Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another beautiful episode of the Cage
Speaker 1: to Night Live.
Speaker 2: I am your host, the Cajun Knight, Jacob Mook.
Speaker 1: I almost blended the cult of Conspiracy intro in the
Speaker 1: Cajun Night intro. Yet again, that's the second week in
Speaker 1: a row that I have done this. I apologize everybody.
Speaker 1: My brain's a little out of sorts today. I have
Speaker 1: been all day in a courtroom. I got pull for
Speaker 1: jury duty, which, to be completely forthright, I completely forgot
Speaker 1: about that until like.
Speaker 2: A o'clock last night.
Speaker 1: There was a stack of mail on my island that
Speaker 1: I was just kind of going through and thumbing through
Speaker 1: what things I did need to keep and need to
Speaker 1: throw away and need to burn, you know, banking information
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. And I stumbled upon this one
Speaker 1: paper that I meant to like stick on my refrigerator
Speaker 1: so i'd see it or something I forgot. I beat
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a forgetful guy like that times. I
Speaker 1: am in fact, man, And I read it. Come to
Speaker 1: find out it was a summons for jury duty, and
Speaker 1: I was like, wait the twenty eighth when is I
Speaker 1: was like, oh that's today?
Speaker 2: Oh man? So that was God. That was God.
Speaker 1: Forcing me to go through that mail so that I
Speaker 1: saw that, so that I was at the courthouse on time,
Speaker 1: so I.
Speaker 2: Didn't get a bench warned. That's what that was.
Speaker 1: But beside the point, I've never been called for drury
Speaker 1: duty before in my life. And I hope to god,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not even gonna finish that sentence, because
Speaker 1: with my luck, I'll get another letter in the mail
Speaker 1: in a month if I finished that sentiment. But yeah, y'all,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of you have ever been called.
Speaker 2: For drury duty before. I didn't realize the process.
Speaker 1: I dropped all the kids off to school, did my
Speaker 1: thing this morning, booked it to the courthouse, got there
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes prior, felt pretty good about myself. And I'm
Speaker 1: thinking I shouldn't need to make afternoon arrangements. I should
Speaker 1: be home by the time they off the bus. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna be an all day thing. It should be
Speaker 1: a you know, I should be done right probably lunchtime,
Speaker 1: right after lunch, because today was just the selecting of
Speaker 1: the jury.
Speaker 2: This wasn't the case.
Speaker 1: They're not nothing about the case has been discussed yet.
Speaker 2: It was just selecting. I honestly didn't think it was
Speaker 2: gonna take this long, y'all.
Speaker 1: They had three panels, and I'm I don't know if
Speaker 1: this is the same to every state, at least in
Speaker 1: this state and in this parish, which y'all might call
Speaker 1: it county, they had three different panels, each having probably
Speaker 1: somewhere around twenty people on each panel.
Speaker 2: And they were going through to select the twelve.
Speaker 1: That were going to be on the jury, and they
Speaker 1: called up all the names for group one, and they
Speaker 1: called up all the names for group two. I was
Speaker 1: the last name called for group two. I was this
Speaker 1: close to not even going into the room today and
Speaker 1: just watch. Apparently HGTV is the only channel that legally
Speaker 1: is allowed to be played in the courthouse for the
Speaker 1: jurors because there's no way that that could possibly be
Speaker 1: tied to something news related that could have something to.
Speaker 2: Do with the case. It's it's ridiculous, but whatever.
Speaker 1: I was watching these people remodel a home and whatever,
Speaker 1: and I was trying to fight to stay awake.
Speaker 2: They had free coffee, but it was trash. It was burnt,
Speaker 2: you know how it is.
Speaker 1: But anyway, I get called to the second panel and
Speaker 1: they bring Panel one and two into the courtroom, okay,
Speaker 1: And they bring up Panel one and they ask each
Speaker 1: individual person right there in front of everybody, for God
Speaker 1: and everybody, a series of questions. And I had again,
Speaker 1: I've never been a part of something like this, so
Speaker 1: I didn't know what was going on. Your name, where
Speaker 1: you're from, how old you are, are you married, how
Speaker 1: many kids do you have? You know what, what's your background,
Speaker 1: what do you do for work? The basics, the pedigree information,
Speaker 1: if you will. Then this side, the state versus the
Speaker 1: defend the states lawyers gets up and paints a picture
Speaker 1: for you and tells you these stories about how you know,
Speaker 1: what is probable cause, what is beyond a shadow of
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: And they break all these things down and they use
Speaker 1: these examples that Okay, I see what you're going with this,
Speaker 1: all right. Then the defendants lawyers get up and paint
Speaker 1: the opposite picture, and they ask you about when you
Speaker 1: say beyond a reasonable doubt, how reasonable is that doubt.
Speaker 2: I'll give you an example, the one that they actually used.
Speaker 1: So if I go to the hardware store and you
Speaker 1: happen to be right behind me, and you see, am
Speaker 1: I buggy or my cart or whatever you call it,
Speaker 1: your shopping cart. I got a bunch of paint brushes,
Speaker 1: I got different paints and primers and ceilants. I got
Speaker 1: some rollers, and I got some canvas tarps and things
Speaker 1: like that.
Speaker 2: I got all this.
Speaker 1: You could make a reasonable assumption that I am getting
Speaker 1: ready to go paint something. That's a very reasonable conclusion
Speaker 1: that you would make.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Then the other lawyers get up and say, well, you
Speaker 1: could make that assumption, but how do you know that
Speaker 1: you are not buying these materials for a painting company
Speaker 1: to come into your home and do painting. And a
Speaker 1: part of the deal is that you have to buy
Speaker 1: the materials. In reality, you're not painting. You're buying these
Speaker 1: things for someone else to paint. So beyond a reasonable doubt,
Speaker 1: how reasonable are we talking? And it's like, okay, I
Speaker 1: could already see where this is about to go. And
Speaker 1: they're already starting the whole mental mind games. And they
Speaker 1: interviewed and selected the fucking jury. They haven't even selected who's.
Speaker 2: Gonna be on it. And I'm just like, okay, dude,
Speaker 2: all right, this is gonna be a long day. And
Speaker 2: it was. It was very long. It was six o'clock
Speaker 2: before I got out of there.
Speaker 1: I got there at nine am, like, there's no reason,
Speaker 1: there was no reason for any of this. And then yeah,
Speaker 1: so many things, so many people from so many different
Speaker 1: walks of life are on this board. I ended up
Speaker 1: having lunch with a Catholic priest that happened to be
Speaker 1: on the board with me, which he was a cool dude.
Speaker 1: He was a cool dude, but like.
Speaker 2: What are you thinking?
Speaker 1: And everybody's like, oh, well, he's you know, he he'll
Speaker 1: he's not gonna go for death penalty. He's not going
Speaker 1: to go this and this this dude had no qualms
Speaker 1: whatsoever about life or death penalty.
Speaker 2: He was like, nah, I'm good.
Speaker 1: So you don't think your occupation will have any bearing
Speaker 1: on give you a bias on this today?
Speaker 2: Nah, we're good.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, okay, Padre, I see you, I see
Speaker 1: you out here in these streets.
Speaker 2: But anyway, it was a oh it.
Speaker 1: Was a wild morning, y'all. Anyway, end of end of
Speaker 1: my personal rant. And let's get to the news. Oh God,
Speaker 1: before we do, Samuel, please wait, waigh in on this.
Speaker 1: With your colorful background, I could only imagine what you're about.
Speaker 2: To say, and that in.
Speaker 3: Based Catholic.
Speaker 2: Oh he was based, dude.
Speaker 3: So we finally found a Catholic that's that's worth his collar.
Speaker 1: I'll say this, most of the Catholic priests in Louisiana
Speaker 1: or about that smoke, I will just say this.
Speaker 3: I'll send you a link to a video. Because they
Speaker 3: asked a preacher like, oh, if you are about carrying,
Speaker 3: he said, Luke chapter thirty three and twenty two, no
Speaker 3: thirty eight, twenty two, and he used that, and I
Speaker 3: tells you out there. And when Jesus was leaving, Yes Simony,
Speaker 3: he asked Peter, do you have your source? And Peter
Speaker 3: says I have too, and he says that's good enough
Speaker 3: for me, big homie. And and the guy, the preacher
Speaker 3: that the talk too looks like he is a retired pimp.
Speaker 3: Dude looks like straight pimping. And they said, well are
Speaker 3: you on? Are you on? The preacher and he said,
Speaker 3: don't worry if I'm on. But he pulls up and
Speaker 3: he shows that thing and he says, I carry you
Speaker 3: thirty eight And it's Luke chapter thirty eight, verse twenty two,
Speaker 3: that way that the Lord tells you can carry a
Speaker 3: thirty eight or twenty two. And I'm just like that's.
Speaker 1: Ridiculous but funny, but uh yeah, no, that's right after
Speaker 1: Jesus told him, if you do not have a sword,
Speaker 1: sell your cloak and buy one, which was crazy because
Speaker 1: at that time the Jews were prohibited from having weapons,
Speaker 1: like even the temple guards were using basically wooden weapons.
Speaker 2: I think a few.
Speaker 1: Of them were allowed under very strict guidelines to have
Speaker 1: something like that. But yeah, if the Jews were caught
Speaker 1: having steel blades at that time in in Judea, that would.
Speaker 2: Have been their ass.
Speaker 1: So the fact that your boys, like I got these
Speaker 1: two swords in the time came is like that'll work,
Speaker 1: And it's like where, where where did he just happen
Speaker 1: to find these two swords. The Chosen television series did
Speaker 1: a version of events that they believe might be how
Speaker 1: they believe that Simon the Zelot actually brought those to
Speaker 1: the Last Supper and all these things.
Speaker 2: I don't I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 3: But out of all of them they said that all
Speaker 3: says that there was a disciple that cut off the
Speaker 3: ear of the servant when Jesus would getting a thing.
Speaker 3: Then you have John says it was Peter.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he is the one who cut it off, duined
Speaker 1: him out John the Beloved, just without without even flinching.
Speaker 1: But whatever, anyway, I love that passage. I am also
Speaker 1: the belief that everybody should take their own personal security
Speaker 1: into their own hands. And I believe that everybody should
Speaker 1: be carrying, but also not just carry train with it,
Speaker 1: know how to use it, know your own capabilities, don't
Speaker 1: if you Okay, I personally know guys that can smoke
Speaker 1: a steel target from five hundred yards with their pistol,
Speaker 1: which if everybody, if anybody's ever shot a pistol with
Speaker 1: any kind of competitive nature, that is insane.
Speaker 2: But these dudes train with it enough to where they
Speaker 2: can do that.
Speaker 1: Now, I'm not saying that everybody who's carrying needs to
Speaker 1: be that level of proficient with it, but I am
Speaker 1: saying that beyond a reasonable distance here, like even thirty feet,
Speaker 1: thirty yards even yeah, I'll say thirty yards, you should
Speaker 1: be able to hit a target nine out of ten
Speaker 1: times and thirty yards if you're carrying that weapon, and
Speaker 1: if you cannot, then maybe change your weapon or change
Speaker 1: your training methods.
Speaker 2: But anyway, Royce, I saw your hand raised, brother, what you.
Speaker 4: Got, I was just gonna make a smart ass comment
Speaker 4: about a reasonable doubt to where if you had a
Speaker 4: woman who goes into a grocery store or just a
Speaker 4: store in general, and gets a large cucuver, a roller, condoms,
Speaker 4: and some lube, what the reasonable assumption.
Speaker 2: Or doubt might be.
Speaker 4: Is she cooking dinner for her significant other or is
Speaker 4: she about to have a very fun time by herself.
Speaker 1: You see, they give another example which also correct correct
Speaker 1: as far as beyond a reasonable doubt and making assumptions
Speaker 1: for sure. They gave another example if a person walked
Speaker 1: in the room just now, so can we with an umbrella?
Speaker 1: You could make an assumption that it's raining outside, But
Speaker 1: that is only an assumption, right if you could if
Speaker 1: you heard the thunder outside, and you could hear the
Speaker 1: rain on the roof, and then this person walks in
Speaker 1: the room, you could make a pretty accurate assumption. But
Speaker 1: at that point it's still a witness. It's a it's
Speaker 1: a it's a a thought. Until someone comes inside and says,
Speaker 1: I just got soaked because it's raining outside. Now that's
Speaker 1: a witness. That's a different level as far as this
Speaker 1: goes right. Otherwise this person might just be carrying an
Speaker 1: umbrella just in case, which some people do. And they
Speaker 1: were walking from the parking lot into the courtroom and
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, the sprinkler system went off on them.
Speaker 1: They got soaked and wet, and it's not raining outside,
Speaker 1: but you could have made a reasonable assumption that it
Speaker 1: is now raining outside. But that's not the case. See,
Speaker 1: It's there's all these different nuances and all of this shit.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, I'm like, yeah, nuances are literally what is
Speaker 1: the make or break as far as the situation, Like
Speaker 1: that's that's the whole point. And I think because I
Speaker 1: said certain things like that, that's why I wasn't selected.
Speaker 1: But I'm good with that. My god, this case, they're
Speaker 1: saying they're hoping that this will be wrapped up by
Speaker 1: Friday evening or Saturday at lunch. And I'm like, brother, brother,
Speaker 1: I got shit to do. I can't be doing all this.
Speaker 1: Y'all doing too much, too damn much. But anyway, anyway,
Speaker 1: all right, good members of the retinue. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and share the screen at this time and to
Speaker 1: everybody who is listening to this, and we'd like to
Speaker 1: be a part of the Cajun Night Live every Wednesday
Speaker 1: night at nine pm Central. Then I hope you go
Speaker 1: to link in the description to the Cajun Night at
Speaker 1: Patreon patreon dot com slash Cajun Night to be more exact,
Speaker 1: and come and join us. We only have one tier
Speaker 1: for entry, and we're trying to grow this thing to
Speaker 1: be its own independent conversation piece every Wednesday night at
Speaker 1: nine pm Central. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I know all
Speaker 1: the other members of the retinue do as well. The
Speaker 1: night contingent, if you will, my men and women at arms,
Speaker 1: and I hope that every Wednesday night I can call
Speaker 1: my bannerman if you will, and you can all come
Speaker 1: and be a part of these wild conversations. So look
Speaker 1: a couple of big stories that are going on around
Speaker 1: the world right now. We're gonna start off with this
Speaker 1: one from the Financial Times. China's military says top general
Speaker 1: undermines Jesuping's authority.
Speaker 2: Now, depending on what source you're reading as far.
Speaker 1: As what went down in old China Town, you might
Speaker 1: get some different opinions. So the background of this, Jijuping
Speaker 1: and your boy Jiang Yujia Yushia, damn it, Tony.
Speaker 2: Helped me out. I had it. Juan Yo Shah Jiang Yosha.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, Apparently they go way back. Their daddies fought
Speaker 1: together in the Chinese Revolution. These two dudes were homies
Speaker 1: as children, and your boy Jiang here, he apparently rose
Speaker 1: to prominence with his military whenever they had the Sino
Speaker 1: Vietnamese conflict. There was a border dispute between Vietnam and Cambodia.
Speaker 1: Once upon a time, China sent troops in no big
Speaker 1: you know, border pushes were made one way or another.
Speaker 1: Each side lost, give or take about thirty k dudes,
Speaker 1: and uh, your boy Jiang here had a pretty substantial
Speaker 1: victory over a town and from that he was able
Speaker 1: to pretty much catapult his career. And keep in mind,
Speaker 1: him and your boy g go way back. When the
Speaker 1: time came, he actually retired from service and was asked
Speaker 1: specifically to be brought back in by Gi himself to
Speaker 1: be essentially, and I'm it depends on the year you're looking.
Speaker 1: At one point he was like the third in charge
Speaker 1: of all of China's army. Number one would be G
Speaker 1: and he was basically like right under him. But they
Speaker 1: was like, you know, the if if we're gonna be
Speaker 1: I'm trying to make a comparison to American titles here,
Speaker 1: but like yet G would be president, underneath him would
Speaker 1: be like a VP, and then there'd be this guy.
Speaker 1: And then later on it kind of became more of
Speaker 1: a there's G and then there's Jiang and so that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: these two were these two were homies. And so some
Speaker 1: are saying that he sold nuclear secrets to America. Some
Speaker 1: are saying that he publicly undermines G's authority. Some are
Speaker 1: saying that he wanted to retire and G wouldn't let him.
Speaker 1: So he got a little flustered one day and was
Speaker 1: spouting off of the mouth and she didn't like that.
