Speaker 1: Get ready, jeez, March fifth, twenty twenty five, allegedly according
Speaker 1: to that thing we call a calendar, and guess what
Speaker 1: this is, the o'celly effect. It is a Wednesday night
Speaker 1: and we're live. Now. This is gonna be interesting because
Speaker 1: I didn't plan on it exactly this way, but I've
Speaker 1: gone to air a little late. I'm gonna shut up quickly,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, and get right away to Mike Swanson,
Speaker 1: the guy behind Wall Street Window dot com, the author
Speaker 1: of the War State as well as Why the Vietnam War,
Speaker 1: And we're gonna talk to him about the current state
Speaker 1: of the economy because man, I'm awfully confused. We're gonna
Speaker 1: squeeze this in in less than an hour, and then
Speaker 1: right away we're gonna get to Larry Hancock in the
Speaker 1: second hour and talk to him about international affairs. So anyway, Mike,
Speaker 1: let's straight to it. How are you doing tonight?
Speaker 2: First of all, oh, I'm doing fun.
Speaker 3: There's I sent you a bunch of news articles, yes
Speaker 3: that you know, as possible talking points, but yeah, their
Speaker 3: business deal is being done. And when I didn't send
Speaker 3: you because it came out after that email hit the
Speaker 3: news wire, there's a company called scale Ai, okay, and
Speaker 3: they just announced a multimillion dollar defense deal with the
Speaker 3: Defense Department to help with military automation. They have a
Speaker 3: program that's gonna integrate with the Defense Department called thunder Forge. Anyway,
Speaker 3: this was on the CNBC website, and this is one
Speaker 3: of the victories, you know, being trumpeted. Now it's not
Speaker 3: you know, you didn't hear it in the State of
Speaker 3: the Union address. I didn't listen to the whole thing,
Speaker 3: so I don't think it was mentioned.
Speaker 1: Well, no, and even if we go to the highlights
Speaker 1: of the State of the Union, right, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff going on there. He's again talking
Speaker 1: about eggs, he's talking about how you know, look, we're
Speaker 1: going to get this Golden Dome. So obviously there's some
Speaker 1: potential spending when it comes to I mean, clearly, even
Speaker 1: though we're going to doze the hell out of the government,
Speaker 1: we're definitely not going to cut back on the military spending.
Speaker 1: It seems like to me or maybe just well, well,
Speaker 1: but go ahead.
Speaker 3: What's going on with the military spending is they are
Speaker 3: playing to cut eight percent and that's a big number,
Speaker 3: you know, eight percent of the defense budget.
Speaker 2: And that's what some of the links I sent you were.
Speaker 3: About, right, And I know initially like if all you
Speaker 3: do is follow the Twitter feeds, you just hear about
Speaker 3: the cuts.
Speaker 2: And that sounds like a huge clallback.
Speaker 3: I mean, that would be wonderful, you know, to cut
Speaker 3: eight percent I think in my opinion of the defense budget.
Speaker 3: And I've seen stories where, you know, some of these
Speaker 3: really horrible boondoggle programs like the literal literal I I
Speaker 3: can't even pronounce it correctly, but it's a Navy ship
Speaker 3: that billions of dollars been wasted, and even the Navy
Speaker 3: Department has said they don't really want to continue this program,
Speaker 3: but you know, it helps certain congressional districts. And then
Speaker 3: there's there's must know, many many programs like this, But
Speaker 3: that's just one example.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have that fighter jet, right, the fighter jet
Speaker 1: and the fighter jet. Everybody brings that up. You and
Speaker 1: I talked about the submarine programs. I haven't seen anything
Speaker 1: about that lately.
Speaker 3: Well, that's that's not something to be cut, right. The
Speaker 3: only problem with this it's not really going well. The
Speaker 3: submarines aren't being built, you know, the program is years behind.
Speaker 1: Well see that's the thing, right, Hold on just a second.
Speaker 1: I want to get this in perspective because that's the
Speaker 1: problem here where people talk about they announce this stuff,
Speaker 1: We're gonna do this big thing. We're gonna you know,
Speaker 1: like everybody's asking me lately, what about space Force? How
Speaker 1: much money is being put into space Force? Nobody knows
Speaker 1: right or it seems.
Speaker 2: Like I want to mention that too.
Speaker 3: So they're cutting eight percent of the budget. And you
Speaker 3: mentioned the Dome. I didn't listen to this whole State
Speaker 3: of the Union has watched like twenty minutes to cut
Speaker 3: it off.
Speaker 1: But you heard about the Golden Dome where he wants another.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to talk about that too. So this
Speaker 3: eight percent cut, what's really happening? And I sent you
Speaker 3: a link where Pete Hagsith is that it's on the
Speaker 3: Defense Department website Defense dot gov. He's giving a video
Speaker 3: address to the Defense Department about well, you know about
Speaker 3: those cuts.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put that in the links at ocelly dot
Speaker 1: com and put that in the chat room, just get
Speaker 1: people to roll it back. They can always go in
Speaker 1: the live chat room even after the show, and I'll
Speaker 1: include it with the show notes. Yeah, but it's from
Speaker 1: depend excuse me, defense doc go of that website. So yeah,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Sorry, I just want to let people know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they got a link to a JP Satilly link.
Speaker 3: He compiled a couple of stuff. His argument is that, look,
Speaker 3: there really is no defense cuts, and he's correct because
Speaker 3: what's happening is, yes, they're cutting eight percent, but overall
Speaker 3: they're playing to boost the overall defense budget. They're just eliminating,
Speaker 3: planning to eliminate, you know, some of the money being
Speaker 3: spent currently and reallocate it to other programs.
Speaker 2: And one of the things the money's going.
Speaker 3: To reallocate it is to what I mentioned, the scale
Speaker 3: AI thing which is announced today and what people don't know.
Speaker 3: And I've read there's a CNBC article, you know, and
Speaker 3: to me, you know, you read these things. To me,
Speaker 3: this's a lot of gibber jabber, you know, AI phrases
Speaker 3: like uh.
Speaker 2: Glow, you know, just I don't know, you know, for
Speaker 2: the thunder Forge.
Speaker 3: I mean, you just here all these phrases that you know,
Speaker 3: you have to go figure out what they really mean.
Speaker 2: But what I was more interested in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they call these things new programs and whatnot, But
Speaker 1: we knew already that they were going to start investing
Speaker 1: in the AI stuff. It was going to be a
Speaker 1: force multiplier. As a matter of fact, That's one of
Speaker 1: the things I said about this whole Doge thing with
Speaker 1: the cutting of the jobs, is that a lot of
Speaker 1: that had to be preparation for jobs that are going
Speaker 1: to be taken over by AI, right because you no
Speaker 1: longer need people to sit there and go through certain
Speaker 1: things if you can have sorting programs handled by the
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence, et cetera. And I mean, of course, there
Speaker 1: was the big news story about deep Seek and all that,
Speaker 1: the Chinese thing that they slapped together real fast. And
Speaker 1: it's no wonder that Elon Musk is there because he's
Speaker 1: got his AI thing rolling, and who knows how that's
Speaker 1: gonna all go. I'm just saying there's a lot of
Speaker 1: confusion here because of what's announced versus what's really being done.
Speaker 1: Though Mike isn't there.
Speaker 3: Well, I just want people to understand that, first of all,
Speaker 3: it's sort of an illusion that there's gonna be these
Speaker 3: As far as things stand now, there's gonna be these
Speaker 3: massive budget cuts overall, it's more like symbolic things being
Speaker 3: cut and then money being reallocated. And to me, this
Speaker 3: this uh Scale I I is a story about who benefits.
Speaker 3: So I went and looked up who I never heard
Speaker 3: of this company before? You know, who are the shareholders
Speaker 3: of scale AI? And the biggest shareholders are Peter Thiel,
Speaker 3: h Amazon, Slat you know, which is Jeff Bezos, and Meta,
Speaker 3: which is Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what a surprise all of the biggest uh
Speaker 1: you know, social media people, that tech people that were
Speaker 1: all on the stage at the inauguration, Yeah, involved in this.
Speaker 1: What aren't you shocked, like or or you know that's
Speaker 1: sarcasm by the way. I mean, I'm not telling you that, Mike,
Speaker 1: I'm telling the listeners. God knows.
Speaker 2: But right now, no, I'm not shocked. But people need
Speaker 2: to understand that.
Speaker 3: I think they need to understand that, you know, this
Speaker 3: is who's benefiting. And then when you talk about the
Speaker 3: Iron Dome, so.
Speaker 1: He called it a golden dome, golden, they.
Speaker 2: Changed the name to gold. You're right, they changed the
Speaker 2: golden Dome.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's Trump. He's got to have everything gold,
Speaker 1: you know, because it's it's an upgrade. But the Iron
Speaker 1: Dome is just fine for Israel, America gets the Golden
Speaker 1: Dome because we have to have the best, you know, Mike,
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 3: But on the face of it, you know, as we're
Speaker 3: speaking at this point, there is no concrete plan or program.
Speaker 3: It's a executive order and a demand.
Speaker 2: I guess you can say for them to study.
Speaker 1: He's ordering exploring the issue, right and he's ordering going study.
Speaker 2: See.
Speaker 1: This is another thing people don't understand about these executive
Speaker 1: orders because the way they're talking about is it's like
Speaker 1: it's a decree. It's almost like a royal decree. Not
Speaker 1: necessarily when you read this stuff. I tried to explain
Speaker 1: that with the JFK thing, which you know, just quick
Speaker 1: side note. I know you're paying attention right a little
Speaker 1: bit to the JFK stuff, and even Jeff Morley and
Speaker 1: all those guys over there at JFK Facts, they're all going,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, how come nothing's happening. And I'm going, guys,
Speaker 1: you are the people that should know that nothing is
Speaker 1: going to happen right away, because he puts out an
Speaker 1: order that says I want this done, I want this
Speaker 1: looked into, and we should do this as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't nail anything down where he says, by
Speaker 1: this date, this has to get done. If you don't
Speaker 1: see Look, it's a pretty simple rule with government declarations.
Speaker 1: If you don't see specifics in that declaration, then you
Speaker 1: won't see specifics in the actions. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that's pretty simple. Or am I wrong about that?
Speaker 3: Well, you know there's gonna be a congressional hearing on
Speaker 3: March the twenty first, right, and I don't know who
Speaker 3: the witnesses are going to be. But when they announced
Speaker 3: that hearing, uh, it's a lady. That's a congressional lady.
Speaker 3: That's Republican lady that's going to run it from Florida.
Speaker 3: I forget her.
Speaker 2: Luna because the Luna.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I watched her press conference and you could I
Speaker 3: first of all, she don't You can tell she doesn't
Speaker 3: really know that much about the issue because she said
Speaker 3: there had been multiple congressional investigations, and she referred to
Speaker 3: the Warrant Commission as one of those as a congressional investigation.
Speaker 1: Right, which automatically it was correct because it was a
Speaker 1: special We all know it's the president's creation. He created
Speaker 1: this council. It's literally it's it.
Speaker 2: Was designed to head off congressional investigation, right.
Speaker 1: And that's the funny thing is that these new people,
Speaker 1: regardless of what their intent is or what because people
Speaker 1: are arguing are they going to cover it up or
Speaker 1: are they going to do it? First of all, they
Speaker 1: don't know what they're covering up, what they're looking for,
Speaker 1: or what's already been done.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's pretty much like when Trump said, you know, during
Speaker 1: the Zelensky thing, where he says, and I'm not even
Speaker 1: going to get into that with you, because God knows,
Speaker 1: we'd be here for another hour. But the thing is
Speaker 1: when he said, well, look, I don't know the history
Speaker 1: of this and that, and that's only a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago. The people that are making these statements and
Speaker 1: are supposedly in charge when it comes to getting out
Speaker 1: these files and when it comes to a lot of
Speaker 1: other things, do not know the history of what was
Speaker 1: already done, don't know what they're actually looking for, and
Speaker 1: they don't know what already exists because they're sitting there saying, oh,
Speaker 1: this will be the first time there's thousands of pages,
Speaker 1: and I'm going there's five million pages in the JFK
Speaker 1: Records collection already and these people act as though they
Speaker 1: don't know that, because I don't think they do.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think she right, Well, she's she. I
Speaker 2: mean it's interesting.
Speaker 3: I mean I get the impression they're going to hold
Speaker 3: this hearing right, and they're going to have some sort
Speaker 3: of information about the autopsy because she referred to it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and she also said that she believes the evidence shows
Speaker 3: that they're two gunman.
Speaker 2: Well, that's kind of.
Speaker 1: What evidence did she see? You know? See, here we
Speaker 1: go again, what evidence did she see? Even when they're
Speaker 1: saying they have new FBI documents, here's my question, how
Speaker 1: do they know what's new if they're not fully acquainted
Speaker 1: with what has already been released?
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 1: That's the thing about this. And why do I tie
Speaker 1: this all to the JFK thing, because I think it's
Speaker 1: an excellent example where you and I know the material
Speaker 1: very well, You and I might not know all of
Speaker 1: the current military spending, no matter how much you keep
Speaker 1: up with it or I keep up with it, it's impossible
Speaker 1: to know, really, right, a lot of these things without
Speaker 1: a lot of exploration. Where we know, Look, there's a
Speaker 1: certain amount of the budget that goes to hardware, there's
Speaker 1: a certain amount of the budget that goes to, you know,
Speaker 1: supporting the families, that goes to you know, making sure
Speaker 1: our overseas bases are intact. This is what we have
Speaker 1: to pay to keep you know, certain outposts and cooperative
Speaker 1: training exercises going, which is another expense.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We don't necessarily know what's all of what's being allocated
Speaker 1: specifically to a lot of things, you and I as outsiders, right,
Speaker 1: But the people that work in the Pentagon, they in
Speaker 1: certain departments do know. And here's the thing. A lot
Speaker 1: of those people are being fired. There's a lot of turnover,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of changes. I think it would be
Speaker 1: unreasonable and impossible for anybody who's coming out, whether a
Speaker 1: tech set or any of these people to make these
Speaker 1: sweeping declarations and actually be informed about what it is
Speaker 1: they're talking about. Now, maybe I'm wrong, Michael. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could correct me on this, because I could easily
Speaker 1: stand corrected. But it seems to me as though, just
Speaker 1: like with the JFK thing, you've got people that are
Speaker 1: not necessarily well informed about what's already been done, what
Speaker 1: is ongoing, what has already been you know, say taking
Speaker 1: off the table, Right, So how is it possible that
Speaker 1: some of these sweeping, absolute declarations make any sense at
Speaker 1: this time, or is it just me?
