’t even, and let’s even this playing field. I liken it to a football team. You can’t have a football team of all quarterbacks and win. You have to have a quarterback, a running back, a linebacker, you have to have a good kicker. It’s the same thing—your team has to encompass people that represent all kinds of abilities to have a winning team. So DEI isn’t a giveaway. It isn’t charity. It recognizes that when you have people from different backgrounds and different perspectives and different skill levels, you have a winning team.Michelle SingletaryEric S Fish is professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law. Professor Fish’s primary research is in criminal law, with particular focus on the ethical duties of participants in the criminal process, the structure of immigration crimes, and the system’s emphasis on administrative efficiency. He has also served as a public defender, first with the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, and later as a Federal Defender in San Diego.This has been a really remarkable series of rejections of the Trump administration’s prosecutions by ordinary people serving on grand juries, and one that is largely unprecedented in modern American history. I can’t think of another example of grand juries rejecting such high-profile cases (and so many of them). Nothing really comes to mind. So in a certain sense, one might say this is the grand jury’s original purpose…Initially they were a democratic institution of governance. They were a local check on the colonial oppression of the British (at least in the early colonial period). They refused to indict prosecutions under the Stamp Act, under the revenue laws. They were a tool of anti-colonial resistance to British oppression, and this seems at least broadly analogous to that—local grand juries in places like Minnesota, Chicago, Washington, D.C. are rejecting the Trump administration’s attempts to prosecute its political enemies and bring trumped-up charges against protesters.Eric S. FishAll in all, [the State of the Union address] was fodder for political scientists for years to come. A dictatorial serial law violator, self-enriching chronic liar, cruel, vicious to vulnerable people and people without power (which is a majority of the people) elected dictator. This speech—which went for one hour and 48 minutes, the longest State of the Union speech ever—will be analyzed for a long time with the question at the center of the analysis being: How could so many tens of millions of voters be taken in by Trump’s mouth, his lies, his false statements, his fantasies, his fake promises, his lack of any kind of record, whether as a businessman where he used bankruptcies as a strategy…and his record as a politician in his first term? That’s the question we have to ask ourselves. And it’s too easy to say that the Trump voters couldn’t stand the Democrats who abandoned them. That’s not enough. They could have not voted for Trump. They could have written in a vote. They could have voted for the Green, Libertarian, or other minor parties. They can’t use the Democrats as a 100% excuse for voting for Trump. And a lot of them didn’t. They just liked Trump. They liked his prejudices. They liked his lies. They liked his fantasies. They liked his fake promises.Ralph NaderNews 2/27/26* Our top stories this week come to us from our southern neighbor, Mexico. First, on February 22nd, Mexican authorities announced they had successfully conducted an operation resulting in the death of Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, aka “El Mencho,” who headed the powerful Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG). In retaliation, the cartels launched a wave of violence throughout the country. Bafflingly, given the ...
    Más Menos
    1 h y 31 m
Todavía no hay opiniones