Speaker 1: So now he's in prison for the rest of his life. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know, I don't know all of
Speaker 1: the situation here, but we're gonna start here, and I
Speaker 1: got a video we're gonna play next that's gonna go
Speaker 1: a little bit more in depth on this, because there's
Speaker 1: also a conversation we had about corruption charges that were
Speaker 1: going on in China, which is not crazy because if
Speaker 1: we look back last year China's rocket program. I remember
Speaker 1: that conversation where they were getting ready to do some
Speaker 1: sort of a test launch and they couldn't because all
Speaker 1: of their rocket fuel had been replaced with water, and
Speaker 1: whoever was in charge of the rocket fuel had sold
Speaker 1: it off to another country and another corruption case. It
Speaker 1: was like this huge embarrassment for China because they already
Speaker 1: have so many But like, I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: know if it was a corruption thing, I don't know,
Speaker 1: if it was a nuclear secrets thing.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: If it was a loud mouth he got drunk one
Speaker 1: day and started talking shit.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But we're gonna learn about this together before we read Royce.
Speaker 1: I see your hand, brother, what you got.
Speaker 4: So if one would be considered good and one would
Speaker 4: be considered bad, would that be the jing.
Speaker 3: Zang y ding Yang.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I like I couldn't unhear it.
Speaker 1: You saw the pun. You had to make it, and
Speaker 1: I'm not mad at that. I'm good with it. So yeah,
Speaker 1: Ji and Jang, if you will, the good old, good
Speaker 1: old uh Buddhist iconography, I love it.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 1: Oh, go ahead, sam our resident Waisian correspondent, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Is it bad? But I can't help but to think
Speaker 3: it's just kind of ironic. The whole Uh ying Yang
Speaker 3: and Jesus and ping it just the whole like it's
Speaker 3: like rhyming orbs of gibberish. And but to laugh about it,
Speaker 3: and I think everybody should because it's funny as fun.
Speaker 1: I haven't made the connection, but now that I've seen
Speaker 1: it and heard it, I can't unmake it.
Speaker 2: That's now locked in.
Speaker 3: So here we are at. You wanna something else funny?
Speaker 3: I so South Korea if you look at the flag,
Speaker 3: it is literally the ying Yang symbol. Yeah, and it
Speaker 3: like that that. I think that's even as dope as
Speaker 3: hell too, but kind of like I mean, I be
Speaker 3: leaning into the Asian. It's the hardest fun but y'all
Speaker 3: going the hardest fucking to paint for the whole reason
Speaker 3: they are.
Speaker 1: They do be doing the most this when it comes
Speaker 1: to that, but you know South Korea is also doing
Speaker 1: depending on which quarter you're talking about, it should be
Speaker 1: killing it.
Speaker 3: Actually I have I'm gonna send you a conspiracy uh
Speaker 3: when South Korea and North Korea actually worked together to
Speaker 3: uh cost a politician from that was trying to run
Speaker 3: for presidency. They actually caught the South Korea and North
Speaker 3: Korea they both worked together to not get him elected
Speaker 3: because they wanted to keep the feud going between North
Speaker 3: Korea and South Koreka because North Korea they the Rocketman's regime.
Speaker 3: Uh fucking yeah. That that the fat ophlumpa over there,
Speaker 3: his entire reign, his family reign, would not it's not stable.
Speaker 3: If they do not have the quote unquote enemy to
Speaker 3: the South, it would they would legitimately be disposed and overthrown.
Speaker 2: And dude, their whole family only rolls.
Speaker 1: Because Stalin pointed him out one day, I was like, you,
Speaker 1: you seem competent run this country.
Speaker 2: Now he's a god.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: That. And also keep in mind, up until like eighty
Speaker 3: to ninety years ago, over in Japan, they thought the
Speaker 3: emperor was literally a direct descendant of the Sun goddess.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I say this on because I truly believe it.
Speaker 3: Man the Asians that they's some of the most superstitious
Speaker 3: people you'll ever meet.
Speaker 2: Documents for sure.
Speaker 1: Although it's also interesting which we're not going to talk
Speaker 1: about tonight. We talked about this last week, but Japan
Speaker 1: has started to rip apart their parliament. So that is
Speaker 1: the thing that the current Prime minister is going through
Speaker 1: is she was kind of talking about it last week Nah,
Speaker 1: she's doing it, like for sure?
Speaker 3: Yeah, does do you think that means we should start
Speaker 3: getting the arsenal ready in case they want to fuck
Speaker 3: with our boats again?
Speaker 2: I don't believe. I don't believe.
Speaker 1: As of this moment, Japan has got a lot of
Speaker 1: beef with China, which so does a lot of Asian countries.
Speaker 2: Right now, they're they're on our side.
Speaker 3: Nobody wants to be under Oli Ping like dude, can't
Speaker 3: even No, nobody wants to be under Kong Flu Panda.
Speaker 1: Well even if even if it's nothing, well it has
Speaker 1: to do with g obviously, but even if it has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Taiwan. Japan has had their own
Speaker 1: beef with China as far as uh airspace disputes and
Speaker 1: water disputes and all these things.
Speaker 3: So they hating each other since the dawn of time, dog.
Speaker 2: Which is fair?
Speaker 3: Like do you you have the Nan King is is
Speaker 3: a here recent? Uh? Then you also have when the
Speaker 3: Chinese went over it and tried to fuck up Japan
Speaker 3: and everything like well back in the back in the day, Uh,
Speaker 3: you also had where the Mongols try to take try
Speaker 3: to uh take over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but they don't do good on boats. That's kind
Speaker 2: of their whole thing.
Speaker 3: Uh. The Japanese gods, the kami. Uh. They they got
Speaker 3: destroyed by a typhoon because they went into on typhood
Speaker 3: season and the Japanese even today still believe that the
Speaker 3: kami protected them, which all kami means is the wind spirits. Uh.
Speaker 3: It's also the most too well known is Leijen and Fusion,
Speaker 3: which most people in the Western civilization would know through
Speaker 3: Mortal Kombat. Lucy as Raiden and Fujin the thunder Brothers
Speaker 3: no doubt Oneion the thunder Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's wild ship Man. So getting back on topic here.
Speaker 1: So, China's military has accused this top general of undermining
Speaker 1: the command authority of Jijuaping, suggesting that ensuring the powers
Speaker 1: of Chinese leader is behind a probe of Jiang Yushia
Speaker 1: probably mispronounced one again announced on Saturday, rather than just
Speaker 1: charges of corruption Xiang which is the vice or was
Speaker 1: the vice chair of the Central Military Commission and Liu
Speaker 1: help me out. Leo John Lee, Leo Jungle, another CMC
Speaker 1: member and the People's Liberation Army's chief of staff had
Speaker 1: severely trampled on and damaged the Chairman's responsibility system. The
Speaker 1: military's official newspaper, PLA Daily, said in an editorial published
Speaker 1: on Sunday, under the Chinese Constitution, the Leader of the
Speaker 1: State and Chinese Communist Party CCP chairs the CMC and
Speaker 1: his supreme decision making power over the military. This chairman
Speaker 1: responsibility system quote unquote is designed to secure the party's
Speaker 1: absolute control over the armed forces. The PLA's mouthpiece editorial
Speaker 1: said the two generals had quote seriously abetted political and
Speaker 1: corruption problems that affect the Communist Party's absolute leadership over
Speaker 1: the military and endanger the foundation of the party rule.
Speaker 1: Not trying to go on a big rant on that one,
Speaker 1: but it's a communist authoritarian regime. You're gonna have corruption.
Speaker 1: That's how this goes every time without failed.
Speaker 2: But all right.
Speaker 1: The comments highlight the crucial importance of the PLA for
Speaker 1: Ji and his expected quest for a fourth term, which
Speaker 1: the party would have to confirm at the next congress,
Speaker 1: due in twenty twenty seven. Since the party sees power
Speaker 1: through civil war and most of its founders fought in
Speaker 1: those battles, it regards control over the armed forces as indispensable.
Speaker 2: Well, of course it does. It's communism.
Speaker 1: The military is the only organization in China that has
Speaker 1: a history of defying party leaders, said Dennis Wilder, an
Speaker 1: expert of Chinese military and former head of Chinese Analysis
Speaker 1: in the CIA, citing criticism of Mao Zedong's policies by
Speaker 1: then Defense Minister peg Duaii Okay in nineteen fifty nine
Speaker 1: and in nineteen seventy one alleged coup attempt against Mao
Speaker 1: by top general Limbial. Wilder said that after Xiang had
Speaker 1: won a fight with with h we Doong, the second
Speaker 1: vi CMC chair and member of the rival faction who
Speaker 1: was purged last year, did everybody forget that that Ji
Speaker 1: pretty much purged all of his opposition, and now he's
Speaker 1: purging possible opposition within the military. I think this is
Speaker 1: also very critical. Ji probably feared that Jang was all
Speaker 1: powerful in the military. Presuming that she wants a fourth
Speaker 1: term in office, He would have to fear that Jiang
Speaker 1: could lead an effort within the party to oust him.
Speaker 1: According to a Defense Ministry statement issued on Saturday, Xiang
Speaker 1: and oh shit you said it earlier, Tony Lao, Leo,
Speaker 1: Leo Leo Okay are Leo jug Li and Xiang got
Speaker 1: Ja So Xiang and Leo are being investigated for serious
Speaker 1: discipline violations and violations of the law Communist Party code
Speaker 1: for corruption that is also commonly used in political purges.
Speaker 1: The announcement shocked many observers. Xiang had been seen as
Speaker 1: close as a close confidante to Xi, whose seniority and
Speaker 1: combat experience made him crucial to the Chinese leader's implementation
Speaker 1: of reforms to turn the PLA into a world class
Speaker 1: force on par with the US military. That is a
Speaker 1: that is a bold strategy. That is that's a bold
Speaker 1: claim that they're trying to rival the United States. It's
Speaker 1: not even close. The probe of Xiang and Leo has
Speaker 1: hollowed out the CMC, leaving Xiang shing min, a political
Speaker 1: commissioner or commissar in charge of investigating corruption, as the
Speaker 1: only active member besides Xi. That's not good. But this
Speaker 1: also lines up very perfectly with last year. People were
Speaker 1: talking about how Xi actually two years ago, they were
Speaker 1: talking about how Xi had basically made a cult to
Speaker 1: personality around him. He has nothing but yes men on
Speaker 1: all sides of him, because they are trying to gain
Speaker 1: as much favor as they can from him, because he
Speaker 1: is the supreme leader. A lot of people It's say
Speaker 1: the same thing about.
Speaker 2: Putin a lot of people.
Speaker 1: For the record, if we're going to call a spade
Speaker 1: a spade here, a lot of people would say the
Speaker 1: same thing about Trump that he has also developed a
Speaker 1: cult to personality around him, and he's surrounding himself with
Speaker 1: yes men. That pretty much anything he says or thinks of,
Speaker 1: they think is like the greatest idea to ever exist ever.
Speaker 1: If we're gonna keep it one hunter, We're gonna keep
Speaker 1: it one thou Wow. So let's get back into it.
Speaker 1: So Lyle Morris, an expert on the PLA at the
Speaker 1: Asia Society Policy Institute, said references to violations of the
Speaker 1: chairman responsibility system suggested that Jiang Yusha Yujia.
Speaker 2: You Ujha.
Speaker 6: Dan Yoshia damn.
Speaker 1: It Jiang yoshah had too much power independent of G himself,
Speaker 1: which was a real fear of G. The PLA and
Speaker 1: G have emphasized the chairman responsibility system in recent years
Speaker 1: and the central pennant or tenet of PLA discipline, so
Speaker 1: highlighting such a violation suggests that Jen was out of
Speaker 1: step with Ji's chain of command. James char an assistant
Speaker 1: professor at Singapore's Singapore's s. Rajaratnam School for International Studies,
Speaker 1: who has been tracking G's PLA purchase for a decade,
Speaker 1: said quote, I very much doubt that Jang or anyone
Speaker 1: else in the regime would have had the temerity to
Speaker 1: engage in open confrontation against Jijiping, And I gotta be honest,
Speaker 1: I agree with that. I don't know to what level
Speaker 1: this actually went down. I have a really hard time
Speaker 1: believing that the top general Ji's boy from when they
Speaker 1: were when they were babies, essentially decided that he was
Speaker 1: going to lead a military coup against him. But that
Speaker 1: was the first claims that we heard, right, the first
Speaker 1: things that we heard coming out of China was that
Speaker 1: there was a coup attempt against g Hell. I didn't
Speaker 1: really do much digging into it, but I had heard it.
Speaker 1: I was just like, what the hell is going on?
Speaker 1: But as more things came to light, we still don't
Speaker 1: know much. We know some things. We know that Jang
Speaker 1: is in jail, probably for the rest of his life.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know if the death penalty is
Speaker 1: going to be his future or what. But I have
Speaker 1: a hard time believing that he was going to try
Speaker 1: to mobilize the pla against Xi.
Speaker 2: I don't see it.
Speaker 1: I think it's way more likely that perhaps the corruption
Speaker 1: conversation is real. Perhaps perhaps the selling of nuclear secrets
Speaker 1: to America was real.
Speaker 2: But I don't I can't verify that.
Speaker 1: That's completely my own speculation here, so let's let's keep
Speaker 1: reading here. But he added, Jiang's fall could be related
Speaker 1: to factional politics and mountain topism, a habit of regional
Speaker 1: leaders to build their own power bases which has plagued
Speaker 1: the party since.
Speaker 2: Its guerrilla days.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I believe that the Jiangshi Gang headed by Jiang,
Speaker 1: and the Fujian Click, which to which he and other
Speaker 1: now purge members belonged, were rivals.
Speaker 2: Within the CMC, So they.
Speaker 1: Had clicks, the Fujian Click and the shang Xi Gang.
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest, I had never heard of these,
Speaker 1: But when Xi found out that these existed, he's been
Speaker 1: again on a bit of a purging streak. It does
Speaker 1: not make sense that Xi only removed the leader of
Speaker 1: one group but not the other. What he has now
Speaker 1: done helps ensure no particular faction grows too powerful, said charm.
Speaker 1: Jiang should have seen this day coming, he added, pointing
Speaker 1: to a previous wave of probes into corruption in the
Speaker 1: PLA's armed development and procurement systems, which Xiang had headed
Speaker 1: until twenty seventeen. Jia Ian Chung, Associate professor for political
Speaker 1: science at the National University of Singapore, said that while
Speaker 1: Jiang's arrest sparked speculation about plots against Ji, there was
Speaker 1: no cooperating evidence that he was under any imminent threat.
Speaker 1: It was clear that Xi continues to have significant reach
Speaker 1: and remains unopposed or at least impossible to oppose within
Speaker 1: the system. This extends to Prince Ling's formerly seen as
Speaker 1: untouchable and people reputed to be close with him. One
Speaker 1: way to try to understand how disruptive the Jiang arrests
Speaker 1: might be to the Chinese system would be to see
Speaker 1: whether it caused delays two important meetings and the official
Speaker 1: agenda in the coming weeks.
Speaker 2: Morris, who we heard a quote.
Speaker 1: From earlier, said the fact that g undertook such a
Speaker 1: dramatic move suggested that he had the full support of
Speaker 1: the party and was confident he had consolidated power over
Speaker 1: the military.
Speaker 2: It's not a sign of weakness but strength for Gi,
Speaker 2: said Morris. There will presumably, presumably be backlash from Xiang's
Speaker 2: power base against Gi. In some eras of Chinese history,
Speaker 2: this will lead to coup concerns, but Ji felt confident
Speaker 2: in his grip on power to withstand such backlash.
Speaker 1: I do believe that's a real thing. And again I
Speaker 1: don't believe as of this moment. It's very subject to
Speaker 1: change as more things come out. I don't believe that
Speaker 1: Jang had coup attempt on his mind. Possibly make a
Speaker 1: little make some dollars on the way out the door.
Speaker 1: He's he's in his seventies, like he's he's long wanted
Speaker 1: to retire and get out of this whole thing. He
Speaker 1: had retired already and got called from retirement. This is
Speaker 1: a position that he didn't want to die in. Maybe
Speaker 1: he just wanted to live out the rest of his
Speaker 1: life and in actual comfort and ease. So maybe a
Speaker 1: corruption situation, Maybe he's selling of information.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't as of this moment, believe that your boy
Speaker 1: was trying to oust Gi. But anyway, so this is
Speaker 1: from the what is this publication here? This is says
Speaker 1: the real reason behind Ji's purge. This is the arptites
Speaker 1: China's top general accused of leaking secrets. We're gonna hear
Speaker 1: from this one. Now, let's learn together.