Speaker 2: Now they just got in there. It's not even been
Speaker 2: two full months, right.
Speaker 1: I mean reasonable, no matter how you feel about this administration, right,
Speaker 1: no matter how you feel about the people that were appointed,
Speaker 1: the secretaries, the you know, deputy secretaries. I mean, you
Speaker 1: got Cash Pattel and then the other guy at the FBI,
Speaker 1: and people are complaining about him already, And I'm saying,
Speaker 1: there's no way that these people could be even fully
Speaker 1: prepared to address anything yet because they don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on. Actually, they make these declarations that it was weaponized,
Speaker 1: that it was this, that it was but do they
Speaker 1: actually have the evidence in front of them? Have they
Speaker 1: had the ability to examine it? I don't think it's
Speaker 1: humanly possible to have done all that just yet. No
Speaker 1: matter what your actual intent is, whether you're going in
Speaker 1: there to you know, oh, they're going in there to
Speaker 1: destroy it, they're going in there to make it great again,
Speaker 1: they don't even know how to evaluate what they have
Speaker 1: or don't have yet, Or maybe it's just me, am
Speaker 1: I wrong?
Speaker 2: Now? That's I think a reasonable Do you think.
Speaker 1: That's a reasonable way to look at this, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, but if we look at the Kennedy case, Yeah,
Speaker 3: my impression is you tell me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: But this is just mind pression, is that.
Speaker 3: Maybe I don't know if they're going to release anything
Speaker 3: new or not, right, whether they release a lot. I mean,
Speaker 3: really they should just dump the files out and that'd
Speaker 3: be done with it. But they're having these hearings, so
Speaker 3: whether they whether they release one file or all you
Speaker 3: know that's new, or all of them, all the ones
Speaker 3: they can right, no matter what, my impression is, they're
Speaker 3: going to have one or two days of hearings and
Speaker 3: they're going to make social media clips out of that
Speaker 3: and a couple of news bites and that'll be the
Speaker 3: end of it. And they're going to probably say there's
Speaker 3: two gunmen, this lady will say some stuff I don't
Speaker 3: you know, and that's supposed to become a shopping shocking revelation.
Speaker 3: I guess it will be how it's spun, and that'll
Speaker 3: be the end of it. Well, that was what I think,
Speaker 3: and that's it. I think.
Speaker 2: That's huh.
Speaker 1: You know why you think this, Mike, Because we saw
Speaker 1: this already in twenty seventeen when they were supposed to
Speaker 1: just finally allow the stuff from the ARB to be released. Right,
Speaker 1: you remember what happened. You and I were in Dallas
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen while it was happening, and it started
Speaker 1: happening before we went to Dallas. Remember it was like
Speaker 1: they started releasing stuff ahead of the date and it
Speaker 1: was coming out and it was a vail. Well, you
Speaker 1: and I were surprised even, or at least I was.
Speaker 1: Maybe you weren't, but I was surprised that the National
Speaker 1: Archives even allowed this stuff to be accessible online. It
Speaker 1: was like, right away we could download it. Holy crap,
Speaker 1: that never happened before, right, It was kind of cool.
Speaker 1: And then they said, well, we can't release it all,
Speaker 1: and we're not going to release the majority of it.
Speaker 1: And what went on here is that what happened the
Speaker 1: news media grabbed a hold of these little fragmented pieces.
Speaker 1: They at that time said look, there's two shooters, there's
Speaker 1: an FBI report. And then you and I literally took
Speaker 1: a look at the thing that was released that people
Speaker 1: made a big deal out of, and then they brought
Speaker 1: out who did they Wheelow Gerald Posner, The usual suspects
Speaker 1: to come out and go nothing to see here. This
Speaker 1: is all nonsense. And here's the sad part. Posner was
Speaker 1: right because they had this fragmented half a report from
Speaker 1: an FBI agent who heard a story, and you and
Speaker 1: I talked about it. There's no explaining who the source was.
Speaker 1: You remember this, the two shooter thing, right, you do
Speaker 1: recall this.
Speaker 2: I don't remember the two shooter thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, well they did that talking about they did that
Speaker 1: back then there was if you look back, you'll find it.
Speaker 1: But you and I talked about it, and you could
Speaker 1: probably hear the if you go back in the Ocelli archives,
Speaker 1: it's probably still on the list. If not, I'll re
Speaker 1: release it because there was a lot of stuff I
Speaker 1: talked about regarding the document dump in twenty seventeen, and
Speaker 1: we talked about it, and you and I went to
Speaker 1: l Answer that year and I went on James Corbett
Speaker 1: Show to talk about this. Anyway, the point is that
Speaker 1: they turned around and they did this, you know, half
Speaker 1: a hangout where there were these little fragmented pieces OGE.
Speaker 1: We have to address it. And then, quite honestly, a
Speaker 1: bunch of people behind the scenes, and I don't know
Speaker 1: if you know this part myself included rallied people to
Speaker 1: Bother CNN to go get Jefferson Morley to bring him on,
Speaker 1: because that was not long after the whole Kavanaugh thing
Speaker 1: was coming around and Kavanaugh turned around and shot down
Speaker 1: the last part of Jeff Morley's case and said, no,
Speaker 1: you're not getting the Joe and Edese files, right. That
Speaker 1: was yeah, And that was the same guy you saw
Speaker 1: crying about beer during his hearings. Just for everybody's notes.
Speaker 1: But anyway, don't care about that and not looking to
Speaker 1: re litigate it. I'm just saying reality is, we pestered
Speaker 1: the hell out of CNN. I gave I sent out
Speaker 1: emails with the phone number and everything. Bother CNN tell
Speaker 1: them they need to get Jeff Morley on to have
Speaker 1: another point of view, and not just Gerald Posner coming
Speaker 1: out saying, well, you see, our society really wants a
Speaker 1: great explanation because a loser like Lee Harvey Oswald should
Speaker 1: have never been allowed to kill a great man like Kennedy,
Speaker 1: even though I can tell you that I don't even
Speaker 1: believe for a second that guy wrote his own book,
Speaker 1: and if you know his plagiarism, you know record out
Speaker 1: there in public, you can see why I might say it,
Speaker 1: but anyway, put that all aside. They wheeled out positive
Speaker 1: because Boogliosi was dead, and they wanted to wheel out
Speaker 1: people that looked official, that were lawyers because Passe there's
Speaker 1: a lawyer too, don't forget. But they wanted to roll
Speaker 1: out legal people, just like every time now, whether it's
Speaker 1: you know, the actor that died recently, or it's the
Speaker 1: latest controversial shooting, who do they go get Michael Bodden
Speaker 1: now all the time. Sometimes they used to contact cirah Weck,
Speaker 1: but he's passed away. The point is they bring out
Speaker 1: official people that are well known to defend the official
Speaker 1: story every time a semblance of something comes out that's
Speaker 1: slightly controversial. And what they had during twenty seventeen was
Speaker 1: a couple of fragmented pieces of effectively useless material. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's an official FBI memo here stating that an FBI
Speaker 1: agent was told a story by a witness. The witness
Speaker 1: has never identified. They have no idea what kind of
Speaker 1: person this was. It's simply a report from an FBI agent.
Speaker 1: And the fact is that FBI agent got the story
Speaker 1: from somebody that there was two shooters based on what
Speaker 1: they witnessed allegedly either in the autopsy room or in
Speaker 1: the plaza. And quite frankly, it wasn't even made clear
Speaker 1: where this witness witnessed whatever they did, and so it
Speaker 1: was this vague half a report, and the fact is
Speaker 1: it was incomplete. So I pointed that out. And this
Speaker 1: is one of the things where the media, of course,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones went out with it. There's definitely been two shooters.
Speaker 1: The government admits it now, by my tiny changerine.
Speaker 3: See you think this is what the lady, the congress
Speaker 3: lady was referring to.
Speaker 1: Well, but the point is is that it's a very
Speaker 1: similar story and maybe the same thing, yeah, or it
Speaker 1: may be something different. But there's plenty of possibilities where
Speaker 1: an FBI agent could have taken a report from anybody,
Speaker 1: you know, who was either there or maybe heard something
Speaker 1: or was connected to somebody, or there were lots of
Speaker 1: phone calls. Lee Harvey Oswald was spotted alive the next
Speaker 1: day at a bar, you know, all that stuff. Any
Speaker 1: of that could come out now and they could say, look,
Speaker 1: there's allegations that there was another shooter, there's allegations that
Speaker 1: there was a conspiracy, there's allegations. They can take it
Speaker 1: and spin it any which way they want, and Alex
Speaker 1: Jones can scream, the government now admits conspiracy, but they
Speaker 1: won't tell you that, And then CNN can roll out
Speaker 1: somebody like Gerald Posner and have him come out and say, look,
Speaker 1: this is much ado about nothing, and here we go again.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's just that John F. Kennedy was
Speaker 1: an extraordinary human being and people want a reasonable explanation
Speaker 1: as to how a loser could have killed him. And
Speaker 1: that's Gerald Poster in a nutshell. I mean, that's what
Speaker 1: case closed is. Right. Anyway, my point about all this
Speaker 1: isn't even the Kennedy assassination. My point is that once
Speaker 1: again we will have people that are not familiar with
Speaker 1: the material telling you what's in the material, right, and
Speaker 1: even when they were preparing for, you know, allegedly another
Speaker 1: release and everything else, Jeff Morley learned that the CIA
Speaker 1: was giving crib notes to the major media. Anyhow, Okay,
Speaker 1: come on New York Post, come on different news outlets.
Speaker 1: Let's all sit down and the official CIA guy is
Speaker 1: going to explain it to all your reporters, because, in
Speaker 1: all fairness, your average reporter doesn't know what the hell's
Speaker 1: in the files, what's already known, the background of the case, etc. Right,
Speaker 1: So here we go again. This is the same thing
Speaker 1: that's going on, is that people who are not well
Speaker 1: informed about the particulars and the nuances are going to
Speaker 1: do what They're going to make declarations and spin on
Speaker 1: behalf of the official story to make Trump look good.
Speaker 1: Trump's people will do that, and the news media will
Speaker 1: do what they need to do for their agendas. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, right, I mean, isn't that what's going
Speaker 1: on with the military, with the military spending, because people
Speaker 1: throw out numbers and they'll turn around and flip a
Speaker 1: billion to a trillion and nobody cares, nobody notices because
Speaker 1: it's not been relevant. These people just like the whole
Speaker 1: Epstein file thing. Did you see that, by the way,
Speaker 1: recently Kim Bondi and all that.
Speaker 3: Well, what had what I experienced was a friend of mine,
Speaker 3: someone I know, a friend of mine, was messaged me
Speaker 3: saying that I'm not I'm not. You know, this Epstein
Speaker 3: thing is something I never was. You know, I never
Speaker 3: got into I didn't just research it or anything.
Speaker 2: I know what it was.
Speaker 3: It's dead and I'm just like, well, this is kind
Speaker 3: of very strange. It was to care that he was
Speaker 3: killed in that prison, so you died in the prison,
Speaker 3: whatever happened.
Speaker 1: You vaguely about the case, but didn't really know the
Speaker 1: ins and outs of the details. You hadn't studied it
Speaker 1: or followed it.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I've listened to your show and some
Speaker 3: of the guests you had on it, and I remember
Speaker 3: reading a couple of articles, you know, a couple of
Speaker 3: years ago, and my question was how did he? To myself,
Speaker 3: what I was interested in wondering was how did he
Speaker 3: get all this money? And it didn't really make sense
Speaker 3: to me how he was basically a nobody, a school
Speaker 3: teacher or something, and then overnight turned into you know,
Speaker 3: this giant financier investment person for all these rich people.
Speaker 2: It didn't make any sense on the face of it.
Speaker 2: So well, he got in.
Speaker 1: With the guy who had Lane Bryant and what was
Speaker 1: yeah these secrets? Yeah? How Well, to my knowledge, Mike,
Speaker 1: he was a hedge fund guy. And I don't know
Speaker 1: how you get into being a hedge fund guy, but
Speaker 1: he got into being a hedge fund guy at one point.
Speaker 1: So he was like a money manager who you know
Speaker 1: again lucked into some heavy clients and got in. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know how that world works. Quite frankly, you
Speaker 1: would have more of a personal idea about how this works.
Speaker 1: And the fact that you're saying it doesn't make sense
Speaker 1: almost bothers me, because I would think you might know
Speaker 1: how somebody might luck into a couple of you know,
Speaker 1: high priced clients. Maybe I mean maybe you didn't have them,
Speaker 1: but you might know how somebody ends up with, Like
Speaker 1: I don't know some of Bill Gates's money to manage
Speaker 1: or whatever, you know what I mean, Somebody's got to
Speaker 1: run that stuff. And it's not Bill Gates himself always, right,
Speaker 1: So somebody's got or Bloomberg. Bloomberg's another guy, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: he can't possibly manage all of his hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars that are coming in constantly. He's got to
Speaker 1: have people that do it right. So if somebody's a standout,
Speaker 1: if they do really well, well, maybe they get entrusted
Speaker 1: with more and more. I mean it's not just rock
Speaker 1: stars who get built. I mean, Bernie Madoff didn't just
Speaker 1: have a stable full of dumb rock stars and athletes
Speaker 1: that didn't know how to handle their money, right, So
Speaker 1: you end up with a high profile client who may
Speaker 1: be built a business, but afterwards doesn't you know, quite
Speaker 1: figure out how to invest or whatever, because they know
Speaker 1: how to run their grocery chain or you know, like
Speaker 1: the Sam Walton's family right ever, after their family has
Speaker 1: plenty of an inheritance there, but somebody had to manage
Speaker 1: that money. And not every one of those people who
Speaker 1: inherited some of that, you know, Walmart Fortune, knew what
Speaker 1: to do with it. So they find somebody to manage
Speaker 1: their money to make their investments. And Epstein was one
Speaker 1: of these guys. I mean, that's what I understand. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe there's more to it, and people have lots of allegations,
Speaker 1: you know, like as in maybe he was an intelligence
Speaker 1: asset and all that. And I'm not saying that I
Speaker 1: know exactly what to and what not to believe. They're
Speaker 1: I'm not an Epstein expert, you know, but it just
Speaker 1: seems to me like if you get in certain ways.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I just was like the the Epstein you
Speaker 3: know meme or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in the popular imagination.
Speaker 3: This friend of mine a few weeks ago told me
Speaker 3: all that scene files are going to.
Speaker 1: Come out right, well, because that was an announcement being
Speaker 1: made by the Trump administration for a while and it
Speaker 1: was a popularly shared thing. He's finally see. That's the
Speaker 1: thing is, they got this idea that Trump is going
Speaker 1: to make everything transparent in the government. He's going to
Speaker 1: reveal all of the elitists that he's been doing.
Speaker 2: Battle right right, Well, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: And a friend of mine was saying, well, he hopes
Speaker 3: this will finally expose Bill Clinton, right, and he and
Speaker 3: I said, I replied to it about the argument.
Speaker 2: I just replied to it, and I said, well.
Speaker 3: I don't I said something like, it's possible that he
Speaker 3: had a connection with an intelligence agency.
Speaker 2: I don't know that. But the Maxwell lady.
Speaker 1: Right, Galler Maxwell, who is in prison, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Her father was connected with it with the Massad because
Speaker 3: he was a heavy supporter of Israel.
Speaker 1: And also British intelligence, right right.
Speaker 3: But I just replied to him and said, it's possible
Speaker 3: he was connected to Massad, you know. And I said,
Speaker 3: if that's true, it will never come out. And the
Speaker 3: person replied to me and he said, this is what
Speaker 3: he said to me. He doesn't know what Massade is, okay,
Speaker 3: but he just wants the pedophiles exposed.
Speaker 2: And Bill Clinton exposed and he hs Bill Clinton, well.
Speaker 3: Right, and that was that's the last time. I didn't
Speaker 3: have any more conversation with it. And then a few
Speaker 3: days after this conversation, the file was given to some
Speaker 3: far right so called the file MAGA influencers, and then
Speaker 3: they were disappointed in the file and said, there's nothing
Speaker 3: new in it.
Speaker 1: So the whole thing sounds like it's a big dud.
Speaker 1: There is nothing new in it. I examined what I
Speaker 1: could examine, and what I see is, you know, some
Speaker 1: more redacted pages with a lot of names missing. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know again Nick Bryant, who had released basically part
Speaker 1: of his contact book from before Epstein's you know client
Speaker 1: list they keep calling it. But either way, a bunch
Speaker 1: of contacts had already been released. It's a big nothing.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's trouble in for a lot of reasons.
Speaker 2: But does that mean that's what's gonna happen the Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Thing, Well, I don't know. See, this is the thing
Speaker 1: is when you have these pronouncements again. You know, Trump
Speaker 1: makes these grand pronouncements in his administration. His guys make
Speaker 1: these grand pronouncements, but they're not well informed. They don't
Speaker 1: even know what it is they're saying is great in
Speaker 1: coming out. That's why I said, when they're saying to us, oh, well,
Speaker 1: suddenly we have three thousand new FBI pages, How do
Speaker 1: they know what's new? They don't. So And I'm not
Speaker 1: even saying this as somebody who's like, you know, oh,
Speaker 1: you're trying to tear down Trump, because some people have
Speaker 1: broken it down to this US and them teams mentality
Speaker 1: where it's either you're on team Trump or you're not right.
Speaker 1: And if you're on team Trump, he's doing you know,
Speaker 1: God's God's work, you know what I mean, Like literally
Speaker 1: and even said that during this you know, during this
Speaker 1: joint addressed to Congress that he survived the assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: When he was addressing that and the family of that
Speaker 1: firefighter who was shot to death at in Pennsylvania, right,
Speaker 1: he had the family there and he said, God had
Speaker 1: me survive so I could come and make sure to
Speaker 1: make America great again. You know, it reminds me of
Speaker 1: the Blues Brothers. I'm on a mission from God. You
Speaker 1: know remember that movie. Oh yeah, it's a good movie.
Speaker 1: But the thing is you're either on team Trump or
Speaker 1: you're not right. So of course he's going to expose
Speaker 1: all the pedophiles. They've been saying this, whether it's Q
Speaker 1: or any of the these other groups for years, that
Speaker 1: he's gonna bust everybody because he's not one of them,
Speaker 1: you see. And if you point out that he knew Epstein,
Speaker 1: which he did, and if you point out that he's
Speaker 1: photographed with Epstein and they were at parties together and
Speaker 1: stuff like that, they got one hundred different excuses for it.
Speaker 1: Because that's true. That's not conspiracy theory. By the way,
Speaker 1: if you remember that guy I had on the show,
Speaker 1: Sam Spadino, the comedian, you know, was holding up pictures
Speaker 1: of Trump and Epstein at his rally, and that's why
Speaker 1: the Secret Service dragged him out and kind of beat
Speaker 1: him up a little.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Do you remember that guy on my show?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't know that happened to him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was the guy who you know the second
Speaker 1: time that they went and dragged him out, he was going, dad, Dad, Dad.
Speaker 1: I don't know why he was doing that. I still
Speaker 1: couldn't get a clear explanation, but they were dragging him
Speaker 1: out of there and he was doing that. He was
Speaker 1: holding up a picture of Trump standing next to Epstein
Speaker 1: at a party. You've seen those pictures, right, yeah, sure
Speaker 1: in the videos like the video where they're actually loggling
Speaker 1: girls and okay, well, but the thing is, you say, then, well,
Speaker 1: Trump went to the island, he got on the jet.
Speaker 1: Oh he was only on there twice, and Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: was there eighty seven times, you know whatever. And the
Speaker 1: thing is, there's also been a falsified records put out
Speaker 1: there that people shared. They said it was a wat.
Speaker 3: Well, whatever you think of Clinton, there's no history of
Speaker 3: him molesting young girls.
Speaker 1: Not young girls, No, it's usually grown women. But people
Speaker 1: would say, this is the history, this is the proof.
Speaker 1: You know, why was he going there? Why was various
Speaker 1: media figures going there? Why were you know, all these
Speaker 1: famous actors, the guy who ran house to go, Kevin Spacey, right,
Speaker 1: who also got himself in trouble with the whole thing,
Speaker 1: and then all those charges were dropped against him if
Speaker 1: you remember he was supposedly, you know, trying to pick
Speaker 1: up underage guys, right, Kevin Spacey or why is it
Speaker 1: that it is a case Kirk was on the plane.
Speaker 1: Epstein was grabbing people from the media influential politicians of
Speaker 1: all kinds and bringing them on his private jet to
Speaker 1: you know, Epstein Island, his private island. Some people call
Speaker 1: it Lolita Island. Some people call it rape Island. Right,
Speaker 1: It's a whole dirty subject, and they've been saying for
Speaker 1: years Trump's gonna expose it. Trump's gonna expose it. And
Speaker 1: Trump has even made weird references to it. Right, I
Speaker 1: don't believe that guy was committed suicide all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the cameras didn't work. He even said that during one
Speaker 1: of his rallies. Right, So, I mean, I'm just saying
Speaker 1: it's a whole weird thing. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, does Trump or any of his people really
Speaker 1: know what they should be looking for, whether it's in
Speaker 1: the Epstein files, the Kennedy files, or at the military,
Speaker 1: you know, at the Pentagon, do they know? I mean,
Speaker 1: do you trust? I mean, I don't know. I never
Speaker 1: really watched Pete Hegsett's analysis of the military on TV,
Speaker 1: but it seems to me as though, you know, he
Speaker 1: was right wing, not well informed. So if he's going
Speaker 1: in there with that, and he's already mister expert because
Speaker 1: he served in the military and all that, my question
Speaker 1: is does he even know what he's looking for? You know,
Speaker 1: which is also my question with Elon Musk. Does he
Speaker 1: know what he's looking for when he's trying to find waste?
Speaker 1: Does he know what waste would actually look like? Does
Speaker 1: he know?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, are these not fair questions?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: They're not if you're if you're not on Team Trump,
Speaker 1: and even if you are, I don't think you're allowed
Speaker 1: to ask these questions. You know, Mike, you're either with
Speaker 1: them or against him. You know, it's like the Sith lords.
Speaker 1: You are either with us or you are against us,
Speaker 1: Young Skywalker, you know what I mean? That's all there is.
Speaker 1: Would they speaking absolutely well?
Speaker 3: I wonder, like the way they did the Epstein did,
Speaker 3: if it's just like these are like distractions, Well, of course,
Speaker 3: it doesn't even matter if it flops or doesn't flop.
Speaker 3: It doesn't even matter. You just go onto the next one.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing, is that with the rate at
Speaker 1: which these things are being presented, and the clash with
Speaker 1: you know, you know, the guy from Ukraine, and with
Speaker 1: the tariffs from Canada, and with the you know, the
Speaker 1: different pronouncements about we're gonna do this, and now I've
Speaker 1: made English our official language. All these things keep happening,
Speaker 1: and they're happening so quickly. It reminds me of what
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon said many times, right, which is, remember this
Speaker 1: whole thing, We're gonna flood the zone with just constant
Speaker 1: barrages of things going on so that the media can't
Speaker 1: catch up and our opponents can't catch up to what's happening.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: The thing is, it's just a matter of all this
Speaker 1: crap is going on, and nobody is asking the real question,
Speaker 1: which is with all of this chaos, with all these pronouncements,
Speaker 1: with all these alleged investigations, plus don't forget a lot
Speaker 1: of people probably have the mass deportations are supposed to
Speaker 1: to be happening. They started to happen, right, and international
Speaker 1: deals are being struck. China got ten percent of a tariff.
Speaker 1: Well now Canada and Mexico got twenty five percent tariffs
Speaker 1: going on. We're gonna feel the effects of that. Eventually.
Speaker 1: The stock market took a piss. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: even know what to say about where the market went,
Speaker 1: which I was gonna ask you about, Okay, but nonetheless,
Speaker 1: we don't have time to breathe or catch up on
Speaker 1: this in my mind, and obviously that's being done intentionally.
Speaker 1: But the real question is, if all of this is
Speaker 1: going on on the surface and a lot of it
Speaker 1: is amounting to nothing, what is the real thing that's
Speaker 1: actually happening going on? I mean, are we now striking
Speaker 1: a real estate deal in Gaza? Is that going to
Speaker 1: be the thing? Also, he's dead serious about we're gonna
Speaker 1: take Greenland one way or another. So I don't know
Speaker 1: if you know that, but in the address he said
Speaker 1: that as well. Did you catch that part?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: I turned it off after twenty minutes He's talking about
Speaker 3: Greenland and yet yeah.
Speaker 1: Fair enough is see, this is what I'm saying, is
Speaker 1: that there's so much going on, okay, you know, and
Speaker 1: he's like in the Democrats are standing there against us,
Speaker 1: but you know what, they need to get with the
Speaker 1: program and make make America great again. I'm going to
Speaker 1: revoke the Chips Act, and of course I want to
Speaker 1: back police, but I pardoned the January sixth people because
Speaker 1: that was an atrocity. Yeah, let me just go to
Speaker 1: the highlight here. I know I have a highlight kind
Speaker 1: of cueued up. No, I don't have the audio, but
Speaker 1: I have the I have the situation here where he's
Speaker 1: talking about it. Yeah, the Golden Dome, and I mean,
Speaker 1: these are things he just did in this hour and
Speaker 1: forty minutes, which is one of the longest presidential Well
Speaker 1: you got.
Speaker 3: To really be Yeah, it'sn't sit there for an hour
Speaker 3: and forty minutes. Listen to this an any politician. Yeah,
Speaker 3: yet to be almost out of your mind.
Speaker 1: Yeah, tell me about it. Why do you think I'm
Speaker 1: a little crazy lately?
Speaker 5: Trump?
Speaker 1: Trump on Greenland listen quote.
Speaker 3: I don't care hear the about that's a long time
Speaker 3: do hear anyone talking.
Speaker 1: But Mike, here's the thing. Look at you blowing it
Speaker 1: off after because you're being barraged with so much crap.
Speaker 1: But let me give you a couple of quotes. Trump
Speaker 1: on Greenland. Quote, We're going to get it one way
Speaker 1: or the other. Okay. I also have a message tonight
Speaker 1: for the incredible people of Greenland. This isn't quotes, mister
Speaker 1: Trump said, quote, we strongly support your right to determine
Speaker 1: your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you
Speaker 1: into the United States of America. Mister Trump said the
Speaker 1: territory is important to US national security and that his
Speaker 1: administration is quote working with everybody involved to try and
Speaker 1: get it end quote quote. And I think we're going
Speaker 1: to get it one way or the other end quote.
Speaker 1: Mister Trump said, We're going to get it. This is
Speaker 1: in quotes again. We will keep you safe, we will
Speaker 1: make you rich, and together we will take Greenland to
Speaker 1: high heights like you have never thought possible before. It's
Speaker 1: a very small population, but very very large piece of
Speaker 1: land and very very important for military security. End quote.
Speaker 1: Literally these are quotes from the man. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not making this stuff bup.
Speaker 3: Well, Joe, one thing that's been running in my mind,
Speaker 3: and you're going to talk to Larry Yes about Ukraine.
Speaker 2: But one thing that's in my mind.