Speaker 5: Y'all out of Beijing.
Speaker 2: China's senior is from Newsmas There we go.
Speaker 5: Post general has reportedly been detained by investigators after being
Speaker 5: accused of leaking critical information about the regime's nuclear weapons
Speaker 5: program to the US. He's also been accused of corruption
Speaker 5: and at least one example for accepting bribes in exchange
Speaker 5: for promoting an officer to defense minister.
Speaker 7: The general in question is seventy five year old Young Yushi'a.
Speaker 7: All Right was widely viewed as one of China's leaders
Speaker 7: to Jijimping's most trusted adversaries or advisors, excuse me their fathers.
Speaker 7: They fought Sabi side during the Chinese Civil War that
Speaker 7: saw Mao Zebas Communist forces seize power nineteen forty nine.
Speaker 7: He could now face the death penalty.
Speaker 5: News comes in the wake of a wider crackdown on
Speaker 5: corruption and party of disloyalty. Over the past two and
Speaker 5: a half years, more than fifty senior military officers and
Speaker 5: defense industry executives have either been investigated or removed from office.
Speaker 7: China's top command body for the People's Liberation Army. The
Speaker 7: Chinese Central Military Commissions also undergone a dramatic purge over
Speaker 7: the last few years. The commission usually has seven members, however,
Speaker 7: now only to remain one of them is Jijinping himself.
Speaker 5: Okay, so the question what does it all mean? Let's
Speaker 5: ask open source analyst Ryan McBeth, who's been tracking the
Speaker 5: story over the weekend, also with US national security correspondent
Speaker 5: at the Washington Times, Bill Gertz. Gentlemen, Welcome, Ryan. I'm
Speaker 5: going to start with you here. What does it all mean?
Speaker 8: Well, this is actually very common for China. They tend
Speaker 8: to purge their leaders and then bring them back later
Speaker 8: after they've been reformed. Jijiong Shun, who was President Jijingping's father,
Speaker 8: he was purged and enjoyed political wilderness for about sixteen
Speaker 8: years before he was rehabilitated in nineteen seventy. So I
Speaker 8: believe what this means is that President Jijingping is trying
Speaker 8: to consolidate power, and they normally use charges of corruption
Speaker 8: in order to do that.
Speaker 7: Bill, is this about Jijiping getting more power? To Ryan's
Speaker 7: point here, drifting closer and closer maybe towards you know,
Speaker 7: a kind of a dictatorship.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I think what's behind the purge of John Yoshah is
Speaker 9: that he's getting There's two things. One, it could be
Speaker 9: legitimate corruption. He's been linked to the leak of nuclear secrets,
Speaker 9: which is very A lot of analysts are skeptical of that,
Speaker 9: saying the Chinese would never put that out, but it
Speaker 9: was probably part of the narrative to discredit General John.
Speaker 9: The other reason is all of these purges could be
Speaker 9: to build a more competent military leadership. For example, they
Speaker 9: Shijin Ping may have thought that General Jean was not
Speaker 9: confident enough to do the action that he wants, and
Speaker 9: that action, of course, is the most immediate threat, is
Speaker 9: going after Taiwan. They've said that they're going to either
Speaker 9: take action against Taiwan by twenty twenty seven, which is
Speaker 9: a year from now.
Speaker 5: What should the United States take away from this either
Speaker 5: the Department of War, our national security, even thinking of tariffs.
Speaker 5: How does all of this work and hang together?
Speaker 8: Ryan Oh I would say that kind of the first
Speaker 8: thing that we need to think about is that corrupt
Speaker 8: doesn't necessarily mean incompetent.
Speaker 6: There are certainly generals who might.
Speaker 8: Be incompetent that they want to get rid of genuinely incompetent.
Speaker 8: But in China it is somewhat, I want to say expected,
Speaker 8: But it is not abnormal to take a little bit
Speaker 8: of money when you choose a certain vendor for a
Speaker 8: weapons system that you were going to choose anyway. That
Speaker 8: is expected. The kind of incompetence they hate is promoting
Speaker 8: people for money. That's something they go after like bulldogs.
Speaker 8: So I think that the thing the United States need
Speaker 8: to take away here is that China is getting more
Speaker 8: and more serious about professionalizing its military, and with twenty
Speaker 8: twenty seven on the horizon, that's something we really need
Speaker 8: to think about.
Speaker 7: Bill sam question to you, how should we be viewing this?
Speaker 9: Well, you know, my view is that China poses the
Speaker 9: most serious existential threat that the country is facing. They're
Speaker 9: on the march ideologically and physically and militarily, and we
Speaker 9: have got to take a greater position on that. The
Speaker 9: new National Defense Strategy just came out, and it calls
Speaker 9: for greater accommodation with China. It's basically based on President
Speaker 9: Trump's desire to make a trade deal.
Speaker 2: With Chi Jinping.
Speaker 9: My view is it's what Reagan said about the Cold
Speaker 9: War against the Soviet Union.
Speaker 3: He said.
Speaker 9: My view is simple, we win, they lose. We need
Speaker 9: to take a much harder line on communist China.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Ryan, you know I.
Speaker 8: Ronald Reagan is an excellent example of this. It is
Speaker 8: really a zero sum game because if China takes Taiwan,
Speaker 8: the device I'm using right now to talk to you guys,
Speaker 8: that goes away.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so much of that.
Speaker 8: Of our chips are made in Taiwan, and uh if
Speaker 8: it's not something we can we can get to that
Speaker 8: level of internal production that quickly. Uh So your other
Speaker 8: guest is absolutely right.
Speaker 7: Okay, gott to leave it there, Ryan Bell, good to
Speaker 7: see it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's talk about this a little bit deeper,
Speaker 1: shall we. You know, Tony, I'm curious what your take
Speaker 1: is on this one. I don't, as of this moment,
Speaker 1: believe that Xiang sold nuclear secrets, right, especially with China
Speaker 1: leading the world as far as the fission conversation is concerned.
Speaker 1: I think that, yeah, that might be trumped up stories
Speaker 1: to try to make it look like he was even
Speaker 1: like like the Chinese Communist Party told China proper that
Speaker 1: that is a portion of this to make him seem
Speaker 1: like even more of a bad guy, but I don't
Speaker 1: really believe that he would have done something like that.
Speaker 1: He's been a loyal party member for his entire life.
Speaker 2: So what was your take on this?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I would agree it's probably selective enforcement. And the
Speaker 6: whole nuclear angle doesn't make much sense to me. They
Speaker 6: have enough nuclear capability in terms of weaponry, and so
Speaker 6: does the US. The US is probably not looking to
Speaker 6: buy any nuclear secrets from China. What do they know
Speaker 6: that our people don't know. I just maybe there's something,
Speaker 6: but I doubt it. Another thing is China. You know,
Speaker 6: it may be a one party state, but there is
Speaker 6: a hell of a lot of factionalism within the party.
Speaker 6: It really reminds me of the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: It's huge.
Speaker 6: It makes a big show of being talking about unity,
Speaker 6: but underneath the surface, there's actually a lot of factionalism,
Speaker 6: and there has been since the days of Mao So
Speaker 6: Dung Shoping was also ostracized for a while but later rehabilitated,
Speaker 6: and he was probably the best resident they've had, even
Speaker 6: though the title president didn't exist back then. They've reorganized
Speaker 6: the way they do leadership a lot, and for some reason,
Speaker 6: Communists really shy away in general from having somebody labeled
Speaker 6: president or a king like figure. That's why Stalin was
Speaker 6: just the general secretary. He was kind of the lowest,
Speaker 6: you know, one of the lower ranking titled guys, but
Speaker 6: he kind of aggregated power to himself. That's maybe a
Speaker 6: bit of a tangent. I really loved how the article
Speaker 6: you read from the Financial Times brought up Biao. He's
Speaker 6: probably the best analog for this. And there was this,
Speaker 6: you know, fascinating story from nineteen seventy one where I
Speaker 6: don't think he was planning to enact a coup, but
Speaker 6: his wife was trying to make a coup happen, and
Speaker 6: she didn't even tell him about it, and then one
Speaker 6: day she rouses him. It's like, because they got discovered,
Speaker 6: hurry yet we got to get on a plane that's
Speaker 6: flying to the Soviet Union right away. And then the
Speaker 6: plane didn't have enough fuel in it and it crashed
Speaker 6: in Mongolia. That's the Linn Piao incident.
Speaker 1: It didn't have enough fuel and it crashed in Damn.
Speaker 1: That sounds very similar to a situation with Putin in
Speaker 1: the Wagner Head a couple of years ago.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, pregosion. Yeah yeah, Well, anyway, yeah, I'd never
Speaker 6: heard of this guy until just today. But yeah, thank
Speaker 6: you for bringing this story to my attention and for
Speaker 6: bringing to everyone's attention. I don't think I have much
Speaker 6: else to say, so thanks.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm also curious about this too now. So China
Speaker 1: has been very open and honest. Well I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: say honest, because it's very possible that this is uh
Speaker 1: to dissuade people from what's actually going on. But they
Speaker 1: are saying that they are planning to invade Taiwan in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven. Now some analysts are suggesting that this move,
Speaker 1: this situation right now might push that date forward into
Speaker 1: this year. Reason why is because if you look at
Speaker 1: how China's military is set up, Yes, they have a
Speaker 1: rank and file structure, but the way they actually it's
Speaker 1: top down leadership.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So, in the United States military, if you were to
Speaker 1: take out one of our four star generals, we have
Speaker 1: another general that will fill that slot, and the one
Speaker 1: right below him could fill that slot, the one right
Speaker 1: below that guy could fill that dude's position, and down
Speaker 1: the line all the way to the lowest private we
Speaker 1: have a very small unit leadership all the way up
Speaker 1: to the big picture in China, they don't necessarily have that.
Speaker 1: It comes from the top and it goes all the
Speaker 1: way down to the lowest private A lot of their
Speaker 1: leadership on the big picture stuff is they basically cap
Speaker 1: their leadership structure at the knees right. So some are
Speaker 1: saying that now that their top military brass has been removed,
Speaker 1: they don't have a viable person to put in that
Speaker 1: position right now. I've heard a couple of names get
Speaker 1: thrown out, But when you look at their track record
Speaker 1: as individuals, I'm not saying that they couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: I'm saying they're not as they don't have the experience
Speaker 1: and such your boy Jiang did. So some are suggesting
Speaker 1: that because of this, they might be a little more
Speaker 1: quick to the trigger, if you will, to make the
Speaker 1: move into Taiwan, and some are saying that they're going
Speaker 1: to try to make this push in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: I personally don't believe that. I don't believe that that
Speaker 1: would suit them whatsoever. I think, if anything, that would
Speaker 1: screw them in the long run. But with all of
Speaker 1: what you know about this area of the world, what
Speaker 1: is your hot take?
Speaker 6: Well, I should get a polymarket, so I can bet
Speaker 6: against any Chinese invasion of Taiwan this year or next year.
Speaker 6: I'm just pretty sure it won't happen. That whole quote
Speaker 6: about how and I did hear it in that Newsmax
Speaker 6: piece that they're going to invade Taiwan in twenty twenty
Speaker 6: seven or they're very likely too, or they're planning too,
Speaker 6: or something like that. I really doubt it. I would
Speaker 6: want to hear who exactly said that and what the
Speaker 6: context was, because I have heard similarly, Joe Biden claimed
Speaker 6: that Vladimir Putin said that polland is next. And my
Speaker 6: father in law has argued about this with me because
Speaker 6: he's a big Putin hater. And I said, okay, just
Speaker 6: show me the quote, and then he said, I'll get
Speaker 6: it back to you later. And we've had this conversation
Speaker 6: like three or four times, and he finally told me
Speaker 6: last time I was at his house, I got it
Speaker 6: on the computer. I'll show it to you after we're
Speaker 6: done here in the kitchen, and that he never did.
Speaker 6: And I'm pretty sure that no, this was somebody else
Speaker 6: and talking out of his ass, So I really doubt.
Speaker 6: I mean, I could bet money. I would bet money
Speaker 6: that Taiwan is not going to be invaded in the
Speaker 6: next two or three years.
Speaker 2: Do you think they will get invaded eventually? No?
Speaker 6: No, I well, anything could happen, obviously, but I bet no,
Speaker 6: they will not be invaded in the next hundred years.
Speaker 1: I would agree with that, or at least if for
Speaker 1: no other reason. Right, Why America cares so much about
Speaker 1: Taiwan is the example that Ryan macbeth had said, ninety
Speaker 1: percent of our chips are made, or at least the
Speaker 1: larger components of them, are made in Taiwan. If China
Speaker 1: takes that over, we don't have most of our technology anymore,
Speaker 1: at least not to the level that we do now,
Speaker 1: because that would be a massive stranglehold that they could now.
Speaker 1: I mean just cell phones and laptops and like little
Speaker 1: leisurely things. I mean even the big names, right, even
Speaker 1: the big stuff that the government uses. Their chips are
Speaker 1: made in Taiwan. So I think that America has a
Speaker 1: real vested interest in Taiwan remaining independent. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that the CCP really wants that smoke. They do a
Speaker 1: lot of saber rattling. I don't think that that's actually
Speaker 1: something that they really want to do.
Speaker 2: I'm with you. I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: It's very possible that she decides to know, what fuck it,
Speaker 1: we're gonna do it live and just sends it.
Speaker 2: But I just I got.
Speaker 1: A hard time hedging my bets in that direction, especially
Speaker 1: with the amount of manpower that they would lose in
Speaker 1: that fight, even in the initial push. It would be catastrophic,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he actually wants that much of
Speaker 1: a loss of life.
Speaker 6: Yeah, me too. And I think that they've been patient
Speaker 6: a long time and they're going to continue to be patient.
Speaker 6: And there's some Taiwan Chinese who really hate the Communist Party,
Speaker 6: but I have the sense that that sentiment has actually
Speaker 6: gone weaker and weaker with each passing decade. Now the
Speaker 6: Kuomintangu is actually in favor of more relations with Mainland
Speaker 6: China than one of their competing parties. I forget the
Speaker 6: political parties over there. There's like seven of them in Taiwan,
Speaker 6: and some of them are more pro China and some
Speaker 6: of them are more anti mainland China. In the AMT
Speaker 6: surprisingly that was Chuan Kai Shak's party, and they're one
Speaker 6: of the more pro mainland parties in Taiwan now, So
Speaker 6: I think they will just slowly build up more and
Speaker 6: more relations, and you know, the veneer of autonomy will
Speaker 6: just slowly, slowly go away. Because among the Chinese people,
Speaker 6: maybe I know it's going to sound racist to say,
Speaker 6: but maybe it's like genetic. They feel this strong sense
Speaker 6: of unity and unification and how when they're separated too much,
Speaker 6: bad things happen. So they want to be one country.
Speaker 6: It's weird, but you know, I've talked to enough Chinese
Speaker 6: people that's a very powerful sentiment. Even my wife's family
Speaker 6: that's from you know, mainland China and then moved. They
Speaker 6: were from Nanjing in the early thirties, and they got
Speaker 6: out of town when the Japanese invaded in thirty seven,
Speaker 6: went to chung Qing, lived there until nineteen forty nine,
Speaker 6: and moved to Taiwan. And like my wife's grandmother is
Speaker 6: more pro mainland China. Her grandfather passed away already. He
Speaker 6: was way way more anti communist. But this whole like
Speaker 6: over arching belief that well, communism is just a recent
Speaker 6: thing and our civilization is like three or four thousand
Speaker 6: years old, and we really should be one people is
Speaker 6: still a pretty powerful feeling among all of them.
Speaker 2: That's fair that the sentiment could absolutely be there.
Speaker 1: But again, as far as the communism conversation is concerned, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's relatively recent as far as human history is concerned,
Speaker 1: for sure. But I feel like if China would stop
Speaker 1: being communists hypothetically, I feel like a lot of the
Speaker 1: beef would stop. Although I say that, I say that
Speaker 1: that wasn't the case of Russia.
Speaker 2: Certainly was in the case of Russia, because.
Speaker 1: As soon as the Soviet Union fell, all that beef
Speaker 1: should have stopped. They should have been invited into NATO,
Speaker 1: they should have been brought into the Fold and all
Speaker 1: the things.
Speaker 2: But that that show didn't happen. So I don't know.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's all I gotta say.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, fair enough. I appreciate your input. Brother.
Speaker 1: As we were talking about Taiwan, the yoked Yid, our
Speaker 1: resident Jewish correspondent, actually sent this article, which I thought
Speaker 1: was pretty awesome. So this tall building, this iconic landmark
Speaker 1: in in one, was apparently just climbed by a dude.
Speaker 2: This is sick.
Speaker 1: So the Taipei one oh one is a five hundred
Speaker 1: and eight meter one hundred and one story tower with
Speaker 1: a unique profile representing a blossoming flower that signifies financial
Speaker 1: richness and everlasting vitality. The building design also incorporates the
Speaker 1: number eight, which cannot which can connos connotes? Okay, prosperity, yes, connotes.
Speaker 1: They could just say which signifies or symbolizes, but whatever,
Speaker 1: prosperity in Chinese culture and references traditional bamboo construction. It
Speaker 1: was the tallest building in the world from two thousand
Speaker 1: and four to twenty ten. Yeah, I think the British
Speaker 1: khaliphas what actually took that one out. We provided structural
Speaker 1: design concepts, blah blah blah bop all the things. But yeah,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't say it in this article, but you're
Speaker 1: saying that a due climbed that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's at the articles and send uh this is
Speaker 2: the article you sent me, man? Was it was?
Speaker 1: This is an article is about the building design, which
Speaker 1: is impressive. But he had like suction cups and climbed
Speaker 1: this building.
Speaker 4: No, No, not at all, not at all?
Speaker 2: What free hand? Yes, the dude that did free solo?
Speaker 4: That did uh lad they did this?
Speaker 2: Oh so he's a fucking psycho.
Speaker 8: So by the way, all right here I said again,
Speaker 8: hopefully this one will show up.
Speaker 2: All right, Let me see. Let me see this article
Speaker 2: sent yeah from the BBC.
Speaker 1: Yes, oh man, okay, all right, let me let me
Speaker 1: bring that over.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, cool.
Speaker 1: So wow, this climber actually climbed that building like a
Speaker 1: complete boss. Okay, So climber Alex Honold Honauld.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I want to put respect on Honold,
Speaker 2: but he's also a psycho.
Speaker 1: So I mean, whatever scales one hundred and one floor
Speaker 1: skyscraper without safe and of course they made it to
Speaker 1: where I can't read the article without subscribing.
Speaker 4: Oh dude, I'll try to find another one.
Speaker 6: There's so hold on, just search for it on your end.
Speaker 3: I promise you you'll be able to find article.
Speaker 1: Probably. Let me see if I could play the video
Speaker 1: before it does that again. Nope, it's not gonna let
Speaker 1: me damn. Anyway, it's whatever. It's cool. This climber, Alex Hanald,
Speaker 1: actually free hand climbed this thing.
Speaker 2: This happened with this week.
Speaker 4: Like four days ago, five days ago.
Speaker 2: Now, oh my god.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's that's impressive and psychotic all at the same time,
Speaker 1: and I respect it, you know. Okay, moving on in
Speaker 1: the conversation here, this is going to NPR. Yes, I
Speaker 1: understand it's MPR, but this is also kind of funny
Speaker 1: in my opinion. NATO chief wishes good luck to those
Speaker 1: who think Europe can defend itself without the United States's help.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, that's not a true statement. This is
Speaker 1: from January of this year. From January twenty seventh of
Speaker 1: this year, so from Brussels. NATO Secretary General Mark Root
Speaker 1: insisted Monday that Europe is incapable of defending itself without
Speaker 1: the US military support and would have to. It would
Speaker 1: have to more than double current military spending targets.
Speaker 2: To be able to do so.
Speaker 1: That is a bold assessment to say that the entirety
Speaker 1: of the continent, not one country, the entirety of the continent,
Speaker 1: could double their defense spending and possibly stand a chance.
Speaker 1: That's that's funny. That's funny. But anyway, if anyone thinks
Speaker 1: here this is a direct quote from him. By the way,
Speaker 1: the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend
Speaker 1: itself without the US. Keep on dreaming, you can't. Root
Speaker 1: told EU lawmakers and Brussels Europe in the United States
Speaker 1: quote need each other. He said, yeah, I agree, fully agree.
Speaker 1: Tensions are festering within NATO over President Trump's renewed threats
Speaker 1: in recent weeks to annex Greenland, which is a semi
Speaker 1: autonomous territory of NATO allied Denmark. Trump also said that
Speaker 1: he was slapping new tariffs on Greenland's European backers, but
Speaker 1: later dropped his threats after a quote unquote framework for
Speaker 1: a deal over the mineral rich island was reached with
Speaker 1: ROOTS help. Few details of the agreement have emerged. The
Speaker 1: thirty two nation military Organization, which redro MAA NATO, is
Speaker 1: bound together by a mutual defense clause, Article five of
Speaker 1: NATO's founding Washington Treaty, which commits every country to come
Speaker 1: to the defense of an ally whose territory is under threat.
Speaker 1: At NATO's summit in the Hague in July, European allies,
Speaker 1: with the exception of Spain plus Canada, agreed to Trump's
Speaker 1: demand that they invest the same percentage of their economic
Speaker 1: output on defense as the United States within a decade.
Speaker 1: Yet that was a big deal. That was a big deal.
Speaker 1: So up until then it was understood that every country
Speaker 1: in NATO had to spend two percent of their GDP,
Speaker 1: and for the record, half of them couldn't even make
Speaker 1: that type of pledge. Now they all have pledged to
Speaker 1: spend three point five percent of the GDP on core
Speaker 1: defense and another one point five percent of their GDP
Speaker 1: on security related infrastructure, a total of five percent by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty five, which I understand that a lot of
Speaker 1: people hate it because Trump did it, and everything Trump does.
Speaker 2: Is a mile I get it.
Speaker 1: I get it fine, Okay, Trump arrangements and drums real
Speaker 1: on both sides.
Speaker 2: Of the aisle, very skewed right.
Speaker 1: However, I for one am a massive supporter of American
Speaker 1: allies stepping up to the plate and spending the money
Speaker 1: on infrastructure and their actual proper military that they haven't
Speaker 1: done in decades.
Speaker 2: I'm here for it. I like it. And it's not
Speaker 2: even because of Russia. It's not because of China.
Speaker 1: I've the same way I put it like this, the
Speaker 1: same way that I believe that every person should be
Speaker 1: carrying a weapon at all times is the same energy
Speaker 1: I have to say that every country should have a
Speaker 1: formidable military, especially our allies. That's that's like, that's a
Speaker 1: crazy thing to be considered a hot take. But sure,
Speaker 1: there we are and NATO summit in the Hague, are
Speaker 1: I read that one.
Speaker 2: If you really want to.
Speaker 1: Go it alone, Ruth said, forget that you can get
Speaker 1: there with five percent, it will be ten percent.
Speaker 2: You have to build up your own nuclear capability.
Speaker 1: That costs billions and billions of euros, which it does.
Speaker 1: France has led calls for Europe to build its strategic autonomy,
Speaker 1: and supports for its stance has grown since Trump's administration
Speaker 1: warned last last year rather that its security priorities lie
Speaker 1: elsewhere and that the Europeans would have to fin for themselves.
Speaker 2: Because that was the thing.
Speaker 1: Trump threatened to pull out of NATO if the European
Speaker 1: countries didn't stand correct, and they realized, like uh oh
Speaker 1: uh oh, if somebody attacked a European country, hypothetically Russia,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily, not necessarily, if a sovereign nation was
Speaker 1: to attack a European country, what could they actually do.
Speaker 1: There's only a handful of countries that are a part
Speaker 1: of it that could possibly defend their own territory. And
Speaker 1: I didn't mean take the offensive approach, I mean specifically defend.
Speaker 1: And the only way they could do so is because
Speaker 1: they have built their entire military structure on defense, zero offense,
Speaker 1: except for like their special forces, right which like, okay,
Speaker 1: give you an example, Denmark, they sent in Norway. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, I met dudes from the Norwegian
Speaker 1: military while I was in the Marines. The Norwegian military
Speaker 1: is set up for defensive, to protect their borders, their airspace,
Speaker 1: their water, all these things. The only groups that were
Speaker 1: ever sent to Afghanistan, to Iraq, or to any warfront
Speaker 1: were their special forces. And when you look at the
Speaker 1: rest of the NATO countries that had militaries, the only
Speaker 1: ones that have seen combat in the last few decades
Speaker 1: have been special forces guys, because the rest of the
Speaker 1: European Union, or excuse me, the rest of NATO's defenses
Speaker 1: has specifically been defense. Even Britain, who had an offensive unit. Fuck,
Speaker 1: the British Marines were doing some gangster shit in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: at one point in time, but they have been getting
Speaker 1: their funding cut so much that they couldn't afford to
Speaker 1: take those those deployments anymore. Hell, they're having to cut
Speaker 1: down on whole air wings, whole ships are being decommissioned
Speaker 1: and shit. So yeah, I for one am a massive
Speaker 1: supporter of the European nations stepping up to the plate
Speaker 1: and protecting themselves. I'm here for it, let's see. Continuing
Speaker 1: on route, told the lawmakers that without the United States,
Speaker 1: Europe would lose the ultimate guaranteur of our freedom, which
Speaker 1: is the US nuclear umbrella.
Speaker 2: So hey, good luck. Shout out to Mark.
Speaker 1: Root for being an actual, level headed human being running NATO.
Speaker 1: So now we're gonna step away from the international conversation.
Speaker 2: And go a little closer to home here.
Speaker 1: We talked about this guy a couple weeks ago, the
Speaker 1: ex Olympic snowboarder Ryan Wedding, and he went from being
Speaker 1: a Olympic snowboarder to being a kingpin for the Cinaloa cartel.
Speaker 1: How somebody goes from you know, snowboarding on the snow
Speaker 1: to selling the snow I'll never understand, but whatever, when
Speaker 1: the money's right, I guess right. So he has been
Speaker 1: living in Mexico working directly for the Cineloa cartel for
Speaker 1: a hot minute here, and he just got arrested. He
Speaker 1: pled not guilty to running drug smuggling ring, which that's
Speaker 1: not gonna go well for him. Sam, your hands raised.
Speaker 2: What's up?
Speaker 3: Lived by the snow, die by the snow? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's a thing.
Speaker 2: It's a thing, so let's talk about it here.
Speaker 1: This is from Santa Ana, California, a former Canadian snowboarder
Speaker 1: pled not guilty to running a billion dollar drug trafficking
Speaker 1: ring and orchestrating multiple killings as one of the FBI's
Speaker 1: top fugitives, made his first US quarter appearance Monday since
Speaker 1: he was arrested in Mexico last week and flown to California.
Speaker 2: US authorities say Ryan Wedding, who.
Speaker 1: Competed in a single event for his home country in
Speaker 1: the twenty or two thousand and two Winter Olympics in
Speaker 1: Salt Lake City, had been hiding in Mexico for more
Speaker 1: than a decade. He was added to the FBI's ten
Speaker 1: most pointed fugitive lists last March, when authorities offered a
Speaker 1: fifteen million dollar reward for information leading to his arrest
Speaker 1: and conviction. Authorities say wins A Wedding moved as much
Speaker 1: as sixty tons of cocaine between Columbia, Mexico, Canada, and
Speaker 1: southern California, and believe he was working under the protection
Speaker 1: of the San Looa cartel. Everybody knows what that is.
Speaker 1: It's one of Mexico's most powerful drug rings. His drug
Speaker 1: trafficking group was the largest supplier of cocaine to Canada,
Speaker 1: according to a twenty twenty four indictment of his home country,
Speaker 1: where he faces separate drug charges dating back to twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: Mexican officials said he turned himself in at the US
Speaker 1: Embassy in Mexico City last week and was flown to
Speaker 1: southern California after a year long effort by authority in
Speaker 1: the United States, Mexico, Canada, Columbia, and the dr to
Speaker 1: arrest him. Your boy got around. Your boy got around.
Speaker 1: When speaking to reporters Monday outside the Federal court in
Speaker 1: Santa Ana, south of Los Angeles, Wedding's defense attorney Anthony Colombo,
Speaker 1: I wonder if that's any connection to the Colombo crime family.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm just anyone disputed that his client had turned himself
Speaker 1: in in Mexico and said he was living in Mexico,
Speaker 1: not hiding out there. He was arrested, Columbo said after
Speaker 1: the brief hearing, offering no further details. He did not surrender,
Speaker 1: So the story's already getting a little bit conflated here.
Speaker 1: If he turned himself in, nobody gets the fifteen million.
Speaker 1: If he was arrested. Somebody's cash in a check. Take
Speaker 1: that for what it's worth anyway. Colombo said his client
Speaker 1: was in good spirits, but added that this has been
Speaker 1: a whirlwind for mister Wedding.
Speaker 2: Y'ah, I'll bet. Federal prosecutors declined to comment after the hearing.
Speaker 1: Wedding was scheduled to be back in court February eleventh,
Speaker 1: and a trial date was set for March twenty fourth.
Speaker 1: Wedding arrived in court, where ring a tan jumpsuit and
Speaker 1: his ankles chained. He smiled briefly, then clasped his hands
Speaker 1: and leaned back in the chair before reviewing papers with
Speaker 1: his attorney. When asked by the US magistrate John d
Speaker 1: Early if he read the indictments filed against him, Wedding
Speaker 1: answered I read them both.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: The judge ordered him to be hailed in custody, saying
Speaker 1: he could not immediately find conditions that would ensure public
Speaker 1: safety or Wedding's appearance in court. He said he could
Speaker 1: consider bond if Wedding seeks it later. But bond, bro,
Speaker 1: what's the bond.
Speaker 2: Gonna be set up with the sixty tons of coke? Okay?
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe your boys just got stacks. You know,
Speaker 1: if they got the bond set for like ten million
Speaker 1: or some shit, maybe he actually has ten million green
Speaker 1: dollar bills just ready to go. I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't all right. Mexico has increasingly sent detained cartel members
Speaker 1: to the United States as the country attempts to offset
Speaker 1: mounting threats by the US president, who said last month
Speaker 1: the US forces will now start hitting lands south of
Speaker 1: the border to target drug trafficking rings. I really hope
Speaker 1: they do. By the way, now that all of the
Speaker 1: cartels have been registered as terrorist organizations, I really do
Speaker 1: hope that we start getting more, not just like we
Speaker 1: saw with Maduro. Although I will say, y'all, remember months
Speaker 1: and months and months ago, when Trump acknowledged that these
Speaker 1: groups are now terrorist organizations. We had said that we
Speaker 1: could get some Tier one guys, some Delta Force, some
Speaker 1: Green Berets, some Navy seals.
Speaker 2: We could start.
Speaker 1: Seeing these dudes going in and doing some black ops
Speaker 1: operations against the cartels. That was a real thing that
Speaker 1: we could start seeing. Next thing, you know, Madurero gets joined.
Speaker 1: Next thing, you know, this guy turns himself in quote unquote,
Speaker 1: he was arrested, he was snatched, right, could this be
Speaker 1: that I think so personally. Wedding was indicted in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four on federal charges of running a criminal enterprise, murder,
Speaker 1: conspiring to distribute cocaine, and other crimes. The murder charges
Speaker 1: accused Wedding of directing the twenty twenty three killings of
Speaker 1: two members of the Canadian family in retaliation for a
Speaker 1: stolen drug shipment, and for ordering a killing of a
Speaker 1: drug debt in twenty twenty four. Last year, Wedding was
Speaker 1: indicted on new charges of orchestrating the killing of a
Speaker 1: witness in Colombia to help him avoid extradition to the US.
Speaker 1: Wedding was previously convicted in the US of conspiracy to
Speaker 1: distribute cocaine and sentenced to prison in twenty ten. Online
Speaker 1: record show he was released from the Bureau of Prison
Speaker 1: custody in twenty eleven.
Speaker 2: So they already had him and let him go, but
Speaker 2: all right.
Speaker 1: The twenty twenty four Canadian indictment says Weddings group obtained
Speaker 1: cocaine from Colombia and worked with Mexican cartels to move
Speaker 1: the drugs by boat and plane to Mexico and then
Speaker 1: into the US using semitrucks. The indictment said it said
Speaker 1: the group stored cocaine in southern California before sending it
Speaker 1: to Canada and other US states. I mean, that's how
Speaker 1: that goes. That's typically the route that these drugs take
Speaker 1: when they go from Colombia to the North.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we'll see how he goes.
Speaker 1: I sincerely doubt that he is gonna beat the case
Speaker 1: on this or beat the charges.