Speaker 3: And I plan on thinking about this, Uh yeah, taking
Speaker 3: time to think about this. But I know a year
Speaker 3: ago in the summer, I sent you some emails said
Speaker 3: some of the fact it's all over you know now.
Speaker 3: When I was writing that, I was referring to sort
Speaker 3: of the notion of rational debate or discourse United States
Speaker 3: and in the media, which is what you've been basically
Speaker 3: talking about.
Speaker 1: But now, huh, yes, that's what I've been saying for
Speaker 1: a while now, Is that that I.
Speaker 3: Was referring to in the summer and emotionally thinking, well,
Speaker 3: what is the point of me or anyone you talking.
Speaker 2: About this stuff on that.
Speaker 3: You know, when we're in the media, we're in business
Speaker 3: of former media, when you know the culture we have
Speaker 3: is going down the toilet like this. But now since
Speaker 3: Trump's been in office, you've heard of this Greenland thing,
Speaker 3: and then you know, the tensions have increased.
Speaker 2: It's pretty wild.
Speaker 3: Do you think about the tensions Geopolitical tensions have been
Speaker 3: increased between the United States, Canada, Mexico with the terriffs,
Speaker 3: now Greenland.
Speaker 2: Last night again is Europe?
Speaker 3: You know, advanced when to Europe and basically was a
Speaker 3: musk went over to Europe first in campaign for the
Speaker 3: extreme far right in Germany, whose roots are with the
Speaker 3: head of the party.
Speaker 2: Her father was.
Speaker 3: A Nazi judge, and he's over there campaigning for them.
Speaker 1: And Vance has weird idea. Wait a second, Vance has
Speaker 1: a lot of weird ideas. Anyway, he has this bizarre
Speaker 1: impression in his mind that the First Amendment applies to
Speaker 1: people across the planet, because he's sitting there saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like how they treat free speech. Count well,
Speaker 1: that's very weird.
Speaker 3: Look, what he's really talking about is what I was
Speaker 3: mentioning about this AI company, right, he's those tech guys
Speaker 3: that were supporting Trump that created vance Dance.
Speaker 2: Is himself is the creation of Peter Thiel.
Speaker 1: He's a product of the technocracy. Mike, this isn't democratical
Speaker 1: what you was talking about free speech.
Speaker 3: He's not talking about the First Amendment that we thought
Speaker 3: of as children, uh, you know, in government school. He's
Speaker 3: talking about the rights of the technology companies to not
Speaker 3: be treated as a newspaper or a publication. No, I know,
Speaker 3: but that's that's what he's really talking about. They're right,
Speaker 3: and also the rights to collect everyone's data, privacy to yeah,
Speaker 3: not not to have Europeans protect the privacy of your
Speaker 3: of their citizens.
Speaker 2: But that to him, that's eliminating free speech.
Speaker 1: This is all convolution. But what I'm trying to say
Speaker 1: to you is that the entire discussion is so convoluted
Speaker 1: at this point that people somehow think that they have
Speaker 1: freedom of speech in other places, regardless of whether it's.
Speaker 2: On rine or what.
Speaker 3: The point I was wanted to make with you is that,
Speaker 3: as I said last year, I staid you, it's all over. Well,
Speaker 3: now I haven't. I'm trying to understand this.
Speaker 2: This is all happening in real time.
Speaker 3: You know that what also may be over certainly changing
Speaker 3: as America's role in the world and in and I
Speaker 3: had you know, in a sense it may be over
Speaker 3: to not not in the sense that the United States
Speaker 3: is about to collapse, but that.
Speaker 2: You know, I've read a lot of years ago. I
Speaker 2: read a lot about the.
Speaker 3: Founding fathers, and you know, I've read the writings and
Speaker 3: so forth, the Federalist papers, Jefferson's writings, and you know
Speaker 3: this stuff. And the idea that the United States would
Speaker 3: be that the founders are working for a quote more
Speaker 3: perfect union, Okay, okay, and in the greater Welfare is
Speaker 3: a phrase in the Constitution. Well, the idea of that
Speaker 3: all suggests that you're not perfect, but you're working towards it.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: What Trump is doing is clearly he wants a more
Speaker 3: powerful country.
Speaker 2: That would he always talk about.
Speaker 3: And that's that's a that's much different from thinking that
Speaker 3: you're working towards a very perfect union. And and you know,
Speaker 3: the total abdication of you know, the post war orders.
Speaker 3: What has happened the past couple of weeks, you know,
Speaker 3: and we've been critics of it, but what's he going
Speaker 3: to replace it with? Nothing but pure power politics?
Speaker 2: It looks like indeed, but I don't it's just.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I thought I had two is you have.
Speaker 3: I've read a lot of Roman history, and you know
Speaker 3: Rome became an empire too, And I joked, I think
Speaker 3: I sent you this email.
Speaker 2: I know I sent it to J. P. STILLI I
Speaker 2: think it sent to both of y'all.
Speaker 3: When they chose vance Is to be the vice president,
Speaker 3: I made a joke that I don't remember the name
Speaker 3: of it, but there was a Roman emperor that they
Speaker 3: had one of the Roman empires died and there were
Speaker 3: two emperors, two people that want to be the emperor,
Speaker 3: and they basically bid on it with the Practorian guard,
Speaker 3: and the highest bidder got the position.
Speaker 2: And I was made a joke that, well, that's the
Speaker 2: point we are now when JD.
Speaker 3: Vance was chosen to be vice president, because it looked
Speaker 3: like it was a purchase done by some of these
Speaker 3: technology people. But one thing about the Roman history is
Speaker 3: that there is a rich literature the culture out of
Speaker 3: the Roman Republic in the Roman Empire two and spanned
Speaker 3: almost a thousand years.
Speaker 2: But at some.
Speaker 3: Point five hundred years of the Roman Empire, there is
Speaker 3: really no literature that we really have from it. It's
Speaker 3: just fragments. And I think it's because it just wasn't
Speaker 3: worth preserving. The culture just became junk or whatever.
Speaker 2: And I.
Speaker 3: Suspect that's where we're at now with the United the
Speaker 3: history of the United States.
Speaker 1: Now absolutely true. What has happened here is that we
Speaker 1: have the collapse of what was an American empire that
Speaker 1: was able to exert its influence all across the planet,
Speaker 1: and now.
Speaker 3: With something of a moral foundation, right, you know, right,
Speaker 3: there was this was real, some of it wasn't, but
Speaker 3: there was some basis to it.
Speaker 2: Now there's none.
Speaker 1: Right, there was some basic concept of you know, the
Speaker 1: greater good. We were at one time called the world's policemen,
Speaker 1: were the arbiters of encouraging other people to seek out
Speaker 1: their own freedom, et cetera, et cetera. And yeah, that's done.
Speaker 1: And now we have the dumbed down culture. And some
Speaker 1: people would say that the dumbing down of America. You
Speaker 1: remember that old phrase from the conservatives, right, Oh sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: very popular phrase and with good reason, because it was
Speaker 1: happening in real time. Okay, I'm sorry, but it just
Speaker 1: was happening in real time. We were looking at people,
Speaker 1: you know, losing their ability to have anything but cognitive
Speaker 1: dissonance about their concepts. All we have is people going,
Speaker 1: you know what, I root for this color, I root
Speaker 1: for this party. I believe that anything that is against
Speaker 1: us is evil, and anything that is against us is
Speaker 1: obviously communist, foreign et cetera. And all there is is
Speaker 1: xenophobia and the idea that we have moral superiority, even
Speaker 1: when morality is not part of the play. Again, the
Speaker 1: people that are in control, what do you have? You
Speaker 1: have a cacistocracy where they are some of the worst
Speaker 1: people that have been in control and continue to be
Speaker 1: in control.
Speaker 3: Well maybe, you know, not everyone's good to agree with
Speaker 3: what you just said or what I was saying.
Speaker 1: No, And but to those but the majority, it's wrong.
Speaker 3: Maybe that we're being too pessimistic or wrong. I just say, well,
Speaker 3: you could just go and buy a Milania Trump theme coin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, do it, do it up. But that's where
Speaker 1: we're at is, Yeah, buy your coins, have your you know, cryptocurrency,
Speaker 1: do your thing, root for your team, And that's the
Speaker 1: thing these guys don't just think that, you know, we're wrong.
Speaker 1: They figure that everything that's going on there is right.
Speaker 1: That's right. We should tell Canada where the hell to go,
Speaker 1: that's right. We can own Greenland, who cares, you know what,
Speaker 1: We have military, we don't need to do this. We
Speaker 1: need to support Israel because they deserve it, and we
Speaker 1: can make a really great real estate deal in Israel
Speaker 1: and this is fine to them. And you know what,
Speaker 1: screw that British guy. You can tell them where to
Speaker 1: go because we're America. How dare you even say anything
Speaker 1: to Trump, like correct them about whether it was twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen or twenty fifteen when CRIMEA was taken. You know, hey,
Speaker 1: screw that. He's right. And that's the thing. Mit is right,
Speaker 1: and Trump is right, and that's the thing, and the
Speaker 1: majority just agree with that, and anything other is bad.
Speaker 1: And I gotta tell you this is what I basically
Speaker 1: was complaining about for a long time, is that that
Speaker 1: we're going to get to this point. And people said,
Speaker 1: you're being ridiculous, just like you know, this Greenland thing.
Speaker 1: The reason why I pointed it out is because it
Speaker 1: was a joke, right, remember Mike, Oh, come on, he's kidding.
Speaker 1: He's going to make Canada the fifty first state. He's kidding. No,
Speaker 1: he's serious. And this is where we're at. People think
Speaker 1: that those decrees, those executive orders are like kingly decrees.
Speaker 1: They think that that's the way it works. Whether it
Speaker 1: does or doesn't we could argue about. But the truth is,
Speaker 1: we know that they're supposed to pass laws, they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be money allocated by Congress, and whether they run
Speaker 1: a rubber stamp it or not, they have to at
Speaker 1: least go through the process of rubber stamping it. But
Speaker 1: not according to these people. He said it, he's the boss.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's the way they think our government works
Speaker 1: because they have no idea about the framework that was there.
Speaker 1: They have no idea about you know, and it's all good.
Speaker 1: You don't need people that are informed. They can do
Speaker 1: what they want and they'll drop stuff. And I guarantee
Speaker 1: you there are people that think those Epstein files were great,
Speaker 1: but you know a whole lot of people who actually
Speaker 1: read them, that didn't just retweet and say, hey, we
Speaker 1: want again. The people that actually read this stuff go,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, something's missing you and I reading the
Speaker 1: JFK files like I've been saying for the past couple
Speaker 1: of weeks on my show, I got people coming to
Speaker 1: me that are Trump supporters, saying, aren't you happy now
Speaker 1: he released all the JFK stuff. They think it was
Speaker 1: done the moment he put pen to paper and signed
Speaker 1: his name and did that signing ceremony. Look it's done.
Speaker 1: You see what I'm saying here? Yeah, this is where
Speaker 1: we're at. Now. Could we do a standout thing? Could
Speaker 1: we be unique in this time of interesting times? I
Speaker 1: think we could, Mike, we could do something different, and
Speaker 1: we could try and inform people who want to be informed.
Speaker 1: But we got to recognize that that's not a big
Speaker 1: audience at the moment. Which, by the way, what do
Speaker 1: you think about the twists and turns in the stock market?
Speaker 1: Just before we go, because I got to get to Larry,
Speaker 1: But I mean, truthfully, what do you think about where
Speaker 1: that's at and where our economy is heading just this year?
Speaker 1: Where do you think we're going to land on all this?
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, he said he was going
Speaker 1: to get the egg. He spent time at the address
Speaker 1: talking about the egg prices, how they're going to fix that.
Speaker 1: But don't worry, We inherited a big disaster from Biden.
Speaker 1: It's going to take a little effort, but don't worry.
Speaker 1: He's going to fix all of that too. But anyway,
Speaker 1: any any thoughts on them?
Speaker 3: Oh, I think this is a call before the storm
Speaker 3: and the stock market went up twenty two years in
Speaker 3: a row.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's It's just I don't think it's
Speaker 3: going to do much this year one way or the other.
Speaker 3: I think it's just going up and down.
Speaker 1: So we're not due for a massive correction.
Speaker 2: We're just due for I hope, I hope. I mean,
Speaker 2: if i'm that's what's gonna happen.
Speaker 3: But I'm thinking this is gonna have its ups and
Speaker 3: downs but basically go nowhere but eventually go splat.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna have choppy seas for this.
Speaker 2: Year, that's what I think.
Speaker 1: But it's not really gonna crash, and it's not really
Speaker 1: gonna climb. It's just gonna dip and bounce and dip
Speaker 1: and bounce. That's what it is.
Speaker 2: Hey, I'm just curious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but see, but there you go. And that's what
Speaker 1: we have is a lot of noise and I can't
Speaker 1: figure out which dog is being wagged or if there
Speaker 1: are you know how many tails the dog has, you
Speaker 1: know the old adage about wagging the dog instead of
Speaker 1: right where they would distract you with something else, so
Speaker 1: you ignored a war. That's the only thing I'm actually
Speaker 1: concerned with is if we're actually going to step into
Speaker 1: something here where there will indeed be a war, if
Speaker 1: you notice, during that White House thing, and this is
Speaker 1: what I'll close on, because it's gonna bridge into Larry.
Speaker 1: During that White House thing, Zelenski tried to say to
Speaker 1: him and imperfect English, which of course you know, no
Speaker 1: patience for that. It's not the guy's first language. And
Speaker 1: after all, he was, you know, a reality show TV
Speaker 1: guy was playing the piano with his penis not long ago, Zolensky,
Speaker 1: that's true story. But the point is that that guy
Speaker 1: who was sitting there and is that war in his
Speaker 1: own country is trying to tell him that, look, I
Speaker 1: know you think you got oceans protecting you, mister president,
Speaker 1: but eventually this stuff, whatever goes on over in Europe
Speaker 1: that you think is not going to affect you directly,
Speaker 1: will eventually have influence over things that do affect you here.
Speaker 1: And that was one of the greatest things where you know,
Speaker 1: Trump was very mad and Dvance was very mad and
Speaker 1: everybody got angry. How dare you disrespect us? When he
Speaker 1: was trying to say that eventually what goes on in
Speaker 1: Europe is going to affect you here. Whether you have
Speaker 1: a big ocean and you know there isn't planes directly
Speaker 1: flying over your head right now, eventually this will affect you.
Speaker 1: You have no right to tell us how we're gonna feel,
Speaker 1: because he said you'll feel the effect. You have no
Speaker 1: right to tell us how we feel in America. We
Speaker 1: made you into a tough guy, that whole thing. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you saw it right. So the point is that
Speaker 1: I think that's relevant. And all Zelensky was trying to
Speaker 1: say is that, you know what, the world is a
Speaker 1: little smaller than it used to be, and indeed an
Speaker 1: ocean could logistically protect you from a lot of things.
Speaker 1: But eventually the destruction that is you know had in
Speaker 1: Europe does begin to affect the United States. Unless you
Speaker 1: think you're a complete island onto your own, which, regardless
Speaker 1: of what people think, I don't believe we are capable
Speaker 1: of being a complete island on our own. Now other
Speaker 1: people think we are we have our own guess we
Speaker 1: have our own this, We have our own that we
Speaker 1: don't need anything else. But that being the case, why
Speaker 1: do we need the fifty first state of Canada? And
Speaker 1: why is it that we need Greenland so bad? Just asking?
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know where all this is going, Mike.
Speaker 1: That's the other thing. I don't know what the trajectory is.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure about where our war footing is going
Speaker 1: to be a year from now, and I don't know
Speaker 1: if you have any ideas, but Ukraine may play a
Speaker 1: role in that, And I guess we're going to talk
Speaker 1: to Larry Hancock about it coming up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm looking forward to hear me too.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Mike Wallstreet Window dot com. People can still
Speaker 1: sign up for their emails over there. But also I
Speaker 1: urge you to get the book The War State. It
Speaker 1: is relevant and might get more relevant. In fact, you
Speaker 1: might have to write an update on it coming up soon, okay,
Speaker 1: because it's going to have to go beyond the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: We're now a quarter century into this one, and boy
Speaker 1: is it getting interesting. But also why the Vietnam War?
Speaker 1: And hopefully we'll see another volume of that because that
Speaker 1: was planned as a three volume set. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you're going to be writing more on that or
Speaker 1: if you're going to have other things to write about,
Speaker 1: but I can't wait to see it because your writing
Speaker 1: style makes it very relatable, digestible, and teaching you about
Speaker 1: a lot of sophisticated parts of history that might be
Speaker 1: ignored by a lot of other authors. So, Mike, anything
Speaker 1: you want to say in closing, I just again endorse
Speaker 1: your books. And you can see him on the sidebardochelly
Speaker 1: dot com. And if you don't own it, you should
Speaker 1: own it. And I'll tell you what. If you already
Speaker 1: own it, get it as a gift for somebody else,
Speaker 1: because you know Mother's Day coming up, and I don't
Speaker 1: care the summers. Kids need to read these books if
Speaker 1: they're interested in history at all, especially American history. And
Speaker 1: Mike makes a lot.
Speaker 6: Of the war State by Michael Swanson, explains the great
Speaker 6: national transformation that took place, and put the Kennedy presidency
Speaker 6: in the context of the times, and reveals never before
Speaker 6: published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would
Speaker 6: not have been assassinated if he had been president two
Speaker 6: hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context
Speaker 6: of the Cold War and the rise of the national
Speaker 6: security state. Before World War II, the United States was
Speaker 6: a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became
Speaker 6: an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only
Speaker 6: wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short
Speaker 6: range missiles on the island arn't with nuclear warheads that
Speaker 6: they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers.
Speaker 6: Their invasion could have led to a Third World War,
Speaker 6: and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War
Speaker 6: State by Michael Swanson revealed why, and we'll show you
Speaker 6: what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The
Speaker 6: War State dot com, oh Chili dot Com.
Speaker 7: In Denial The Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks
Speaker 7: by Larryhancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 7: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 7: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 7: It exposes things about.
Speaker 8: The Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written
Speaker 8: about before. It shows why it really failed and why
Speaker 8: the United States did not earn from it. It also
Speaker 8: shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with
Speaker 8: more success. This is the book that puts what some
Speaker 8: want to deny into the light.
Speaker 9: In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 9: For more information, go to Larry Hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 9: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 9: com in digital or.
Speaker 7: Physical force through conversation.
Speaker 10: Yo, yo, this Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action
Speaker 10: podcast presented by Wall Street Window, and you are listening
Speaker 10: to the o'chill effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 11: Hey, hey, we are Hey, Hey we go hey we
Speaker 11: hey hey.
Speaker 7: Go ahead call it the truth about the JFA assassination.
Speaker 1: Right, well, what do you want to know? Dy Baker's
Speaker 1: wild claim Oswald girlfriends you knew Ruby and Barry handswer weapons.
Speaker 1: Really I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 3: But okay, And trying to prevent the murder of John.
Speaker 7: Kennedy come on now, has a.
Speaker 6: Real effort on the day assassination claim.
Speaker 1: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 1: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 1: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 1: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 1: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judithbary
Speaker 1: Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed
Speaker 1: if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k
Speaker 1: I A S J F K at aol dot com.
Speaker 1: It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many,
Speaker 1: many fantastic claims Judith ary Baker in her own words.
Speaker 7: Thank you for all the great information.
Speaker 12: Episode of the Yes.
Speaker 5: Wordy Honey Today?
Speaker 13: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 13: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 13: nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson with
Speaker 13: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 13: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 13: Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 13: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 13: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swans.
Speaker 14: Around Time of.
Speaker 2: Canada, what's your name?
Speaker 11: Around the Allia?
Speaker 2: The last no Labs has a times come?
Speaker 14: Why don't it's one time around? So you can will
Speaker 14: burn it on the.
Speaker 2: No No.
Speaker 10: No no, you've seen the farest.
Speaker 1: Wandering one widing for the smallest.
Speaker 14: Drunken sex in three districts alive with regulated the lakes
Speaker 14: up and don't do it. I've never been.
Speaker 2: No hell hell he he he.
Speaker 7: Man was sing final.
Speaker 14: I got the said that Donna Way said, pop you
Speaker 14: I a soldan family company.
Speaker 15: Now the vieus expressed by callers schools, there anyone else
Speaker 15: who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com.
Speaker 15: You not necessarily reflect the US of Lly dot com
Speaker 15: or and we are not responsible for getting stupidity which
Speaker 15: might have issued.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Get ready.
Speaker 1: The second segment of this Wednesday O'Kelly effect. And yeah,
Speaker 1: it's only the fifth day of March, but uh boy,
Speaker 1: a lot has gone on in the past couple of months.
Speaker 1: And in this segment slash hour, I have with me
Speaker 1: Larry Hancock, of course, is the author of many many books,
Speaker 1: and tonight I think I'm gonna have to mention creating chaos, okay,
Speaker 1: uh in denial, shadow warfare, surprise attack and why because
Speaker 1: I think all of these things either are currently or
Speaker 1: will be relevant very very soon. We're gonna talk tonight
Speaker 1: about Ukraine, and this is one of those topics that
Speaker 1: always gets me in trouble, So why not let's do
Speaker 1: it with Larry. And I love you, Larry. I'm glad
Speaker 1: you're here. He takes up a lot of space on
Speaker 1: my bookshelf. And why you could learn for yourself by
Speaker 1: going to Larrydshhandcock dot com, follow his blog, buy his books.
Speaker 1: I recommend them all and I'll tell you one special
Speaker 1: recommendation one more time for the Oswald Puzzle, co authored
Speaker 1: by David Boylan, and I'll tell you something. It is
Speaker 1: an extra special book. I love all of Larry's work,
Speaker 1: all of it. Okay, some I have more favorites than others.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you Unidentified as a cool book, but
Speaker 1: Creating Chaos is one of my favorites. In addition to
Speaker 1: someone would have Talked, but of course that's a classic.
Speaker 1: But the Oswald Puzzle, this is an essential piece of
Speaker 1: reading for understanding Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassination of Kennedy JFK.
Speaker 1: That is. And oh, by the way, maybe we'll touch
Speaker 1: on that before we're done, but maybe not, because we
Speaker 1: got a lot to do here, Larry. You know, there
Speaker 1: is the concept of what's going on with the administration
Speaker 1: and all that, and I tried to address it with
Speaker 1: Mike as best I could, but I still stay by
Speaker 1: my stance, which is, how the hell do you even
Speaker 1: know how to evaluate what they may or may not
Speaker 1: release in this administration given you have no idea what
Speaker 1: they're informed about, came before, is currently available, could possibly
Speaker 1: be available, or even is relevant, no idea, And especially
Speaker 1: with this group, how do you know what they're informed
Speaker 1: on and not? I don't know. I can't evaluate it,
Speaker 1: And I'm not even going to ask you a comment
Speaker 1: about it, because, hey, why not what happened in the
Speaker 1: White House the other day with Vladimir Zelensky and the
Speaker 1: President and you disrespected us. You're a tough guy. I
Speaker 1: don't understand. I don't know any of the history. I
Speaker 1: love that he admitted he has no idea about the history.
Speaker 1: He has no idea what happened when he wasn't in office,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't matter because he's there to make a deal.
Speaker 1: And that was an interesting stance to take, and Zelenski
Speaker 1: tried to explain to him, you know, eventually, you may
Speaker 1: feel some of this stuff going on in Europe over here,
Speaker 1: even though you have an ocean to defend you just
Speaker 1: saying and of course he has no right to tell
Speaker 1: us how we're meant to feel and etc. But man,
Speaker 1: I wonder if you wouldn't comment on that spectacle that
Speaker 1: went on there, tell us what you think of it,
Speaker 1: because the initial reactions from almost every listener I have
Speaker 1: was that's a staged event that occurred for a reason.
Speaker 1: And I said, well, you know on some hands, yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely true, because they set it up this way, this
Speaker 1: is what they've been doing. Here's your meeting with everybody
Speaker 1: sitting down, then they go to two podiums. Except well,
Speaker 1: in this case, they skipped the podium press conference, didn't
Speaker 1: they because Zelensky left kind of unhappy and he didn't
Speaker 1: have He also didn't have I think you're back, Larry, maybe,
Speaker 1: but he didn't have a letter from King Charles delivered
Speaker 1: to him this time. He just had the problem with
Speaker 1: Zelensky and the White House meeting and then no post
Speaker 1: conference press conference. But anyway, I wonder if you wouldn't
Speaker 1: comment on what happened in the White House first and
Speaker 1: then talk to us about what is happening and is
Speaker 1: gonna happen regarding Ukraine. Uh Oh, I may have lost Larry.
Speaker 1: He seems to be on, but let's check because I
Speaker 1: might have to go to a quick break here. All
Speaker 1: of a sudden, I'm reconnecting to Larry. Well, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna do, guys, I'm gonna take a quick
Speaker 1: break and get Larry Hancock back on. I was actually
Speaker 1: talking a little long just to sort of keep him
Speaker 1: in the loop there and make sure that he was
Speaker 1: still with us. But we may have lost Larry in
Speaker 1: the meantime. But I really do want to get his
Speaker 1: take on not only the White House, okay, but you
Speaker 1: know what occurred there and all, but I also want
Speaker 1: to get his take on what's going to happen, what
Speaker 1: is happening, the state of diplomacy, the state of the
Speaker 1: state regarding the US, and not just what Trump fed
Speaker 1: us right, you know in Congress the other day. So yeah,
Speaker 1: we're going to get to all of that. We're going
Speaker 1: to get to all of that when I.
Speaker 8: Come back to the bridge.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yo.
Speaker 10: This Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast presented
Speaker 10: by Wall Street Window, and you are listening to the
Speaker 10: o'chill Effect Revelation through Conversation.
Speaker 16: O'chilly dot com dot com Radio network. Do you like history,
Speaker 16: real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 16: the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia.
Speaker 13: By author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before
Speaker 13: that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this.
Speaker 13: Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in
Speaker 13: Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get
Speaker 13: your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam
Speaker 13: War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 11: Governments, Thanks, governments, Thanks.
Speaker 12: Fine, fine, Thanks the paper. I don't know what day
Speaker 12: talking about.
Speaker 1: Oh no, don't know what that meaning on.
Speaker 12: I don't know what they talk about. The government's thanks thanks, thanks, thanks,
Speaker 12: thanks tanks, Thanks fire by God, No, no.
Speaker 1: And they don't know what they want to do.
Speaker 2: Make it double fun people cleaning and change, change, change
Speaker 2: and armor.
Speaker 6: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 6: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 6: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 6: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 6: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 6: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 6: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 6: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 6: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 6: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 6: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 6: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 6: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 6: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 6: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 6: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 6: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get ready for it. Larry Hancock is back
Speaker 1: with us. We had a little technical issue there, but
Speaker 1: that's okay. I know he was listening to me talk
Speaker 1: about here we are the White House meeting, which was
Speaker 1: the sit down press conference before we get into the
Speaker 1: podium driven press conference. Except the podium driven press conference
Speaker 1: never happened because well, you guys heard me already, enough
Speaker 1: out of me, Larry again, love the fact that you're
Speaker 1: on with me, and again Larrydashancock dot com go over there,
Speaker 1: because I know people skipped my commercials and went straight
Speaker 1: to this part. So anyway, Larry, your impressions. First about
Speaker 1: the fact that, like I said, people's first reactions to
Speaker 1: me were, this is a staged event, this was some
Speaker 1: sort of puppet show put on just for the media,
Speaker 1: and indeed partially true. But then again, how true is it?
Speaker 1: Or maybe you want to go at it a different way.
Speaker 1: I trust you, Larry. First off, how you doing? And second,
Speaker 1: go ahead and tell us about this White House half
Speaker 1: a press conference that went on.
Speaker 5: I'm doing fine, other than, like everybody else, at least
Speaker 5: in America, trying to live in a state of utter chaos.