Speaker 2: I think he's I think he's gonna get got here.
Speaker 2: But we'll see. We'll see how it goes. Now.
Speaker 1: I did want to take this other thing as we
Speaker 1: were talking about things as far as the US is concerned.
Speaker 2: Apparently we have another possible UFO situation over Area fifty
Speaker 2: one right now. This is from the New York Post.
Speaker 1: A mysterious Dorito shaped aircraft spotted flying at night over
Speaker 1: Area fifty one.
Speaker 2: Something interesting here.
Speaker 1: This is from January twenty third to twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: before I read Sam what you got?
Speaker 3: Just based off of the description right there, Dolto shaped?
Speaker 3: Are we sure this isn't like the B two but
Speaker 3: just on even more steroids, like it's a new little
Speaker 3: off spring.
Speaker 2: I personally believe yes.
Speaker 3: So does that mean that sofa dude's gonna get replaced
Speaker 3: because I kind of like the Stoner plane.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know, because it's very possible they just came
Speaker 1: out with a drone plane that could be used. It's
Speaker 1: it's basically a drone jet that could be used with
Speaker 1: the F thirty five's computer systems to be basically right,
Speaker 1: the Wingman exactly, and it looks quite similar to the
Speaker 1: Flying Grito. Now I'm not saying that that's what this
Speaker 1: craft was, but possibly this was a test flight of
Speaker 1: something similar.
Speaker 3: My question is, like, is there a way that we
Speaker 3: can keep upgrading BUFF because BUFF is forever.
Speaker 1: That's like saying, can we upgrade the sledgehammer? Like for
Speaker 1: the job and task that a sledgehammer performs, it is
Speaker 1: the best, but not everything requires a sledgehammer. Some things
Speaker 1: require a scalpel, some things require a screwdriver. You gotta
Speaker 1: have the right job or the right tool for the job.
Speaker 1: If that makes sense.
Speaker 3: I it makes sense, but I personally believe that. But
Speaker 3: when we go to space, we're gonna be using BUFF
Speaker 3: to glass planets.
Speaker 1: That would be hilarious. I'd be down with it. So
Speaker 1: let's talk about it.
Speaker 6: Here.
Speaker 1: A mysterious dorido shaped aircraft was spotted soaring above the
Speaker 1: highly classified Area fifty one military base in southern Nevada
Speaker 1: off grid. Videographer andrews Otdison, known for documenting the mysterious
Speaker 1: landscapes around the military installation for his YouTube channel Uncanny Expeditions,
Speaker 1: was out in the desert when he recorded a strange
Speaker 1: unidentified craft around three am January fourteenth of this year.
Speaker 2: There's only two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: The craft, believed to be an unidentified aerial phenomenon, appeared
Speaker 1: to have an equilateral triangle shape, noticeably different from the
Speaker 1: B two Spirit stealth bomber that Audison filmed earlier that night,
Speaker 1: So he had already that night recorded a B two.
Speaker 2: This wasn't that.
Speaker 1: The on screen right now is a picture from the video,
Speaker 1: and it's very ridoh shaped and it was moving very fast.
Speaker 1: While the B two has a similar v wing profile,
Speaker 1: Audison said, the mystery craft appeared to have a flatter
Speaker 1: trailing edge, no visible wings in a jagged rear section. Still,
Speaker 1: Oddison noted that given the limited resolution, he would not
Speaker 1: rule out the possibility that it was a B two.
Speaker 2: Or another military aircraft.
Speaker 1: Are we looking at classified test flights? Or run of
Speaker 1: the mill training sortie. I certainly think we have something
Speaker 1: interesting here, Addison said. The aircraft matched the shape and
Speaker 1: flight trail scene in twenty fourteen photos showing what appeared
Speaker 1: to be a as yet unacknowledged triangle shaped aircraft quote
Speaker 1: unquote over Wichita, Kansas and Amarillo, Texas. The two photos
Speaker 1: appeared to show similar unidentified triangle shaped aircrafts, unlike any
Speaker 1: known air force planes or drones. He added that the
Speaker 1: sighting also reminded him of more recent reports of a
Speaker 1: similar dorito shaped aircraft spotted over southern California's Remote desert region.
Speaker 1: So on screen right now now is a B to
Speaker 1: a bomber right and you could see, yeah, it has
Speaker 1: the dorito you know, kind of shape to it. However,
Speaker 1: this image is not the same thing. And yes, the
Speaker 1: grainy resolution makes it a little difficult.
Speaker 2: I get that.
Speaker 1: But on the wings of the B two it has
Speaker 1: those the last parts that kind of jut out and
Speaker 1: made hard angles. This, in my opinion, looks very similar
Speaker 1: to the Wingman. Again, I could be wrong, but we
Speaker 1: shall see. On January fifteenth, Ottison linked up with UFO
Speaker 1: researcher your R new which take that guy for what
Speaker 1: is worth who shared scanner audio allegedly capturing odd snack
Speaker 1: themed code words over Area fifty one encrypto radio channels
Speaker 1: during a B two bomber flight hours before the Dourrido
Speaker 1: shaped sighting.
Speaker 2: That's interesting.
Speaker 1: The pilots were heard tossing around phrases like profile, michelobe,
Speaker 1: imperial with garlic, pretzel, snack, and fridge hydrate during the exchange.
Speaker 2: Okay, you know, I don't know if this was them using.
Speaker 1: Some sort of a code talk or if these dudes
Speaker 1: were actually just bullshitting about things.
Speaker 2: Both are very viable, Both are very possible here.
Speaker 1: Arnew said the chatter was different than anything he had
Speaker 1: previously heard after decades of monitoring the airwaves.
Speaker 2: Very interesting.
Speaker 1: Autiston caution, however, that the code words could be routine
Speaker 1: military jargon used by pilots communicating over radio channels. Still,
Speaker 1: the YouTuber believes there is something interesting happening in the
Speaker 1: airspace around Area fifty one Novata Logue. More than forty
Speaker 1: reported sightings of triangular unidentified aerial phenomenon in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: According to the National UFO Reporter Center, Area fifty one
Speaker 1: remained secret for decades, becoming a focal point of UFO
Speaker 1: lore for years until the government formally acknowledged its existence
Speaker 1: in twenty thirteen. Now, remember here, there was a crash
Speaker 1: outside of Area fifty one just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: I say that it might have been a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago. I kind of lose track of time with
Speaker 1: these things. But there was a crash of some sort
Speaker 1: of a craft, and the wreckage of it.
Speaker 2: Didn't seem like UFO things. It seemed like man made materials.
Speaker 1: However, they had people go out there and scatter about
Speaker 1: bits of radio equipment and computer systems that weren't associated
Speaker 1: with the rest of the crash wreckage.
Speaker 2: So could that also be one of these test flights
Speaker 2: that went wrong?
Speaker 1: And as a way to cover their tracks, the military
Speaker 1: went out and sprinkled a bunch of random bits and
Speaker 1: pieces from other crafts out there to kind of dissuade
Speaker 1: people from learning what new tech we're working on.
Speaker 2: I find it very possible.
Speaker 1: In April, a triangular tower at the Air Force based
Speaker 1: fuel conspiracy theory, suggesting it could be linked to alien tech. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we talked about that. The triangular tower that has been
Speaker 1: built at Area fifty one But anyway, so what is
Speaker 1: this new flying dorito that is making its way above
Speaker 1: area fifty one as of now, I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: currently of the belief that it's probably some new craft
Speaker 1: tech that America has, but who's to say, you know,
Speaker 1: who's to say it.
Speaker 2: Very well could be the wingman. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Now, continuing on with the conversation about the US and
Speaker 1: military and all of these things, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: spend too much time talking about this one.
Speaker 2: But this was silly. This was so silly.
Speaker 1: Canada prepping response to hypothetical US military invasion for the
Speaker 1: first time in a century. Report says the model is
Speaker 1: purely theoretical and precautionary, with official stressing that the US
Speaker 1: has no A US invasion is unlikely. Okay the TLDR
Speaker 1: of this, Just so we're all on the same page here.
Speaker 1: Canada decided to run some wargames, which is not crazy.
Speaker 1: Countries run wargames all all the time, and Canada decided
Speaker 1: that they, for the first time in over one hundred years,
Speaker 1: they were going to run a simulation, a model, a
Speaker 1: war game of if the United States was to invade Canada,
Speaker 1: what could they do to stop them.
Speaker 2: How would that play out for them? All these things, y'all?
Speaker 1: The best the best options was that America would take
Speaker 1: over the entirety of Canada in a week. The worst
Speaker 1: case scenario was forty eight hours, again to the shock
Speaker 1: of literally no one. Yeah, so that I don't know why.
Speaker 1: I don't know why they would even have questioned this.
Speaker 1: And this is just off of the tech that they
Speaker 1: know about that we have. That's not even talking about
Speaker 1: the experimental shit. But yeah, we could read this a
Speaker 1: little bit because it's all about how we were talking
Speaker 1: about this last night on the Cult of Conspiracy Live.
Speaker 1: There are certain provinces in Canada they're talking about seating
Speaker 1: and if they were two pledge allegiance to the United
Speaker 1: States flag, which they may not. They may not, but
Speaker 1: if they did, what would Canada's response be? How would
Speaker 1: that go for them? So they're just kind of spitballing
Speaker 1: ideas here.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: Canada military is modeling its response to a hypothetical US
Speaker 1: invasion as tensions rise between President Trump's administration and NATO allies.
Speaker 1: According to a new report, the model outlines the Canadian
Speaker 1: armed forces multi pronged strategy to counter a potential US
Speaker 1: military incursion. It includes plans to use asymmetric tactics, drone warfare,
Speaker 1: and requests for European backup. According to two senior Canadian
Speaker 1: officials who spoke to The Globe and Mail, the model
Speaker 1: is purely theoretical and precautionary, with official stressing that a
Speaker 1: US invasion is unlikely to happen.
Speaker 2: Yet it's not going to happen. We're not going to
Speaker 2: do that.
Speaker 1: Still, it illustrates the extent to which relations between the
Speaker 1: two nations, long standing allies and important trading partners, have
Speaker 1: broken down over the past year. To this point, a
Speaker 1: poll was taken this summer found that those Canadians now
Speaker 1: view the United States as their country is the greatest threat.
Speaker 1: Oh that's rich. I would love to know where that
Speaker 1: poll was taken from. I got a weird feeling it
Speaker 1: was in and around Ottawa or in and around Quebec,
Speaker 1: I guarantee. But anyway, and talks here about the conversation
Speaker 1: about America, how Trump was talking about making you know,
Speaker 1: Canada it's fifty first state. It goes on to talk
Speaker 1: about the whole Greenland situation, the Kingdom of Denmark and
Speaker 1: all these things, all this stuff last week, He commented
Speaker 1: the to strengthening bonds with China and forging a new
Speaker 1: world order, underscoring the apparent decline of the US led
Speaker 1: system of alliances. That's from Mark Carney. Mark Carney said
Speaker 1: that he wants to strengthen bonds with China and forge
Speaker 1: a new world order. His words, not mine. So as
Speaker 1: they're talking about these things, they decided to run some
Speaker 1: war games just it says a hypothetical, and it was.
Speaker 2: It was bad. It was so bad. One official said.
Speaker 1: The model is inspired by the muja Hadeen, a group
Speaker 1: of guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan who fought the Russians in
Speaker 1: the Soviet Afghan War using hit and run tactics. For
Speaker 1: the record, the Mouja Hadeen is a group that the
Speaker 1: United States trained and armed. So they were using our
Speaker 1: outdated tactics against our now modern tactics. Okay, it's a
Speaker 1: bold strategy, Cotton, and it did not work out for them.
Speaker 2: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: You know, if you come to after Canada, you're going
Speaker 1: to have the world coming after you, even more than Greenland.
Speaker 1: People do care about what happens to Canada, unlike Venezuela.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: Retired General David Fraser, who led Canadian troops in Afghanistans,
Speaker 1: said you could actually see German ships and British planes
Speaker 1: in Canada to reinforce the country's sovereignty. I don't believe so.
Speaker 1: I don't believe so. I believe that German in England
Speaker 1: see US as a closer ally than Canada. I could
Speaker 1: be wrong. Still, One official said the relations between the
Speaker 1: military force of Canada and the US remain positive because
Speaker 1: it does. This week the two nations work together on
Speaker 1: a nord exercise in Greenland, and retired Lieutenant General Mike Day,
Speaker 1: who led Canadian Special Forces commands, said it is fanciful
Speaker 1: to believe the Americans would launch an invasion of Canada.
Speaker 2: Yeah, agreed, agreed.
Speaker 1: Anyway, you could look up more in depth conversations about
Speaker 1: the war games that were ram They were trying to
Speaker 1: realistically use outdated guerrilla tactics, which, for the record, gerrilla
Speaker 1: tactics are not outdated.
Speaker 2: The Moujah Hydeen guerrilla tactics are outdated.
Speaker 1: And they were trying to use these types of things
Speaker 1: and using the system off of that against US today.
Speaker 1: That was in a day and age before drones. That
Speaker 1: was in a day and age before a majority of
Speaker 1: our air superiority.
Speaker 2: That we have now was well established.
Speaker 1: That was before even your lowliest grunt has the amount
Speaker 1: of tech in their bag that they do now. So
Speaker 1: the again, the best case scenario looked like we would
Speaker 1: take over the country.
Speaker 2: All of it in a week. Sorry, that's the best
Speaker 2: for Canada.
Speaker 1: They'd be able to quote unquote hold out for seven days.
Speaker 1: The worst case scenario was forty eight hours. And that
Speaker 1: was with America super nerved. Both of these examples, by
Speaker 1: the way, but they believe that it was like our premium.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 1: They don't understand how nerved They made it to make
Speaker 1: themselves look better, and it still was embarrassing. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to throw that out as an interesting
Speaker 1: little tidbit of information here. Now as we're talking about Canada,
Speaker 1: we're talking about Britain, British Commonwealth kind of things. David
Speaker 1: Marcus UK's promotion of first cousin marriage at odds with
Speaker 1: Western culture. The Prime Minisae blocked a vote to ban
Speaker 1: marriages common in some immigrant communities, despite acknowledging genetic races
Speaker 1: to children. We talked about this a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: how Britain was debating if they were going to outlaw
Speaker 1: first cousin marriages within their country. Uh no, no, they
Speaker 1: decided to block that vote. You can absolutely still legally
Speaker 1: marry your first cousin in Britain, and now the political
Speaker 1: arm of the law says, not only are you allowed,
Speaker 1: they're they're damn near encouraging it, because to take that
Speaker 1: away would be racist. Never mind the fact that you're
Speaker 1: gonna make a bunch of you know, downs babies and shit.
Speaker 1: That's that's not the point. It's racist against the Gypsies.
Speaker 1: Their words, not mine. It's clearly not against the Gypsies.
Speaker 1: But anyway, yeah, Sam, go ahead.
Speaker 3: So beans on Beans on Falaphona has become Sweet Home London. Yeah,
Speaker 3: they really said, why go to the mall when you
Speaker 3: could just cross the hall?
Speaker 2: Huh, they really did. They did say these things.
Speaker 3: And yet they think America is just a bunch of hillbillies.
Speaker 3: But they're the ones that that that be stooping their cousin.
Speaker 2: So they are saying that this is racist against the
Speaker 2: Gypsy communities. For the record, the Gypsy communities that are
Speaker 2: living in the in the UK have been living.
Speaker 1: There for well over one hundred years. And if they
Speaker 1: are doing the cousin marrying thing, they're they're not at risk,
Speaker 1: They're they're they got that pretty much locked in. This
Speaker 1: is specifically racist against the Muslim population that is running
Speaker 1: rampant in the UK right now. And there's a reason
Speaker 1: why go ahead.
Speaker 3: So what's next? They're gonna allow child marriage of fucking
Speaker 3: six year olds?
Speaker 1: Probably I could, I realistically can see the age of
Speaker 1: consent in the marrying age being dropped to a lower
Speaker 1: number here in the next year.
Speaker 3: England has a I've been saying England has fallen. It
Speaker 3: looks like I have been more validated today than I
Speaker 3: have been in quite some time.
Speaker 2: No, I fully believe that they have fallen.
Speaker 1: It's not even They're not even like in their last
Speaker 1: little bit of we're still here. No, you're not like
Speaker 1: you're you are a shell of your former self and
Speaker 1: that shell has now been filled with immigrants that don't
Speaker 1: belong there.