Speaker 5: I don't think can probably be good for any of
Speaker 5: us mentally and physically, but otherwise generally speaking, other than that,
Speaker 5: if I totally isolated myself from the world, I would
Speaker 5: be fine. But yeah, Chuck, First of all, I think
Speaker 5: there is a very objective way to look at this,
Speaker 5: and that is compare what happened with what should have happened,
Speaker 5: and what should have happened. As you said you alluded
Speaker 5: to it is, you know, you have a public press
Speaker 5: conference at the end of a meeting where there have
Speaker 5: been serious discussions behind closed doors and you've either reached
Speaker 5: agreements or you haven't. I mean, in many cases you
Speaker 5: don't reach certain agreements and you step back and you
Speaker 5: agree on a joint protocol on what can you can
Speaker 5: say to the world about what you did agree on
Speaker 5: and what you didn't And that happens all the time
Speaker 5: in diplomatic meetings. You know, that's what we should have seen.
Speaker 5: What we saw and as you said, that should have
Speaker 5: been in front of the press in a podium type environment.
Speaker 5: That never occurs. You know that the two people are
Speaker 5: standing up and they're reading from a release. So and
Speaker 5: there's a typical anomalist one shouldn't have been that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: One second, because there's been a typical pattern here, even
Speaker 1: when the British Prime Minister came, other world leaders have come.
Speaker 1: Just in these first six weeks, we've seen the sit
Speaker 1: down with the yellow chairs and people lined up on
Speaker 1: each side and there's sort of the press photo op.
Speaker 1: Then there's a second part. And even the British Prime
Speaker 1: Minister who came and brought the letter from King Charles right,
Speaker 1: he wrote a lovely letter. This is great. I was
Speaker 1: making jokes. You know, maybe he's gonna fall in love
Speaker 1: again like you did with Kim Jong UN's letters. But
Speaker 1: I mean, nonetheless, here's your presentation, Oh, mister Trump, We're
Speaker 1: glad to meet with you, this and that, and then
Speaker 1: they go to let's talk and take questions from the press,
Speaker 1: really at the podiums where we have our flags behind us. Right,
Speaker 1: this has been the standard pressers that have been arranged
Speaker 1: by the administration thus far. So we know there was
Speaker 1: a pattern break here because they didn't do the second
Speaker 1: part of it at all.
Speaker 5: Right, they did not do the second part. And you
Speaker 5: never have a third party like Vance, you know. That's
Speaker 5: that makes no sense at all. You never have a
Speaker 5: third party in the diplomatics, you know, because these two
Speaker 5: people are speaking for their countries, you know. So there's
Speaker 5: no reason to have Vance, certainly, for no reason for
Speaker 5: a person like Trump to have Vance speaking, because Trump's
Speaker 5: whole history, Trump speaks for himself. So the mere fact
Speaker 5: that Vance is there is again anomalous and suggesting something's
Speaker 5: being set up. So no, this was I think one
Speaker 5: of the things that drove it, and I think one
Speaker 5: of the things we're going to see throughout this is
Speaker 5: Trump's agenda is very different from all the other diplomatic
Speaker 5: meetings are going about on about Ukraine. It's that's why
Speaker 5: it's going to look different than all of those other meetings.
Speaker 5: Trump's Trump has very clearly stated what he's focused on,
Speaker 5: and he is not focused on dealing with Russian aggression,
Speaker 5: and he refuses to acknowledge Russian aggression. Trump is totally
Speaker 5: focused on peace, and I hate to be I hate
Speaker 5: to be, you know, like conspiracy orient since we know
Speaker 5: we don't do that. But I have seen it positive
Speaker 5: that the reason Trump is so focused on peace is
Speaker 5: that he wants a legacy, and one of his legacies
Speaker 5: is that if a peace bringer, even if he has
Speaker 5: to force it. And here's so we're talking piece. He
Speaker 5: is not talking what's happening in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing is that how do you get
Speaker 1: to peace without facing the circumstance. See, that's the problem
Speaker 1: here as far as I'm concerned, I don't know about
Speaker 1: the history when I wasn't in office at that time.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter. Wow, Okay, you're telling this guy doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: and you're telling him you're being a tough guy. You're
Speaker 1: being difficult about this, and he doesn't have the history
Speaker 1: and he's trying to say to him, look, you don't
Speaker 1: want to see I don't want to see spire. Even
Speaker 1: mocked him, I don't want to see spire. And he's going, look,
Speaker 1: I would take a seaspire. But Putin doesn't stick to
Speaker 1: his agreements. At least that's what I heard Zelenski trying
Speaker 1: to say. Maybe I'm wrong here. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: I don't think he's looking for peace. He wants a deal,
Speaker 1: which is different than peace.
Speaker 5: Now, you're exactly right, Jack, And I didn't say, but
Speaker 5: to him, Trump is how many he wrote the book right.
Speaker 5: Everything to Trump is a deal, right, and that means
Speaker 5: that nothing is relevant other than what goes on during
Speaker 5: the deal making. He cares about what's on the table,
Speaker 5: you know, he doesn't care about the history. He doesn't,
Speaker 5: which is again totally different than diplomacy, which has to
Speaker 5: consider history and it has to consider contacts, and it
Speaker 5: has to consider promises and broken promises. And that's just
Speaker 5: totally foreign to Trump's way of thinking. And I think
Speaker 5: that's one of the things that keeps shocking Zelenski, and
Speaker 5: I think it did shock a lot of the other
Speaker 5: European leaders. Although they've come to realize what we're realizing now.
Speaker 5: But Zelensky, you've got to you know, if you're Zelenski,
Speaker 5: how can you deal with the situation where the person
Speaker 5: you're talking to doesn't accept the fact that you've been invaded,
Speaker 5: that you've been brutalized, that genocide has been committed against you,
Speaker 5: and that the other party in all of this has
Speaker 5: never kept a promise in his history. Putin has never
Speaker 5: ever ever kept a promise that he's made. So Zelensky,
Speaker 5: he put yourself in his position. How are you going
Speaker 5: to set down with this guy who says I don't
Speaker 5: care about any of that, you know, I just want
Speaker 5: a deal. Now he may have heard this, may he
Speaker 5: may have learned his lesson the hard way, but you
Speaker 5: can understand why it would be difficult, especially when you're
Speaker 5: speaking to someone like Trump, of like, what do we
Speaker 5: what's this dialogue? What are we really talking about? I
Speaker 5: thought I was here to talk about bringing peace and
Speaker 5: you just want a deal. And you're not even give
Speaker 5: security guarantees? Right, you know, no, no diplomatic arrangement like
Speaker 5: this could occur without security detailed degree and you're not
Speaker 5: even going to talk about security. I don't blame Zelensky.
Speaker 5: He wasn't being disrespectful of the United States. He was
Speaker 5: totally at sea in dealing with Trump personally.
Speaker 1: Well, and here's the difficult thing in my mind is
Speaker 1: that now you have to go down to brass tax here.
Speaker 1: Whether it's right or wrong, this is what Selinsky's confronted
Speaker 1: with now. So that's the only partner he's got that
Speaker 1: could even possibly say something to putin. Otherwise he's back
Speaker 1: to being on his own. It's almost pointless to involve
Speaker 1: the United States now. I mean, we have a cessation
Speaker 1: in military aid, right that's supposed to have stopped. I
Speaker 1: believe I read today now it's officially stopped. So there
Speaker 1: goes that he's left with whoever is European allies are here,
Speaker 1: and I think Trump is going to take it as
Speaker 1: don't even work with Zelinsky, like he has really set
Speaker 1: him out on an island now of his own right
Speaker 1: or am I reading this wrong?
Speaker 5: And well, I think the one thing that speaks there
Speaker 5: are two things that speaks to that Trump and the
Speaker 5: United States the American public don't have a realistic concept
Speaker 5: of what's going on in this war in Ukraine. Trump
Speaker 5: doesn't want to know about it. And doesn't really care
Speaker 5: about it, nor does vance the American public are not
Speaker 5: seeing it. The media is not covering the war. I
Speaker 5: mean there are bloggers and military websites where you can
Speaker 5: see the war being really covered. You can see in
Speaker 5: Europe there are the media is covering the war from
Speaker 5: a you know, what's really happening on the front lines,
Speaker 5: what's really happening with weapons and ammunition, But that's not
Speaker 5: being covered in the US. In fact, every day I
Speaker 5: look at the US media, and the US media is
Speaker 5: repeating the Russian version of the war for whatever reason
Speaker 5: haven't quite figured out. And that's all media, you know,
Speaker 5: right left indifferent. None of the media is covering. Yeah,
Speaker 5: they'll posts that Russia just took two small hamlets. They
Speaker 5: won't posts that the Ukrainian counter attacks took them back.
Speaker 5: So it always sounds like Russia is winning. So I
Speaker 5: guess one of the things that we're facing ears there
Speaker 5: are two wars in Ukraine that are going on, the
Speaker 5: one that's being covered in the United States and the
Speaker 5: one that Trump really doesn't even want to talk about,
Speaker 5: and the one that's going on in Europe. And at
Speaker 5: least do see some media coverage of the fact that
Speaker 5: the Europeans are about to take this war on by
Speaker 5: themselves Macron and the French and the British, and now
Speaker 5: after the German elections, our understanding that they no longer
Speaker 5: are going to be able to reply rely on the US.
Speaker 5: And if you read today's news statements and about the
Speaker 5: meetings that are going on in Europe with now there's
Speaker 5: discussion of actually offering Francis nuclear umbrella to the rest
Speaker 5: of Europe. There are new pledges of building new arms
Speaker 5: arments factory. Ukraine is about to not be reliant on
Speaker 5: the US. Now there's going to be about a four
Speaker 5: or five month gap where there is a stretch, but
Speaker 5: Ukraine is not going to be nearly as reliant on
Speaker 5: the US as it has been, or that Trump thinks
Speaker 5: it will be. He's obviously he thinks everything centers around
Speaker 5: the US, but that actually is not true.
Speaker 1: Well, and here's the thing, just from a pragmatic standpoint, right,
Speaker 1: you'd have to say that eventually through attrition alone, Zelensky
Speaker 1: is stuck here without significant assistance from somebody.
Speaker 5: Right, No, I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say what
Speaker 5: Zelensky is stuck with is the is the the lines
Speaker 5: of combat where they are now. Zelensky and I think
Speaker 5: that is true. That is something I think that has
Speaker 5: to be. There's no way until Russia collapses financial, until
Speaker 5: it it's dragged down by a war economy, which has
Speaker 5: now fallen into a strictly a war economy. There's no
Speaker 5: way that Ukraine, with our support or without our support
Speaker 5: of the US or anybody, is going to retake the
Speaker 5: twenty percent of territory it's lost. That's absolutely true. There's
Speaker 5: also no indication that there's going to be any break
Speaker 5: in the front lines or that Russia is going to
Speaker 5: suddenly move west at a great pace, which is not
Speaker 5: done for six months now. So that's what Zelensky has
Speaker 5: to face. To some extent, I would say, I had
Speaker 5: to say this, but you know, Trump is is right.
Speaker 5: At some point in time, there has to be a
Speaker 5: negotiation accepting the fact that Russia, because of its size
Speaker 5: and its manpower, you know, claimed a certain amount of
Speaker 5: territory and you're which is now almost totally destroyed by
Speaker 5: the way, unfortunately, but you're going to have to deal
Speaker 5: with that. So to that extent, I would say yes,
Speaker 5: But to the thought that Zelenski or Ukraine is not
Speaker 5: going to be able to hold the fronts holding now
Speaker 5: on they're doing a pretty good job at that. The
Speaker 5: much touted Russian winter advance did not happen.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know what it is. I'm trying to voice
Speaker 1: what it is that I'm seeing here from the American adage,
Speaker 1: because the American attitude is pretty much, well, you know,
Speaker 1: to hell with them, we don't need to support them,
Speaker 1: and which I find strange because I've never seen this before,
Speaker 1: and I see an odd agreement with the Russian version
Speaker 1: of events, like you pointed out, all the media has
Speaker 1: gone there and you know, I said this months ago,
Speaker 1: and people said, no, that's not true. You know, the
Speaker 1: left wing media is this way, and I'm like, no, no,
Speaker 1: they're all lining up to just parrot what is coming
Speaker 1: from Russia today. RTI. It might as well be Rtie
Speaker 1: feeding everybody. And people said, and in my media analysis
Speaker 1: is pretty damn good. I'm sorry, it just always is.
Speaker 1: I can predict things, I can see trends that it
Speaker 1: seems as though it takes other people many months to
Speaker 1: accept or to recognize this is an absolute this is
Speaker 1: the way it's going, which is strange to me because
Speaker 1: you know, about two and a half three years ago
Speaker 1: when this all started, which I'm amazed that it's gone
Speaker 1: on as long as it has. There was a very
Speaker 1: supportive for Ukraine, the people of Ukraine attitude among a
Speaker 1: whole lot of our media, our corporate media, even now,
Speaker 1: our alt media always went in Putin's pocket right away
Speaker 1: and they've stayed there. And it's about denocification, and it's
Speaker 1: about all these things that look, you know, just like
Speaker 1: the and I've been told that I was completely incorrect
Speaker 1: about Crimea really wanting to go to Russia and all
Speaker 1: of that, and again we're being told the same thing.
Speaker 1: This is, you know, Russian people who want to rejoin
Speaker 1: the Russian Federation and they need to be able to
Speaker 1: do that. But again, Ukraine is only vulnerable in my mind,
Speaker 1: because they were convinced to let go of the nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons that they could have held onto some years ago,
Speaker 1: and I think that might have changed the equation. And
Speaker 1: everybody talks about, well, NATO's encroachment on Russia has been
Speaker 1: the thing surrounding Russia. And I'm very confused because of
Speaker 1: this shifting narrative that's gone on here where it's like
Speaker 1: and I don't expect and people. Some people say, you
Speaker 1: know what it's because you think that Russia is still
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. No, I don't think that it is
Speaker 1: a different thing. It is a totally different state. I've
Speaker 1: been into that, and I'm not going to go into
Speaker 1: analyzing Putin again because I've said what I got to
Speaker 1: say there and I stand by it. This is a
Speaker 1: guy who figured out that organized crime was good enough
Speaker 1: to bring into the government because that would give him
Speaker 1: an infrastructure, and it's worked out well for him. Okay,
Speaker 1: the oligarchs and organized criminals are the same guys. It
Speaker 1: just is what it is, and it's not a bad strategy.