Speaker 3: Look but the lobster backs and everything. But I believe
Speaker 3: Britain should be for the British. And I don't mean
Speaker 3: angler Saxons or anything. I mean people that actually give
Speaker 3: a fuck about their about their their little their island
Speaker 3: and actually care about the British way of life.
Speaker 1: Bro Indians, even the Indians and the Pakistanis that moved
Speaker 1: to the UK decades ago, they assimilated. They're doing great.
Speaker 1: They're opening shops for they're running local business. They are
Speaker 1: keeping their cultural practices from their homeland. But they're also
Speaker 1: living and thriving in the UK and nobody's got beef
Speaker 1: with them. It's the new immigrants that people hate.
Speaker 3: Do you know there's a Korean uh content creator dude.
Speaker 2: With the bacon on his shirt. I've seen him.
Speaker 3: I fucking love him, dude. Uh. He's been doing videos
Speaker 3: on it and he's like.
Speaker 1: He's arrested multiple times for his ship because they don't
Speaker 1: have friendom speech.
Speaker 3: No, he's been labeled as a terrorist, yet they're letting
Speaker 3: actual fucking terrorists just walk in their fucking streets. How
Speaker 3: do you go from being one of the best empires,
Speaker 3: arguably in the entire fucking world, to be in a
Speaker 3: battered housewife.
Speaker 1: Like because of week leadership after week leadership after week leadership.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I thought y'all were supposed to be Britain,
Speaker 3: not France. But take your hands reached down in your pants,
Speaker 3: try to grab your nuts see if they're still there,
Speaker 3: and if not, go to your wife and open up
Speaker 3: your her person, glab them out. The bouncing Betty the
Speaker 3: debockler and I say, worl War two was the last
Speaker 3: time they had any balls. Uh.
Speaker 2: I would argue against that.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: They they did some things in the Falkland War.
Speaker 1: They they did have troops deployed during the they're in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and I met some of them.
Speaker 2: They were solid dudes, dude.
Speaker 1: The British Marines, Yeah, the Royal Marines, the British Royal
Speaker 1: Marines are literally the exact same thing as the American Marines.
Speaker 1: They they act like us, they talk like us, They
Speaker 1: have the same sense of humor, the same fuck the
Speaker 1: world tactics. They just talk with a funny accent. But
Speaker 1: they're the same things. Same with the Dutch Marines. Solid dudes.
Speaker 1: But it's uh yeah that they had week leadership after
Speaker 1: week leadership after week leadership, and now Keir Starmer is
Speaker 1: making it a sport on how hard he can run
Speaker 1: his nation into the ground and let it be taken
Speaker 1: over from these people. There's a real reason why the
Speaker 1: UAE refuses to pay for any more of their people
Speaker 1: to go to school in England because they don't want
Speaker 1: them to get infected with the ideologies of the other Muslims.
Speaker 1: Their words not mine. The bad Muslims, their words not mine.
Speaker 1: They're not letting anybody from the year United Arab immorants
Speaker 1: go to school in England anymore. They're afraid that they're
Speaker 1: going to get extreme. What's the word not extrematized, radicalize,
Speaker 1: thank you. So even Muslim powerhouses are saying that y'all
Speaker 1: have gone too far, your laws are too lax, and
Speaker 1: we can't trust you to take care of our people.
Speaker 1: Because I don't want to send my kid to college
Speaker 1: in England and he comes home in four years and
Speaker 1: he's now a homegrown terrorist.
Speaker 2: That's a bold statement.
Speaker 3: What does I tell you about Islam when even other
Speaker 3: Muslims hate the other ones.
Speaker 1: To be fair, I know that a lot of people
Speaker 1: would say that Christianization and the Jews are the evil
Speaker 1: against Muslims.
Speaker 2: That's not true. Nobody hates Muslims more than other.
Speaker 3: Muslims at that, and I mean they do. I understand.
Speaker 3: I believe everybody should have right to their own religion
Speaker 3: and everything. Sure, but when your religion says it is
Speaker 3: okay to rape and pillage and destroy a land all
Speaker 3: because they don't want to marry children and everything and
Speaker 3: don't want to bow down to a man. H fuck
Speaker 3: you and your entire culture at that point, you know,
Speaker 3: like that, I've the more I read about, the more
Speaker 3: I've read the Koran, the more I realize this is
Speaker 3: just a warlord that wanted to who came to be
Speaker 3: a prophet. Even said, Hey, if I have put any
Speaker 3: false words into Allah's mouth, may he sever my my
Speaker 3: a order.
Speaker 1: And then from that exact I know, I know, I know,
Speaker 1: I don't understand it. I really wish I did, but
Speaker 1: I can't.
Speaker 3: That The Quran says that that the Torah and the
Speaker 3: Gospels are true, but then it turns out in the
Speaker 3: very next chapter and everything says that Uh Jesus Isa
Speaker 3: was not crucified. But yet Uh in one story from
Speaker 3: the Koan, it says that Mohammad took the tour and
Speaker 3: put it on the judges pillow, the thing that that
Speaker 3: they would say for those who would judge and have
Speaker 3: them judge them. But yet, the dude was complete. The
Speaker 3: more you made it, the more you aisee, this is
Speaker 3: just much bullshit, dude.
Speaker 1: The Quran is so contradictory it's not even funny. And
Speaker 1: I understand people are gonna say, Oh, that's good, that's
Speaker 1: just because you're a Christian, so you think everything. No, No,
Speaker 1: there are some religions out there that they they hold
Speaker 1: up as far as the uh, the chain of not
Speaker 1: the champ events, the the chnological order, not just historical,
Speaker 1: but as far as logic goes. They believe A because
Speaker 1: of B, which led them to C, and now they
Speaker 1: live in the way of D. This makes they can
Speaker 1: at least make a cohesive, coherent chain of events of
Speaker 1: their logic, and I can at least appreciate that. I
Speaker 1: might disagree with it for reasons, but at least that's there. Hell,
Speaker 1: Greek paganism makes more sense than Islam, like the real shit,
Speaker 1: worshiping Zeus makes more sense.
Speaker 2: Yes, that that makes way more sense.
Speaker 1: You're telling me there's a god out there and basically
Speaker 1: the majority of your religion is stories of how he
Speaker 1: couldn't keep his dick to himself and that's why all
Speaker 1: this shit has happened. Look, it doesn't it doesn't have
Speaker 1: to make perfect sense, but yeah, yeah, here we are.
Speaker 2: That's the way it is.
Speaker 3: You shure that Zeu's not Ben Franklin.
Speaker 1: I mean, well Ben Franklin did, but like Ben Franklin's
Speaker 1: dick didn't make storms happen, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: But like my point is I'm being a little facetious here,
Speaker 1: but my point is, Yeah, there's actual groups out there
Speaker 1: with actual long standing religious beliefs that when you look
Speaker 1: at them, they haven't changed over time. They don't contradict
Speaker 1: themselves later on, they don't at least hold some sort
Speaker 1: of cohesive theory. Islam almost immediately contradicts itself and then
Speaker 1: repeatedly does so the entire way through the only way
Speaker 1: you can actually believe it. And I don't mean like
Speaker 1: you're you're more progressive and modern Muslim dude who's just
Speaker 1: out here living his life, and yeah, he you know,
Speaker 1: he believes the Koran, but like he's not the dude
Speaker 1: it's acting in ass about it. He's not into the
Speaker 1: hadiths and all this. He takes it as like a
Speaker 1: philosophical thing that he applies to his life.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm not.
Speaker 1: Really worried about him. He's also not the dude's trapping
Speaker 1: a vest to his chest. The ones that are going
Speaker 1: to the nth degree with it. Are the ones that
Speaker 1: have buried their heads so far in the sand that
Speaker 1: they cannot even have some sort of a cohesive thought
Speaker 1: about the contradictions without getting violent about it.
Speaker 2: It's yes, so yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyway, UK's Prime Minister has now blocked the vote to
Speaker 1: band first cousin marriages because it's racist against certain people.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Hey, Jacob, I never said I like your hoodie.
Speaker 3: It looks really dumb appreciate you, isn't it all. It
Speaker 3: reminds me of the PT.
Speaker 2: Uniform the green Yeah, but actually it's Dixon.
Speaker 3: Oh that's that's dope as hell.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Dixon makes the od green hoodie, which is it's
Speaker 1: thick and it's awesome. More and more of my flannels
Speaker 1: are becoming Dixon these days. I love their quality. All
Speaker 1: the other flannels I buy, they they're great. And then
Speaker 1: somehow they shrink and I washed the cold water and
Speaker 1: I let the marriage ry and all the shit they
Speaker 1: shrink up want me to do Dixon's.
Speaker 2: The motherfuckers ain't going nowhere, and it's awesome. They're expensive though.
Speaker 3: You remember the PT uniforms.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, the green on greens for show.
Speaker 3: Oh I'd wear those when I cut my grass.
Speaker 2: That's smart.
Speaker 3: There's that well. Also, like the shorts and everything, I'm
Speaker 3: uh that I just so I can get into the
Speaker 3: mindset of the grind. That's what I'm gonna be wearing
Speaker 3: when I start walking out again.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, dude, fuck, get you some silkies, because that's
Speaker 2: another thing that went away.
Speaker 3: Still I have some silkies and the pett shorts and everything.
Speaker 3: I call them the Daisy Dukes of freedom.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 1: I still have a couple of pairs, but I only
Speaker 1: really wear them when I go on like Silky's hikes,
Speaker 1: which I haven't done in Irreverend Warrior hiking in a
Speaker 1: good while, but I would like to start going on
Speaker 1: some more.
Speaker 3: I have the exact same I have shorts in the
Speaker 3: exact same length of the of the pet shorts, but
Speaker 3: there's salmon pink and all. And I have the exact
Speaker 3: same colored shirt I had the I had shoes that
Speaker 3: went with the outfit and everything. It pissed my my
Speaker 3: CEO off so fucking much. He was like why, I said,
Speaker 3: because it ain't easy being cheesy there, sir. And he
Speaker 3: was like, why do you look like every dad out
Speaker 3: of a trailer park. I'm like, because that's my culture.
Speaker 2: I love it.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get into it here. So visit from CNN.
Speaker 1: So Trump weighs major new strike on Iran as nuclear
Speaker 1: discussion shows no progress. This was updated five hours ago.
Speaker 1: But I think this also ties into what's going on
Speaker 1: in Iran, which we're gonna talk about the death toll
Speaker 1: here next. But anyway, President Trump is weighing a major
Speaker 1: new strike on Iran after preliminary discussions between Washington and
Speaker 1: Tehran overlimiting the country's nuclear program and ballistic missile production
Speaker 1: failed to make progress. According to people familiar with the matter,
Speaker 1: it's a rapid refocusing of the administration's publicity framed objectives
Speaker 1: for Iran and comes only weeks after Trump seriously considered
Speaker 1: military action. He framed US potential aid for nationwide protests
Speaker 1: in Iran protesters had faced by silent crackdowns by security forces,
Speaker 1: leads to leading to hundreds of killings. Hundreds is not
Speaker 1: an accurate statement. CNN, of course, would downplay this. We
Speaker 1: have an article pulled up here from Iran Iranian news
Speaker 1: or at least like not the state media, of course,
Speaker 1: but like sources from Iran are saying that it's like
Speaker 1: over thirty six thousand in two days. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: more about it anyway. Trump on Wednesday posted on truth
Speaker 1: social demanding that Iran come to the table to negotiate
Speaker 1: a fair and equitable deal no nuclear weapons. He warned
Speaker 1: the next US attack on the country would be far
Speaker 1: worse than the one carried out last summer when US
Speaker 1: and Israel attacked the Iranian nuclear sites. Options he is
Speaker 1: now considering include US military air strikes aimed at Iran's
Speaker 1: leaders and the security officials believed to be responsible for
Speaker 1: the killings, as well as strikes on Iranian nuclear sites
Speaker 1: and government institutions. Trump has not made a final decision
Speaker 1: on how to proceed, sources said, but he believes his
Speaker 1: military options have been expanded from earlier this month now
Speaker 1: that the US Carrier Strike Group is in the region.
Speaker 1: The USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group entered the Indian
Speaker 1: Ocean on Monday and is continuing to move closer to Iran,
Speaker 1: where it could support any potential operations against the country,
Speaker 1: both in terms of Adian strikes and in protecting regional
Speaker 1: allies from potential Iranian retaliation. The US and Iran have
Speaker 1: been exchanging messages including through Omani diplomats, and between Trump's
Speaker 1: Foreign ENVOYE. D. Whitcoff and Iran's foreign minister Abbas Argachi Arashi.
Speaker 2: I't fucking know earlier.
Speaker 1: This month about a possible meeting to ward off US attacks,
Speaker 1: which Trump had been threatening in response to protesters' deaths.
Speaker 1: The source said there was a brief discussion of an
Speaker 1: in person meeting, but that never came to fruition.
Speaker 2: There have been no serious direct.
Speaker 1: Negotiations between the US and Iran, as Trump has ramped
Speaker 1: up his threats of military action in recent days. According
Speaker 1: to another person familiar with the matter, it's not clear
Speaker 1: why Trump has seen has since shifted his focus back
Speaker 1: to Iran's nuclear program, but he said last summer it
Speaker 1: was obliterated by US strikes. But Iran has been trying
Speaker 1: to rebuild its nuclear sites even deeper underground, according to
Speaker 1: the sources, and has long resisted US pressure to halt
Speaker 1: its uranium enrichment. The regime also barred the UN's nuclear
Speaker 1: watchdog from inspecting its nuclear sites. I'll bet they did,
Speaker 1: because that's that's how we knew that they had yellow cake,
Speaker 1: that they had enriched uranium to that level. There's no
Speaker 1: reason for you to enrich it beyond five percent, and
Speaker 1: I will even be generous in say seven. There's no
Speaker 1: reason for you to have seven percent enriched nuclear power
Speaker 1: can be done very successfully at three. Anything above five
Speaker 1: is get like there's only your only aiming for weaponization
Speaker 1: at that point, that there's anyway amid the threats of
Speaker 1: military actions. The US has also demanded preconditions for a
Speaker 1: meeting with Iranian officials, including a permanent into uranium enrichment
Speaker 1: central to Iran's nuclear program, new curves on Iranians or
Speaker 1: Iran's ballistic missile program, and halting all support for Iranian
Speaker 1: proxies in the region. Yeah, no more funding terrorism, dude.
Speaker 1: I know that's a hot take, but yeah, enough of
Speaker 1: that shit. The biggest sticking point, source is said, has
Speaker 1: been the US demand that Iran agreed to pull limits
Speaker 1: on the range of its ballistic missiles an accurate concern
Speaker 1: for Israel, or excuse me, an acute concern for Israel,
Speaker 1: which expended much of its missile interceptor stockpile shooting down
Speaker 1: Iranian ballistic missiles during last June's twelve day war. Iran
Speaker 1: has balked at that and told the US it would
Speaker 1: only discuss its nuclear program. So they're not going to
Speaker 1: talk about the range of their missiles. They're only going
Speaker 1: to talk about this whole nuclear conversation. The US has
Speaker 1: not replied, leaving both sides the dead end. The official.
Speaker 1: The US official on Monday said the administration is still
Speaker 1: willing to engage with Iran as long as they know
Speaker 1: what the terms are. We are open for business, as
Speaker 1: they say, so if they want to contact us and
Speaker 1: they know what the terms are, then we're gonna have
Speaker 1: the conversation. The official would not give details on terms,
Speaker 1: but said they've been reported throughout the entire beginning of
Speaker 1: Trump's administration, so they are aware of the terms. Still,
Speaker 1: the US is preparing for possible action. The US military
Speaker 1: has been moving air defense systems to the region, including
Speaker 1: additional Patriot batteries, to help protect US forces there from
Speaker 1: possible Iranian retaliation. The US is also planning to move
Speaker 1: one or more THAD missile defense systems to the region.
Speaker 1: That is also the next level. The FADS are there now.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, we're probably going to be doing something against
Speaker 1: Iran soon.
Speaker 2: I just think so.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong. I've been wrong before, but man,
Speaker 1: that's a lot of that. It's a lot of ass
Speaker 1: and that's a lot of equipment to move to that
Speaker 1: area to sit there and do nothing. Same thing about
Speaker 1: Maduro for the record, same thing about Venezuela. We moved
Speaker 1: an entire carrier division into the waters and just to
Speaker 1: sit there and watch them for a while. No, we
Speaker 1: went and York to the bastard. We had that just
Speaker 1: in case things when sits up. But like we had
Speaker 1: to get him out of there. The Ayatola was just
Speaker 1: recently talking about fleeing to Moscow. Some reports said that
Speaker 1: he had already fleed, some reports said that he was
Speaker 1: just talking about it.
Speaker 2: But my point is Iran is still talking that shit.
Speaker 1: And then on top of all of that the human
Speaker 1: rights violations that they have done to their own people,
Speaker 1: which you know what, we might as well, We might
Speaker 1: as well just go over to the next article here.
Speaker 1: This is from Iran International dot com. Okay, over thirty
Speaker 1: six thousand, five hundred killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents revealed.
Speaker 1: This is from January twenty fifth. Right here on screen,
Speaker 1: men's men stand amid rows of corpses in a morgue
Speaker 1: in Tehran following mass killings of protesters by security forces
Speaker 1: in this undated image obtained by Iran International.
Speaker 2: Let's read about it, y'all.
Speaker 1: More than thirty six thousand, five hundred Iranians were killed
Speaker 1: by security forces during the January eighth to ninth crackdown
Speaker 1: on national nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two day
Speaker 1: massacre in history, according to documents reviewed by.
Speaker 2: Iran Air National's editorial board.
Speaker 1: Y'all, I can't put into proper perspective what that looks like. Okay,
Speaker 1: Entire wars have been fought over the course of years
Speaker 1: without that many people murdered in that amount of time.
Speaker 1: Iran is now in the same company with the Nazis
Speaker 1: as far as the and I had to do.
Speaker 2: Some real digging into this one.
Speaker 1: The only time in history that thirty thousand people were
Speaker 1: executed in two days in recent history, anyway, was when
Speaker 1: the Nazis went to a specific section of Ukraine and
Speaker 1: dug mass burials for Jews and slaughtered them.
Speaker 2: And that was with the Einsberg Sea Division.
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, and that's specifically what happened. There's very
Speaker 1: famous pictures of it's like the last Jew in Ukraine
Speaker 1: or something like that, this dude is standing there kneel,
Speaker 1: kneeling over a mass grave, and there's a Nazi with
Speaker 1: a gun to the back of his head. Half a
Speaker 1: second before the dew was shot. That mass grave had
Speaker 1: around thirty thousand people in it, and that was over
Speaker 1: the course of three days. Iran crunched that number and
Speaker 1: went more in depth in two days to their own citizens.
Speaker 1: I don't feel like people can properly put that into perspective.
Speaker 1: But yeah, before I read Samwich, you got.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So.
Speaker 3: Besides that, how many during the rape of Nanking, how
Speaker 3: many Chinese was stunted by the Japanese? Also, I'm not
Speaker 3: saying one as worse than the other. I'm just saying
Speaker 3: that wasn't that like one hundred thousand tiled in a
Speaker 3: couple of days too?
Speaker 2: Look it up.
Speaker 1: I don't know off the top what that number is
Speaker 1: and how long the time span was. And I'm not
Speaker 1: saying there wasn't battles where hundreds of thousands of dudes
Speaker 1: died over the course of multiple days, two days, two days,
Speaker 1: not even forty eight whole hours. Like it's it's crazy
Speaker 1: that this took place to this level this quickly, and
Speaker 1: then even still some reports are saying that there's one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand injured. I'm seeing some reports saying three hundred
Speaker 1: thousand injured. And I don't know to what level they're
Speaker 1: calling it injury, Like if somebody inhaled some tear gas,
Speaker 1: is that technically considered injured or is that, you know,
Speaker 1: just kind of a you know, it's whatever. By injury,
Speaker 1: do they mean a rolled ankle from a protester running
Speaker 1: from the gunshots? Do they mean hit with rubber bullets
Speaker 1: or shrapnel? Do they mean an actual bullet to the knee?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: I don't know, but even still, that is wild.
Speaker 3: During the rape of Nan King, between forty thousand and
Speaker 3: over three hundred thousand Chinese civilians and surrendered soldiers were
Speaker 3: killed by over the six week period beginning December thirteenth,
Speaker 3: nineteen thirty seven, with the highest concentration of killings in
Speaker 3: the first five days. Oh While figures very a widely
Speaker 3: accepted range of the massacred within the city walls is
Speaker 3: over forty thousand to under two hundred thousand, while total
Speaker 3: water estimates sometimes exceed over three hundred thousand. The peak
Speaker 3: of the violence Ofughly occurred between six six weeks of
Speaker 3: the city's fall. On the st nineteen thirty seven, around
Speaker 3: fifty thousand were killed in the first five days alone.
Speaker 1: Okay, so fifty thousand and five days, right, so that
Speaker 1: ten thousand per day. Iran just trump that, God damn right,
Speaker 1: ten thousand a day. Iran's like, nah, how about those
Speaker 1: are rookie numbers? How about fifteen and a half.
Speaker 3: And keep in mind the Japanese doing that. They were that.
Speaker 3: There's pictures of the Japanese with their katanas and Ya
Speaker 3: Kisashi's standing behind Chinese bound gett having a competition of
Speaker 3: seam who can sever the most heads in the in
Speaker 3: the least amount of swings. Yeah, and it was two
Speaker 3: Japanese officers who actually had the tie for the most
Speaker 3: of them. And they did not get tried for war crimes.
Speaker 2: Nope, nobody Japan did.
Speaker 3: Is it because they got new twice basically?
Speaker 1: And also because the unit seven thirty seven it was
Speaker 1: called I Forget, which yeah, seven seven. A lot of
Speaker 1: our understanding of the human physiology comes from their inhumane
Speaker 1: and animalistic experiments that they did on POW's.
Speaker 3: They turned people into live beef jerky.
Speaker 1: Well, that was just one experiment although that is how
Speaker 1: we know that the human body is made up of
Speaker 1: seventy percent water. They had hundreds thousands of experiments that
Speaker 1: they did on these POWs.
Speaker 3: That we use today. Yeah, they even blinded people just
Speaker 3: to see what would happen. You'd like the Nazis committed
Speaker 3: more like crimes against you. Like, they pretty much committed
Speaker 3: the same amount of crimes against humanity. It was just
Speaker 3: the Japanese was a lot more well hidden.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and so cut into the whole the whole
Speaker 1: situation about how many they killed in one day and
Speaker 1: all these things. The Iranian government just did this to
Speaker 1: their own people. Like. This is why some are claiming
Speaker 1: that this might be towards the realm of genocide. However,
Speaker 1: as Ravenlee pointed out last night, there's a few key
Speaker 1: checks and boxes that can't be done as far as
Speaker 1: this goes to classified as a genocide. So anyway, so
Speaker 1: Iran International's editorial board can confirm the death toll after
Speaker 1: reviewing newly obtained classified documents, field reports, and accounts for
Speaker 1: medical staff, witnesses, and victims family. The new information provides
Speaker 1: a clearer picture of the killing pattern and scale of
Speaker 1: a crime that can now be described as the largest
Speaker 1: and bloodiest massacre of civilians during street protests over a
Speaker 1: two day period in history. Iran International has received reports
Speaker 1: and evidence indicating the extra judicial execution of a number
Speaker 1: of detainees in Tehran and other cities. Images released from
Speaker 1: Morgsley little doubt that some wounded citizens were shot in
Speaker 1: the head while hospitalized and undergoing medical treatments. This is
Speaker 1: evident that had these individuals sustained fatal head wounds on
Speaker 1: the streets, there would have been no reason to admit
Speaker 1: them to hospitals or begin treatment in the first place,
Speaker 1: so they had soldiers going to the hospital to find
Speaker 1: these protesters to finish the job. The images also showed
Speaker 1: that in some cases, medical tubes and patient monitoring equipment
Speaker 1: remained attached to the bodies. In other cases, cardiac monitoring
Speaker 1: electrodes were visible on the chest, suggesting these individuals were
Speaker 1: under medical care before being shot in the head. A
Speaker 1: number of doctors and nurses have also told Iran Air
Speaker 1: National that so called finishing shots quote unquote were fired
Speaker 1: at wounded patients. In its previous statement on January thirteenth,
Speaker 1: Iran Air Nationals Editorial Board reported that at least twelve
Speaker 1: thousand deaths caused by the crackdown. That figure was explicitly
Speaker 1: cited in a report by the IRGC Intelligence Organization submitted
Speaker 1: to the Supreme National Security Council and the Presidential Office
Speaker 1: on January eleven, two days after the two day massacre,
Speaker 1: reviewed by Iran International. So this was also over four
Speaker 1: hundred cities, thirty six thy five hundred killed in four
Speaker 1: hundred cities. Our editorial Board has now obtained more detailed
Speaker 1: information provided by the IRGC Intelligence Organization and the Supreme
Speaker 1: National Security Council. Other state institutions have also received differing
Speaker 1: figures from other security bodies. However, given the scale of
Speaker 1: the killings, deliberate concealment, and what appears to be an
Speaker 1: intentional disorder in the registration and transfer of bodies, along
Speaker 1: with pressure on families and in some cases the quiet
Speaker 1: burial of victims, it appears that even the security agencies
Speaker 1: themselves do not yet know precise final death tolls. In
Speaker 1: a report presented on Wednesday, January twenty first to the
Speaker 1: Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, seen by
Speaker 1: Irani in International, the number of those killed was listed
Speaker 1: as twenty seven thy five hundred. So even within in
Speaker 1: how house, these numbers that some people are throwing out,
Speaker 1: oh it's under ten thousand. Even Iran in house to
Speaker 1: their own government has reported that it's at least twenty
Speaker 1: seven thousand, five hundred dead in two days, and that
Speaker 1: was a week ago. According to sources within Iran's Interior
Speaker 1: Ministry who spoke to Irani and International on condition of anonymity,
Speaker 1: the consolidation of figures received from provincial security councils on
Speaker 1: by Tuesday, January twentieth showed the death toll had exceeded
Speaker 1: thirty thousand. Two Informed sources from the Supreme National Security
Speaker 1: Council also told Iran Air National that in two recent
Speaker 1: reports by the RGC Intelligence Organization dated to January twenty
Speaker 1: second and January twenty fourth, the number of those killed
Speaker 1: was listed as more than thirty three thousand and more
Speaker 1: than thirty six thousand, five hundred, respectively, So as they're
Speaker 1: still saying that thirty six k is a low estimate,
Speaker 1: Interior Ministry reports say security forces confronted demonstrators in more
Speaker 1: than four hundred cities and towns, with more than four
Speaker 1: thousand clash locations reported nationwide, despite the confusion and concealment,
Speaker 1: The rapid increase in death toll figures in classified government
Speaker 1: reports has heightened concerns that the actual number of those
Speaker 1: killed might may be even higher. Now I fully agree
Speaker 1: with that conservative assessments by medical sources based on the
Speaker 1: number of bodies delivered to hospitals and medical centers estimate more.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna butcher these pronouncing the pronunciations of cities.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I can't pronounce these words. More than twenty
Speaker 1: five hundred killed in Rasht, at least eighteen hundred killed
Speaker 1: in Mashad, more than two thousand killed in Isfahan, Nasea
Speaker 1: Babad and koras Gan. Sure at three thousand in karaj Shah,
Speaker 1: Shahriar and Adishe, seven hundred in Kermanshah and four hundred
Speaker 1: in Gorgan. So somebody with a calculator can do the
Speaker 1: math on this. Twenty five hundred plus eighteen hundred plus
Speaker 1: two thousand plus two thousand plus two thousand plus three
Speaker 1: thousand plus three thousand plus three thousand plus seven hundred
Speaker 1: plus four hundred. You do the math on that and
Speaker 1: let me know what you get back.
Speaker 2: With no clear.
Speaker 3: Average, those numbers again slower please.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no doubt.
Speaker 1: So twenty five hundred plus five hundred plus eighteen hundred
Speaker 1: plus eighteen hundred plus two thousand plus two thousand plus
Speaker 1: two thousand.
Speaker 3: So plus six hundred thousand, six thousand, oh plus six thousand.
Speaker 1: Plus Okay, we're doing that then plus nine thousand plus
Speaker 1: nine thousand plus seven hundred.
Speaker 3: Plus seven hundred plus four hundred plus four hundred.
Speaker 2: These are conservative estimates.
Speaker 3: That is twenty thousand and four hundred.
Speaker 1: So the lowest estimate we have from medical personnel in
Speaker 1: the country are saying over twenty thousand. Yeah, yeah, So
Speaker 1: no clear aggregate figure has yet been obtained for Tehran. However,
Speaker 1: images released from the Karizak Morgue and hospitals across the
Speaker 1: capitol indicate thousands were killed in Tehran, with significant proportions
Speaker 1: of the deaths occurring in southern Tehran. Uh And to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, Tehran wasn't even listed in the
Speaker 1: list that we just read off, so who's to say anyway.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to spend too much time on this,
Speaker 1: but what I am saying is that Tehran just had
Speaker 1: a massive or Iran Iran the country Iran whatever fuck
Speaker 1: you want to pronounce. It just suffered a massive human
Speaker 1: rights violation, and perhaps the Trump administration will be using
Speaker 1: this as motivation to go up in there and give
Speaker 1: those people some freedom. I don't know. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but it's worth mentioning. So I figured we could bring
Speaker 1: it up on this episode while we are also talking
Speaker 1: about Trump. Let's talk about this now. Minnesota Governor Walls
Speaker 1: says President Trump agreed to consider reducing federal agents in
Speaker 1: his state. President Trump's post Monday was a change of tune,
Speaker 1: as he threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and send
Speaker 1: federal troops into Minnesota.
Speaker 2: So this is from Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: President Trump has shared Monday that he and Minnesota Governor
Speaker 1: Tim Walls bitch are now on a similar wavelength quote
Speaker 1: unquote about federal agents in the state. The President said
Speaker 1: he called the governor in a post he shared on
Speaker 1: Troops Social This comes after Ice agents shot three people
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis, killing two. Trump has threatened to invoke the
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act and sending in federal troops to Minnesota after
Speaker 1: thousands of residents have been on the streets protesting. But
Speaker 1: on Monday, Trump changed his tone. He announced borders are
Speaker 1: tom Homuns. Homan's Hammans visit to Minnesota on Monday night
Speaker 1: and told Walls he'd have home and call him. I
Speaker 1: told Governor Walls that I would have Tom Homan call him,
Speaker 1: and that what we are looking for are any and
Speaker 1: all criminals that they have in their possession.
Speaker 2: Trump stated in his post.
Speaker 1: The governor very respectfully understood that, and I will be
Speaker 1: speaking with him in the near future. The Governor's office
Speaker 1: also released a statement calling the conversation with the President productive.
Speaker 1: Walls also said that Trump agreed to talk to his
Speaker 1: immigration officials about allowing the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Speaker 1: to conduct independent investigations into recent shootings, and to work
Speaker 1: out a plan to reduce the number of immigration officers
Speaker 1: in the state. The President agreed. This is a direct
Speaker 1: quote here from the Governor's office. The President agreed that
Speaker 1: he would talk to the Department of Homeland Security about
Speaker 1: ensuring the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is able to
Speaker 1: conduct an independent investigation, as would ordinarily be the case.
Speaker 1: The President also agreed to look into reducing the number
Speaker 1: of federal agents in Minnesota and working with the state
Speaker 1: in a more coordinated fashion on immigration enforcement.
Speaker 2: Regarding violent criminals.
Speaker 1: The governor reminded President Trump that the Minnesota Department of
Speaker 1: Corrections already honors federal detainees or detainers by notifying Immigration
Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement when a person committed.
Speaker 2: To its custody isn't a US citizen.
Speaker 1: There is not a single documented case of the Department's
Speaker 1: releasing someone from state prison without offering to ensure a
Speaker 1: smooth transfer of custody. Walls repeatedly called for the federal agents,
Speaker 1: including Ice and Border Patrol, to leave Minnesota. So I
Speaker 1: was on TikTok Live before we started shooting this episode,
Speaker 1: and someone asked if we were going to do an
Speaker 1: episode about the situation of Minnesota. I overviewed the footage,
Speaker 1: not from the mom that tried to run over the
Speaker 1: ICE agent that was. I don't know what she was
Speaker 1: expecting on that one, but okay, the one that just
Speaker 1: took place. I have reviewed footage from multiple angles, and
Speaker 1: I am still not convinced that it wasn't the weapon
Speaker 1: itself going off, because it was in fact a six
Speaker 1: hour p. Three twenty. And if anybody knows anything about
Speaker 1: sig sour p. Three twenty, there's a reason why the
Speaker 1: United States military no longer can carry it. Why and
Speaker 1: cops and agents are no longer able to carry it,
Speaker 1: and why they're not allowed on most gun ranges because
Speaker 1: the old adage about how guns don't kill people, people
Speaker 1: kill people. No, this particular sig has a factory default
Speaker 1: in it that sig still will not fully acknowledge to
Speaker 1: where it has got multiple multiple I'm not gonna say hundreds,
Speaker 1: but there is a substantial number of cases of it
Speaker 1: going off in the holster without any finger on the
Speaker 1: trigger or anything like that. And there's YouTube videos out
Speaker 1: if anybody wants to watch them of how that's happening,
Speaker 1: and not just like of Gore porn like, it's not
Speaker 1: like that. It's like this dude is taking blank rounds
Speaker 1: and he's showing when the slide is barely barely kicked
Speaker 1: back and there's a jolt to the weapon, it will fire.