Speaker 1: He's been very intelligent about this and he's held this
Speaker 1: together very well, very powerful, I mean again not trying
Speaker 1: to make moral judgments about it, Fairly intelligent, strategically all
Speaker 1: the way around. Great. But the thing is, I still
Speaker 1: see this as a larger nation preying upon a smaller one,
Speaker 1: and I don't see how they could sustain this. I'm
Speaker 1: amazed they sustained it as long as they have because
Speaker 1: just pragmatically, again, they're going to run out of man
Speaker 1: power even if they have the resources. Manpower is down.
Speaker 1: A lot of the country has been destroyed. Not the
Speaker 1: capital city, but a lot of the country appears destroyed,
Speaker 1: depending on who's reporting you look at overseas, but in
Speaker 1: the American media not so much, not much at all really,
Speaker 1: except here we are. This is what we're faced with
Speaker 1: and here's the bottom line. So what am I to
Speaker 1: take from this there?
Speaker 5: Well, I think what we take about it America generally,
Speaker 5: Europeans are much better at history than America is. They've
Speaker 5: had more of it, and they pay attention to it,
Speaker 5: and they've lived it, and we have never lived European history.
Speaker 5: It puzzles me to think that anybody thinks that Eastern
Speaker 5: Europe was Russian, because Eastern Europe was a whole series
Speaker 5: of independent nations, small nations forever, and there was a
Speaker 5: Russian Empire and thee it overtook some territory, but most
Speaker 5: of the nations were talking about This only happened after
Speaker 5: World War Two, when when Stalin told his allies that basically,
Speaker 5: and this is literal paraphrasing, any place we occupy becomes Russia,
Speaker 5: and any place we occupy we will rule with our
Speaker 5: political system, and that meant all of Eastern Europe. That's
Speaker 5: when all of these countries became Soviet Russia. As soon
Speaker 5: as they had a chance to leave Soviet the Soviet Union,
Speaker 5: they left. You know, that should tell you right there
Speaker 5: that you know, there were a lot of people that
Speaker 5: were not happy, you know that, Oh good, the Soviet
Speaker 5: Union collapsed, we can be independent again. That's what they wanted.
Speaker 5: So those people that somehow think this was all Russian
Speaker 5: to begin, when eastern Ukraine was only Russian to the
Speaker 5: extent that Stalin settled it with Russians after the war
Speaker 5: to take advantage of the industrial capabilities of eastern Ukraine.
Speaker 5: And as you said earlier, what came out of that,
Speaker 5: you had a whole series of oligarchs in eastern Ukraine
Speaker 5: that were tied to Moscow, and when other parts of
Speaker 5: Ukraine decided they were mooring oriented towards Western culture. That's
Speaker 5: generated a real power struggle. And so we've talked about that.
Speaker 5: I talked about that in Creating Chaos. I would defy
Speaker 5: anyone to read that book and counter the story that
Speaker 5: I'm just describing, because that is history. But we don't
Speaker 5: Europe knows all that. See, we don't know all that
Speaker 5: Europe knows all that Europe knows NATO as a military
Speaker 5: organization was never a threat to Russia. I mean, we're
Speaker 5: talking about NATO. It's like even Trump were going, NATO
Speaker 5: is not a threat, it's not spending enough money, it's
Speaker 5: a military So it can't be that NATO was threatening Russia.
Speaker 5: That was never in the cards. The threat was the
Speaker 5: fact that democracy was threatening the Soviet Union and it's
Speaker 5: you know, Soviet states. And that goes all the way
Speaker 5: back to something we talked about. This this democratic initiative
Speaker 5: that they came to fear so badly started under Ronald
Speaker 5: Reagan in nineteen eighty three with a program called NED
Speaker 5: which was funded and American money started going to fund
Speaker 5: democratic activities around the world, including Eastern Europe. Bush, the
Speaker 5: first Bush, reinvigorated that whole program in two thousand and
Speaker 5: two with his own democracy in Issie. That's not NATO
Speaker 5: was threatening Russian military, the US and NGOs funded by
Speaker 5: the US. We're threatening you know, the oligarchs that were
Speaker 5: still in power and a lot of these nations. But again,
Speaker 5: the Europeans know all this that America does not know
Speaker 5: that and suffer something of a guilt complex about NATO,
Speaker 5: which I've never been understanding. Do you think the Soviet
Speaker 5: Union was ever really afraid of NATO? Was putin ever
Speaker 5: really afraid of NATO with the largest standing army in
Speaker 5: the world. I don't think so. In any event, long
Speaker 5: winded answer to your question is that I think Europe
Speaker 5: has its own vision of the reality of what's happening there,
Speaker 5: and if you look there are you have to reach
Speaker 5: out for it. Because of this media issue and I
Speaker 5: sent you a couple of articles. There are media folks
Speaker 5: in Europe and some analysts in the US are that
Speaker 5: are taking hard looks at the Russian economy. Well, let's
Speaker 5: fact that it's been turned into a totally war driven economy, right,
Speaker 5: and where real question is does food want to give
Speaker 5: that up?
Speaker 1: Well, and here's the thing, Okay, from one side of it,
Speaker 1: it's you know, ken Russia sustain itself this way? And
Speaker 1: does it want to sustain itself this way? And in
Speaker 1: that case, if they withdraw from Ukraine, what's next? That
Speaker 1: would be my question. But this VOA article you sent
Speaker 1: me has the headline that asks a huge question that
Speaker 1: I think everybody should be asking here except the people
Speaker 1: that you know. I have taken the attitude of USA
Speaker 1: screw them? I mean really, that's what it comes down to.
Speaker 1: Can Europe arm Ukraine now that the US has halted
Speaker 1: military aid? That is the question, ken, you know, because
Speaker 1: they weren't spending enough on NATO, according to Trump over
Speaker 1: and over again. Right, they're not they're not putting in
Speaker 1: enough money. So we're gonna, you know, we're not going
Speaker 1: to be involved in NATO now. Uh do they become
Speaker 1: our enemy anyway? That's a question for later. But can
Speaker 1: your armed Ukraine now that the US has done that's
Speaker 1: the idea?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 1: Is that an open question?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 5: It's it's definitely an open question. And and actually there
Speaker 5: there are two questions. Okay, one can they afford to
Speaker 5: do it? And the answer is yes, especially if they
Speaker 5: release all the Soviet Russian funds? Sorry I get trapped
Speaker 5: into that. I'm sorry. There's if they behave like that,
Speaker 5: then I tend to call them that. But can they
Speaker 5: release all the impounded Russian moneys? You bet they can
Speaker 5: afford to do that.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: They're building new factories, they're increasing their their weapons production.
Speaker 5: They're at a big, big deal for major deal for
Speaker 5: Ireland for artillery shells. Can they do that for themselves?
Speaker 5: The only thing that would stop them and gives them
Speaker 5: there's a period of risk of six to eight months,
Speaker 5: is if if Trump somehow managed to forbid and I'm
Speaker 5: not sure how he does this American companies to manufacture
Speaker 5: and sell weapons to be purchased for Ukraine. I'm not
Speaker 5: talking about the US paying for them. I'm talking about
Speaker 5: our factories fulfilling orders. Canadian factories filling orders by the way,
Speaker 5: but our factories.
Speaker 2: To you know, do that.
Speaker 5: So does Europe have the money and are their sources
Speaker 5: to sustain Ukraine? Absolutely? Trump can get in the way
Speaker 5: if he's trying to force basically, I mean what he
Speaker 5: has done in the last forty eight hours is an
Speaker 5: attempt to force Ukraine to concede, concede something to putin.
Speaker 5: And that's you know, that's the the answer, as Zolensky
Speaker 5: would say, you know, when when Trump, if he managed
Speaker 5: to not we're not talking about more money. We're literally
Speaker 5: stopping them from getting anti missile weapons and anti aircraft weapons.
Speaker 5: If we shut off the flow, including what's being ordered
Speaker 5: for them, it gives them some leverage. But that that's
Speaker 5: going to be his decision, and that's that would be
Speaker 5: the US deciding that we're not going to support someone
Speaker 5: that's under attack by an aggressor. If it goes that far,
Speaker 5: it's going to be a hard pull for Europe to
Speaker 5: do by themselves. But yeah, they can do it within
Speaker 5: a year two years absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 1: Can Zolensky survive that long.
Speaker 2: With the lag?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that that's the question, and and that that, you know,
Speaker 5: I think the answer and what we saw as of
Speaker 5: this afternoon, and this is real time stuff. I mean,
Speaker 5: you've almost got to be looking at it every five
Speaker 5: minutes in the right places. Zelensky has has basically knuckled
Speaker 5: under because he's he understands the stakes and now he's
Speaker 5: he's willing to come back to the US. He's willing
Speaker 5: to discuss the mineral deals. If he's willing to discuss
Speaker 5: the mineral deals, and you know, that's the first step,
Speaker 5: then there are stuff out of Washington this afternoon saying
Speaker 5: if he apologizes and willing to discuss the mineral deals,
Speaker 5: then we'll probably stop, you know, withholding not just weapons
Speaker 5: but intelligence. Right, So that's why he is going to concede.
Speaker 1: That, Yeah, Because that's the other key announcement is that
Speaker 1: Trump directed you know, is national security people to tell
Speaker 1: Britain to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That was another big thing today, wasn't it.
Speaker 5: That was one of the three big things that to
Speaker 5: relate Ukraine. The other big thing from a couple of
Speaker 5: days ago, as Trump has ordered all of our basically
Speaker 5: cyber warfare to regard Russia as safe, so we're to
Speaker 5: lay off any attempts to deal with I mean, it's insane,
Speaker 5: but we won't even go there. But yes, the two
Speaker 5: big things that happened within the last forty hours. We
Speaker 5: will not deliveries of stuff that had actually been ordered
Speaker 5: and paid for it. And this is Trump stopping things
Speaker 5: that had been ordered, contracts signed, and Congress had appropriated
Speaker 5: money for. And then he also cut off the intelligence,
Speaker 5: although that's not as big a deal because the Ukraine
Speaker 5: gets much of its intelligence from NATO, not simply the US.
Speaker 1: Well, I got a say that I am not surprised
Speaker 1: at all that Trump would stiff somebody on something that
Speaker 1: was already ordered and paid for because you know, go
Speaker 1: back to the casino business that happened there too. But
Speaker 1: pay no attention to that because I'm just an anti
Speaker 1: Trump guy and I'm a jerk. But the thing is,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm saying that with all sarcasm attact. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just I wonder where this leaves us though, I mean,
Speaker 1: is this is this really where we're going? So Zelenski's
Speaker 1: gonna knuckle under. He's going to apologize for allegedly insulting
Speaker 1: the United States or Trump or the administration or whatever.
Speaker 1: And now he's going to give up mineral rights to
Speaker 1: the US and order for US to continue to provide
Speaker 1: him with something. And yet he's got to submit anyway
Speaker 1: to Russia.
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, I think I can't see myself visualizing and
Speaker 5: and and Putin is going to drop back to he's
Speaker 5: going to and I got to get this point in.
Speaker 5: I wish you'd post. Every time I think about it,
Speaker 5: it irks me. But this is going to be basically,
Speaker 5: we're going to abandon all of our foreign policy back
Speaker 5: from to the point of Kennedy's speech in Berlin at
Speaker 5: the Brandenburg Gate, a speech about defending liberty wherever an
Speaker 5: aggressor attacks. Uh, this is over because we are going
Speaker 5: to force a peace settlement with an aggressor. We're essentially
Speaker 5: going to take the side of the aggressor where there's
Speaker 5: no doubt that there was an aggressor here. If you
Speaker 5: don't see that, then you just haven't you haven't been
Speaker 5: part of it. But so that that's going to happen,
Speaker 5: I think pragmatically speaking now, and Zelensky's going to probably
Speaker 5: end up giving up the don boss and Russia is
Speaker 5: going to take that, and then Russia is going to
Speaker 5: reset to rearming itself and going back to active measures.
Speaker 5: And you and I have talked about this, Chuck, this
Speaker 5: actually was kind of anomaly. Putin is really good at
Speaker 5: active measures and political warfare, you know, buying politicians using
Speaker 5: Russian money to undercut foreign elections, as he has recently
Speaker 5: in a Romania and a couple of other countries. He'll
Speaker 5: fall back to doing that. It'll be a cycle, and
Speaker 5: he's gone through these cycles. He went through this cycle
Speaker 5: with Georgia, and it's an old story of basically, you
Speaker 5: do active measures and political warfare, and if you've got
Speaker 5: a you know, some Russian speaker speakers somewhere, eventually you
Speaker 5: get to the point where you declare that you have
Speaker 5: to support them militarily because they're being harassed or whatever.
Speaker 5: It'll it'll be the same cycle and the net result
Speaker 5: I think will be Ukraine just literally losing twenty percent
Speaker 5: of its territory out and Russia. The interesting thing about
Speaker 5: that is what Russia will do is inherent and erit
Speaker 5: a you know, eastern Ukraine, which is in a sad state.
Speaker 5: So one of the things to look for this is
Speaker 5: a prediction what you might see out of this negotiated
Speaker 5: settlement if Trump pushes it, actually a fund where the
Speaker 5: United States joins in and forces Ukrainian money to go
Speaker 5: to rebuild Russian territory.