Speaker 1: That is the weapon that your boy was carrying. So
Speaker 1: the Ice agents were detaining him, he was on the ground.
Speaker 1: You see an agent grab the gun from his waist,
Speaker 1: the P three twenty, and he is moving away. Next thing,
Speaker 1: you hear his gun gun, gun, and you hear gunshot,
Speaker 1: and then multiple gunshots.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 1: I can't tell from any of the footage who fired
Speaker 1: the first shot. Was it a bad judgment called by ice?
Speaker 1: Was it the P three twenty that went off in
Speaker 1: the dude's hand and the other cops just heard a
Speaker 1: gun shot and heard someone say gun so they just
Speaker 1: dumped on I don't know.
Speaker 2: As of this moment.
Speaker 1: The situation is way too there's way too many unknown
Speaker 1: variables for me to speak intelligently on it one way
Speaker 1: or another.
Speaker 2: And I don't believe that the Cult.
Speaker 1: Of Conspiracy is going to be doing an episodisode on it,
Speaker 1: at least not until way more information comes out about it,
Speaker 1: because at this point it's just opinion based dialogue and that's.
Speaker 2: All anyone's doing on it.
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to add fuel to that fire,
Speaker 1: so that that's where we're at with it. But yeah,
Speaker 1: apparently this has now spurned Trump to possibly remove some agents.
Speaker 2: Who knows Sam go ahead?
Speaker 3: I was, I was gonna say, isn't it due to
Speaker 3: the trigger to being shortened?
Speaker 1: I am not sure if it's the Seer or if
Speaker 1: it's the chamber itself, But yes, the P three twenty
Speaker 1: has an inherent problem, and SIG refuses to acknowledge it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because the amine that that was killed by it,
Speaker 3: he's literally he literally took it off of took it
Speaker 3: off of like the host and everything, off of his
Speaker 3: belt and laid it on the it was it laid
Speaker 3: it on his desk, and it shot him.
Speaker 1: That's actually not true, that's not sure. So that was
Speaker 1: the story. That was the story that everybody was talking about.
Speaker 1: That was the reason why the military said we're not
Speaker 1: carrying this weapon anymore, and that order still stands. However,
Speaker 1: more information came out later that no, the airmen that
Speaker 1: was shot was because of one of his other airmen buddies,
Speaker 1: they were MPs. Took the gun out of the holster
Speaker 1: and was playing around with it. He wasn't even like
Speaker 1: thinking he was dry firing it. The mag was inserted
Speaker 1: and he was like pow pow, pow pow pow with
Speaker 1: his finger and it went off. He actually indeed into
Speaker 1: his coworker and tried to make it sound like, oh,
Speaker 1: the gun just went off, because you know these things
Speaker 1: are faulty like that. No, he's he's got charges.
Speaker 3: Now, this is why you all you don't play with
Speaker 3: a loaded gun. Tree every gun loaded.
Speaker 2: Yes, and literally the first weapon safety rule that.
Speaker 3: And you think being a MP and being in the
Speaker 3: air force, I understand air force, we don't need guns
Speaker 3: because the chasing point they you can't trust him with it.
Speaker 3: But like you're a fucking cop dog, you of all
Speaker 3: people should and you're in the military, you of all
Speaker 3: people should know, Hey, these things are tools. Don't fucking
Speaker 3: play with them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Anger Cops did a whole expose on that one because
Speaker 1: he talked about it initially with it being the P
Speaker 1: three twenties fault. Then like two weeks later he released
Speaker 1: another video about how nope, that's not the case because
Speaker 1: one of the guys that was in the room basically
Speaker 1: the shot went off, dude got shot, and there was
Speaker 1: like three guys that were still standing, and like the
Speaker 1: dude that pulled the triggers, like, okay, here's the story,
Speaker 1: we're gonna run with it.
Speaker 2: Let's go, we gotta go report this.
Speaker 1: One of the guys later had a change of heart
Speaker 1: and like found his integrity and came for and was like, no,
Speaker 1: this was a homicide.
Speaker 2: This wasn't this wasn't a accident.
Speaker 3: So not only that he could he fundy fire blue
Speaker 3: on blue it's safe to say, because.
Speaker 1: Yeah, although the guy claims that it wasn't intended, he
Speaker 1: was just trying to fuck around, but it doesn't negate
Speaker 1: the fact that this is now considered a homicide.
Speaker 3: So at that point, what what? What do you think
Speaker 3: he like?
Speaker 8: What what?
Speaker 2: Oh, he'll get twenty in Levenworth.
Speaker 3: I was ci a black site.
Speaker 1: I think Levenworth honestly, because it's not like this was
Speaker 1: a weakening of the defensive posture of our national security
Speaker 1: or anything like that.
Speaker 2: This was a dumb ass who did dumb ass things.
Speaker 1: So he'll definitely get the punishment for it, and the
Speaker 1: dude who lied on his behalf will probably get some
Speaker 1: sort of reprimand as well. But yeah, no, he's he's
Speaker 1: it's gonna be prison time. It's the same thing as
Speaker 1: if you and your buddy is hanging out at the
Speaker 1: house playing around with a gun and it goes off
Speaker 1: and one of you die.
Speaker 2: It wasn't murdering the first degree.
Speaker 1: It's also not manslaughter, you know, it's it's it's classified
Speaker 1: as something else, and it's it's gonna it's a murder.
Speaker 2: It's either way you slice it.
Speaker 1: So it's yeah, anyway, But back to the situation. As
Speaker 1: far as Minnesota and this whole Ice situation goes, I
Speaker 1: don't know what.
Speaker 2: The guilty party is.
Speaker 1: If SIG sour that fucking P three twenty is actually
Speaker 1: the reason. If that is in fact the case of
Speaker 1: what happened here, SIG will probably.
Speaker 2: Go bankrupt after this one.
Speaker 1: But anyway, moving on, as we are still talking about
Speaker 1: old minisult elan Omar says Trump's hateful rhetoric causes threats
Speaker 1: against her to Skyrocket, yeah, that's why. A day after
Speaker 1: a man charged her at the podium at town hall
Speaker 1: in Minnesota, Representative elan Omar at a news conference Wednesday,
Speaker 1: pinned the blame on President Trump because everything must be
Speaker 1: Trump's faults. Obviously, blame is very interesting, but facts are
Speaker 1: more important. I agree. I agree with that sentiment. Let's continue.
Speaker 1: And what the facts have shown since I've gotten into
Speaker 1: elected office is that every time the President of the
Speaker 1: United States has chosen to use hateful rhetoric to talk
Speaker 1: about me and the community that I represent, my death threats.
Speaker 1: Skyrocket Omar said, Yeah, that's that's why. That's that's why
Speaker 1: the death threats have continued. It has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with you being a raging piece of shit. Has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with you representing an area that has been
Speaker 1: funding terrorist organizations through tax dollars, through charity outreaches. It's
Speaker 1: got nothing to do with it, all right, Hot take
Speaker 1: only hot takes here the cage to night. In Tuesday's incident,
Speaker 1: police say fifty five year old Anthony Kazmaraz Kasmira, Zach
Speaker 1: Jesus these names, was observed by officers using a syringe
Speaker 1: to spread an unknown liquid onto the congresswoman.
Speaker 2: I could make a joke about a certain.
Speaker 1: Group of people being known for throwing acid in women's faces,
Speaker 1: but I'm not gonna do that.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna do that.
Speaker 1: Kazmera zak Sure was arrested and booked into Hannapin County
Speaker 1: Jail on suspicion of third degree assault.
Speaker 2: Minneapolis police said.
Speaker 1: Preliminary reports indicate the liquid was non toxic, The county attorney,
Speaker 1: Mary Moriarty said Wednesday. Asked Wednesday about the attack, Omar
Speaker 1: said the man who attacked her quote.
Speaker 2: Was specifically upset that.
Speaker 1: Trump's order to deport Somalis was not yielding enough deportations
Speaker 1: of Somali's so he wanted to come get the person
Speaker 1: he thought was protecting the Somalis question mark.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Neither the FBI, which took over the investigation on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: or Minneapolis police have commented on a motive of the attack.
Speaker 1: Omar has been the target of verbal attacks from the
Speaker 1: Trump or from Trump for years. More recently, his attacks
Speaker 1: have come alongside escalated rhetoric, describing the Somali community in
Speaker 1: Minnesota the largest in the nation. Yeah, again, that's not
Speaker 1: like unfounded. We've done a whole talk about that on
Speaker 1: the Call to Conspiracy.
Speaker 2: Actually, but all right. In the past several weeks, Trump
Speaker 2: called Omar a fake sleees bag and called for her
Speaker 2: to be thrown out of the US. I second the motion,
Speaker 2: by the way, on both of those. In a phone
Speaker 2: interview Tuesday evening with ABC News Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott,
Speaker 2: Trump said he hasn't seen the video of the incident
Speaker 2: in the accused Omar without providing evidence of possible staging
Speaker 2: the attack. Which is interesting because, as our resident Jewish
Speaker 2: correspondent sent earlier, there is a picture of Omar and
Speaker 2: your guy that sprayed her with the syringe holding a
Speaker 2: stack of cash right before the event took place. Regardless
Speaker 2: if there was a stack of cash. There's a picture
Speaker 2: of these.
Speaker 1: Two smiling standing next to each other, and you could
Speaker 1: tell you the same day because wearing the same clothing.
Speaker 1: Now is that image AI generated? I don't believe so
Speaker 1: the sources would indicate that that is not true, but hey.
Speaker 2: Who knows.
Speaker 1: And I guess, especially if she's being sprayed within a
Speaker 1: non toxic substance and she got not even eye or
Speaker 1: skinny irritation. It wasn't even like it was nail polish remover.
Speaker 1: It was very likely water.
Speaker 2: But all right.
Speaker 1: In a phone interview Tuesday with ABC News, we talked
Speaker 1: about that. I'm sorry, I don't think about her. I
Speaker 1: think she's a fraud. Trump said she probably had herself sprayed,
Speaker 1: knowing her again to say, I could agree with that.
Speaker 2: I could. She is known to stage certain things to
Speaker 2: make herself look you know, quote unquote victim, like you know,
Speaker 2: same chick that married her brother to get into the States. Whatever.
Speaker 1: As Wednesday, if she had reservations about public events after
Speaker 1: Tuesday's incident, Omar replied, well, I think my presence here
Speaker 1: should tell you that the fear and intimidation doesn't work
Speaker 1: on me. Or because you knew that it was not
Speaker 1: an actual threat, and you're it's all for show. The
Speaker 1: president's rhetoric. The attacks from him since I've gotten into
Speaker 1: public office from the right wing has always been really
Speaker 1: been really to stop me from being in public service,
Speaker 1: to intimidate me, to make me want to quit. My
Speaker 1: only message is that it hasn't worked thus far, and
Speaker 1: it's not going to work in the future. The incident
Speaker 1: came um intensions in Minneapolis between officials and the Trump
Speaker 1: administration over the immigration crackdown in the city that has
Speaker 1: seen two US citizens killed in shootings involving federal law enforcement. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that's a picture of your guy here, so who knows.
Speaker 1: I don't really I don't really have a crazy hot
Speaker 1: take as far as this one's concerned. I think that
Speaker 1: she is a fraud, and even if this was not
Speaker 1: a staged attack, it's non toxic. Like if your guy
Speaker 1: was trying to do some sort of harm to her,
Speaker 1: you can buy really strong acids in liquid form without
Speaker 1: any kind of license or permits. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that he should have. For the record, I am not
Speaker 1: saying that he should have done something to actually physically
Speaker 1: harm this woman. I don't think that that's the correct
Speaker 1: way to go about it. But what I'm saying is,
Speaker 1: I mean, even if you would spray.
Speaker 2: Gasoline on her out of that syringe.
Speaker 1: Like that, there is a better way to go about
Speaker 1: trying to make an effective attack quote unquote on her.
Speaker 1: You sprayed her with a syringe? Were you trying to
Speaker 1: like inject her and fell short?
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't know.
Speaker 1: The whole thing smells very very fishy to me, So yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't really know what to make of it. I
Speaker 1: guess we'll see what kind of charge this guy gets,
Speaker 1: if any or if this is going to fall into
Speaker 1: obscurity and in six months nobody's gonna remember that this
Speaker 1: took place, I feel like that's actually probably more likely, honestly. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I have one more article pulled up about black Rock,
Speaker 1: but it's actually a little bit of a dated article,
Speaker 1: so I don't really see a need to to get
Speaker 1: into that one as of this moment. I do want
Speaker 1: to scroll up in the comment section. See that picture again.
Speaker 1: That doesn't look like an AI image. Well, I don't know,
Speaker 1: her hand kind of does look AI.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Royce, what do you think do you think that's a
Speaker 1: real image or do you think that's a fake one
Speaker 1: made for the interwebs.
Speaker 4: I don't really know. Maybe unfortunately A starting to get
Speaker 4: good enough to where I can't really tell as much anymore.
Speaker 4: But whudos maybe with her hand, with how she looked herself.
Speaker 2: I don't know, yeh, I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Anyway, before we roll out, I'm go ahead and check
Speaker 1: the chat and see, was uh y'all been in the
Speaker 1: chat more than me? Is it just conversations between y'all
Speaker 1: or was there something that was dropped?
Speaker 2: Basically?
Speaker 4: Basically, I think the only thing that else was there
Speaker 4: was a thread from Sam about the shooting.
Speaker 2: But the new one, oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I really want to go any
Speaker 1: deeper on that one as of now, it's uh, it's messy.
Speaker 3: Yeah no, I was just gonna send that few view
Speaker 3: off of your own and everything. It's a video I
Speaker 3: came across. I also just want to say this that
Speaker 3: I I don't care what politically side isn't want anyone is.
Speaker 3: It's a sad day when an American dies, but I
Speaker 3: just wish that America would heal and that people would
Speaker 3: actually give a fuck about their country. I agree, there's
Speaker 3: like if you want to be there, there's country countries
Speaker 3: that are socialists and there's countries that are communists. If
Speaker 3: you want to live in those those ways to go
Speaker 3: and go and move over there. But that, but just
Speaker 3: know there's people that actually grew up in like actual
Speaker 3: true communism like that that would that have out then
Speaker 3: never step foot back in that. So there's people that
Speaker 3: have lived through Fidel Castros h communism. There's been people
Speaker 3: that that are still live that that were going through stalinism.
Speaker 3: They and just every time that you you get to
Speaker 3: both of those things, they to the country tanks and
Speaker 3: just look at Venezuela ast case in point.
Speaker 2: Very true, very true.
Speaker 3: God bless all of you.
Speaker 1: Indeed, indeed, with all this being said and up for
Speaker 1: the record, Sam, I agree with every single syllable you
Speaker 1: just said. With all this being said, good members of
Speaker 1: the retinue of the Cajun Night, the men and women
Speaker 1: at arms, the bannerman, the contingent, all the things and
Speaker 1: all the pretty titles, I want to thank all of
Speaker 1: you for joining me this evening as we talked about
Speaker 1: all the things going on in the world around us.
Speaker 1: For anybody who is listening once again that would like
Speaker 1: to join us. Every Wednesday night at nine pm Central,
Speaker 1: go to the patreon dot com slash cult Oh wow,
Speaker 1: well Cult the Conspiracy podcast also, but for this conversation
Speaker 1: go to patreon dot com slash Cajun Night.
Speaker 2: There's only one tier for injury.
Speaker 1: We do this, like I said, every Wednesday and night
Speaker 1: at nine pm Central, and I thoroughly enjoyed these conversations.
Speaker 2: I look forward to it every week.
Speaker 1: With all this being said, everybody, I am the CA
Speaker 1: Night and as always, God bless