Speaker 1: Wow. Wow, I mean, so they're going to rebuild the
Speaker 1: part of Ukraine that was destroyed by Russia taking it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yep, absolutely because Russia it can't. Russia in no
Speaker 5: way can afford to do that. And so to make
Speaker 5: itself look good and to make the quote unquote peace
Speaker 5: settlement look good, you're going to You're gonna have to
Speaker 5: have money to do that, all right. So where's the
Speaker 5: money going to come from. You can either you can
Speaker 5: either take some of the money that's been impounded, you know,
Speaker 5: from sanctions, and say well, we're going to split this.
Speaker 5: We'll give it to both parties. We won't just give
Speaker 5: it to Ukraine, who's the victim. We'll give it to
Speaker 5: Russia as well, or we could. I kind of hope
Speaker 5: Zelensky signs the mineral deal quickly, because otherwise I would
Speaker 5: not be surprised to see Trump forcing some of that
Speaker 5: money to go to Russia as part of a settlement.
Speaker 5: I mean, Trump really wants a settlement that looks good
Speaker 5: to Russia.
Speaker 1: Wow. I mean, I'm just I'm stunned by this idea
Speaker 1: and what's happening here. I mean I almost you know,
Speaker 1: I was almost as stunned when I saw Vattelli Klitschko
Speaker 1: was the mayor of Kiev.
Speaker 5: You know, uh, what's going to stun you really? I
Speaker 5: mean we three days ago, we had Pravda publish a
Speaker 5: headline article that said it was happy to see the
Speaker 5: American foreign policy was now in line with Russian foreign policy.
Speaker 5: I mean, that was headline. I don't know how many
Speaker 5: Americans have seen it, but that's what they that's what
Speaker 5: they anticipate, that's what they expect. That's that's what they
Speaker 5: expect from Trump and to something to some that's sustained
Speaker 5: by saying, oh, we should be there's no reason we
Speaker 5: shouldn't be friends with Russia, and it's economical and we
Speaker 5: want them back in the G seven, you know, we
Speaker 5: want to we want to reset this all where they're
Speaker 5: they're you know, and we could reset back to the
Speaker 5: point before this all started, and then it will go
Speaker 5: through that same cycle again.
Speaker 1: Wow. I mean I would have never expected this, you know,
Speaker 1: But then again I did kind of expect it. And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why, because you know, they told oh,
Speaker 1: that was all fake. Trump was never on the side
Speaker 1: of Russia. But when did he deviate from normalizing relations
Speaker 1: with Vladimir Putin? No matter what. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that the ideas we should have remained, you know, at
Speaker 1: odds with him at all times on all things. But
Speaker 1: the idea that, like you said, siding with an aggressor.
Speaker 1: And there are people that realistically and with fully open
Speaker 1: eyes argue that Russia was not the aggressor here, you know,
Speaker 1: that Ukraine and attacking people and having a Nazi brigade
Speaker 1: and this and that, and.
Speaker 5: I just thought that to one extent, Paul, I'll push
Speaker 5: that back. Let's let's be totally factual. Go ahead, let's
Speaker 5: step away from the ideology. Let's go back to the
Speaker 5: video tape. Let's go back to what we watched these
Speaker 5: people maybe didn't watch this live. We watched live for
Speaker 5: eight months of Putin massing forces and saying that he
Speaker 5: would never invade. Okay, we watched that, well heard that. Okay,
Speaker 5: then they invaded. But they didn't just invade. We had
Speaker 5: newspeople on the streets of the Russians coming through and
Speaker 5: literally you know, killing people, terrorizing people, rape, plunder, genocide.
Speaker 5: That this wasn't just a march across the border, and
Speaker 5: everybody welcomed us. It was the most brutal invasion that
Speaker 5: you toss away all the politics. Let's just look at
Speaker 5: what happened to people with Russian troops crossing the border.
Speaker 5: Ukraine did not cross anybody's border. Russian troops crossed the border,
Speaker 5: you know, headed for Kiev, headed toward Kharkov.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 5: We all saw this up close and personal. We saw
Speaker 5: the bodies. So how anyone can say at this point
Speaker 5: in time they are literally and I'll say it, they're
Speaker 5: in denial because we've seen it. If either they didn't
Speaker 5: see it or they refused to look at.
Speaker 1: It, well again, it's a refusal to look because of
Speaker 1: an idealistic ide you know, and not idealistic ideology. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: because of an ideology that guides that that's the way
Speaker 1: it is, you know, And I'm just again, I don't
Speaker 1: know what this means except that, like you said, and
Speaker 1: what's funny is immediately the liberal reaction within minutes, a
Speaker 1: lot of liberal bloggers went out there and said, we
Speaker 1: have just what witnessed the destruction of basically US policy
Speaker 1: for the past fifty years. They were saying, and what
Speaker 1: you said is no, it's more like sixty something.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, the way I would put it. Let's put
Speaker 5: it this, Okay, So if you really want to put
Speaker 5: in the history, that enough history. The point being, there
Speaker 5: was a point in time where Americans were seen as
Speaker 5: about nothing but money, nothing but themselves, and the term
Speaker 5: ugly American. When I was growing up, ugly American was
Speaker 5: a common description of Americans overseas. They threw around their money,
Speaker 5: they did business deals. Everybody knew that they were only
Speaker 5: there for, you know, to get what they could make
Speaker 5: out of the business deals. That was true certainly in
Speaker 5: Latin America, but in other places in Asia as well.
Speaker 5: It was the age of the ugly.
Speaker 1: Americans, entitled greedy, overstepping, rude. Absolutely regarding any other cultures
Speaker 1: other than their own, which they didn't really have a culture,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, that's the ugly American.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that was the legacy of World War Two.
Speaker 5: We felt we deserved it. We saved the world. Okay, hey,
Speaker 5: it's only fair. It's our turn. And I think that's
Speaker 5: what we're returning to. We're not. We're returning to, Well,
Speaker 5: people do business with us. Yeah, they'll do business, but
Speaker 5: they will try like it's cash up front. You know,
Speaker 5: we understand these guys are deal makers and and you
Speaker 5: know that's what they're about. They're you know, morality, ethics,
Speaker 5: idealism is not in the game. Let's look at the cards,
Speaker 5: you know, make them show their cards first. So what
Speaker 5: we will have lost, I don't think is we will
Speaker 5: have lost a certain amount of trust. So I wouldn't
Speaker 5: go over I wouldn't go over bored, but certainly, certainly
Speaker 5: the fact that anyone could trust us if we just
Speaker 5: accepted the fact that basically the big guy wins, which
Speaker 5: is what Trump keeps saying, Literally, the big guy wins.
Speaker 5: You need to recognize that. You need to deal with it.
Speaker 5: The people have the most money, the most power, wind
Speaker 5: you just need to step in line and follow along
Speaker 5: with him, which was the classic ugly American thing. So
Speaker 5: you call that America first. That that's sounds better, okay,
Speaker 5: And that's what we'll call it, you know, back in
Speaker 5: the day when I was growing up. It's because you know,
Speaker 5: what is good for Detroit and Chevrolet is good for
Speaker 5: the world will be you know what's good for America,
Speaker 5: it's good for that's we just we've entered a new mode.
Speaker 2: That's and.
Speaker 5: That's the world is going to have interesting thing. The
Speaker 5: world's pretty quick. It's going to see that and react
Speaker 5: to it, which is what we're seeing in Europe right now.
Speaker 5: And they're gonna understand this. And partnering will be in
Speaker 5: terms of business deals, it won't be in terms of alliances.
Speaker 1: Well, but here's the other thing to remember, and I
Speaker 1: always keep this in my mind. You know, the street level, Larry,
Speaker 1: You know me, I've always got to go to the
Speaker 1: unrefined street level on this. And here's the thing. The
Speaker 1: big bad guy who is out there. Yeah, he's feared,
Speaker 1: nobody wants to mess with him. Of course people will
Speaker 1: make business deals with him, and yeah, they won't trust him,
Speaker 1: and they'll handle him just right and say the right
Speaker 1: things to his face. But here's the problem. Eventually, eventually
Speaker 1: somebody figures out, you know what, if I bust the
Speaker 1: big man in his kneecaps and knock him down, I
Speaker 1: can be the big man next.
Speaker 2: That's the thing.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying this.
Speaker 5: China is just ready and waiting to do that. Do
Speaker 5: you read the Chinese statement today about the tariffs.
Speaker 1: That's where I'm going with it. Yeah, that event.
Speaker 5: Whatever kind of war America wants.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the thing about China is that they've spent
Speaker 1: all this time building up this economic engine which is
Speaker 1: not purely communist, no matter what people tell you. Okay,
Speaker 1: it is influenced and run by and absolutely engorged as
Speaker 1: far as the Communist Party of China goes, but it
Speaker 1: is not a communist machine. It is a blended machine
Speaker 1: that is pretty efficient, looks like to me. And I
Speaker 1: don't know that we're prepared to really start to face
Speaker 1: that down if we become just the big guy who
Speaker 1: is waiting to get kneecapped. I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: and I think that's what Zelensky was trying to say.
Speaker 1: It is broken English, is that you know eventually, I
Speaker 1: mean because you caught that part of it. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you analyze this a bit. The meeting, right when he said,
Speaker 1: you know you're gonna feel this influence, and Trump jumped
Speaker 1: to the wrong part of the statement, which is, you
Speaker 1: have no right to tell us what we feel. It's
Speaker 1: not about what we feel. What he was trying to
Speaker 1: tell you is that eventually you're gonna understand this is
Speaker 1: going to change things for you. You get it, And
Speaker 1: I think Zelenski was trying to tell him that. And
Speaker 1: I know right now I'm gonna get ugly emails about
Speaker 1: how dare you and don't you understand?
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 1: Are you some kind of anti American? Now I'm just
Speaker 1: looking at it from a realistic standpoint, okay, which is,
Speaker 1: if you want to be the guy who's only got
Speaker 1: the big gun, you can do that. But most people
Speaker 1: will adhere to it and they'll back down.
Speaker 2: You know what.
Speaker 1: That's the big guy, that's the big gun. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep my head down and yeah, I'll make business deals
Speaker 1: like you said, But eventually it also grows a small
Speaker 1: population that goes we can take that big sucker out.
Speaker 5: And that's the difference, Chuck, that Europeans understand that Europeans
Speaker 5: have been doing. That is diplomacy. Diplomacy. Go back to
Speaker 5: Machiavelli that they understand diplomacy because they've been lots and
Speaker 5: lots of small states interacting with each other for centuries.
Speaker 5: Trump doesn't have that background. He just doesn't think that.
Speaker 5: And to a large extent, the US, other than are
Speaker 5: the diplomatic core that we used to have, you know,
Speaker 5: doesn't think that way either. That's just us. It's a
Speaker 5: different way of thinking. And and the pushback is, no,
Speaker 5: we're not going to listen to you. We're the big guy.
Speaker 5: What could you have to tell us about?
Speaker 6: And the.
Speaker 5: Mackey Avelli has a lot to tell you about, you know,
Speaker 5: and how states interact with each other. And it's you know,
Speaker 5: it's power. It's not just economics and dealing.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the thing, you know.
Speaker 1: And to look at it from a really truly well
Speaker 1: nuanced and intelligent point of view is to understand this. Uh,
Speaker 1: the culture that produced whoever and whatever suns Su really
Speaker 1: was understands this very well as well. And I think
Speaker 1: Americans would do themselves a whole lot of favors by
Speaker 1: trying to internalize the lessons within Sunsu and the art
Speaker 1: of war because it's not just about war per se.
Speaker 5: Oh no, it's it's yeah, none of this is about war.
Speaker 5: I mean again, that's the whole difference chess and checkers thing,
Speaker 5: you know that we keep talking about it. You know, No,
Speaker 5: it's not all about war. It's it's about power. It's
Speaker 5: about manipulation of power, and power is not just military.
Speaker 5: Chin China understands. It's fascinating that China's big initiative around
Speaker 5: the road with their you know, their new road programs
Speaker 5: is all about extending foreign aid to acquire influence and power.
Speaker 5: And of course what we're going to do is close
Speaker 5: down usaid. However you feel about that? The what I
Speaker 5: saw today, it's like, well, how can we have to
Speaker 5: We have not to spend money. We don't have money
Speaker 5: to throw away like that overseas. Okay, no, I guess
Speaker 5: we don't. But are the Chinese stupid?
Speaker 1: Then?
Speaker 5: Are the Chinese? You know, are they just really dumb
Speaker 5: to realize you know, they've got economic problems too? Why
Speaker 5: are they throwing away money around the world? You need
Speaker 5: to ask yourself. That's always the question. If the other
Speaker 5: guy looks to be stupid, is he really or did
Speaker 5: you miss something.
Speaker 1: Right, And that's the problem I have with the people
Speaker 1: that say, you know what, it's a ways to do this. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe so, But on the other hand, you're missing the
Speaker 1: rest of the point, which is, regardless of what you
Speaker 1: think of it, even if you don't care about, you know,
Speaker 1: wooden shoes in Holland, okay or whatever, the point is
Speaker 1: that this buys you other things. You know, Like I've
Speaker 1: said before, you know, and we have bought ourselves plenty,
Speaker 1: and I don't understand that, you know, over time we've
Speaker 1: had this, you know, two hundred years of history. A
Speaker 1: it's real long, two hundred three, let's call it three
Speaker 1: hundred even three hundred years of history, even though I'm
Speaker 1: being generous. Other places that have had empires come and
Speaker 1: go and have risen and fallen and have now built
Speaker 1: other modern engines do seem to have a slightly different
Speaker 1: philosophical bent here. And I don't think that anybody would
Speaker 1: claim that the Chinese are foolish, that their government is foolish,
Speaker 1: that their business people are foolish, that that entire machine there,
Speaker 1: integrated machine. Again, not as communists as some people think,
Speaker 1: but definitely not capitalist or whatever either. It's a whole
Speaker 1: blended system there. It's not doing things out of the
Speaker 1: goodness of its heart, is all I'm saying. And there
Speaker 1: might be some intelligence there in some of the strategies
Speaker 1: that we are now going to abandon. And I think
Speaker 1: this is a prime example. I mean, what is and
Speaker 1: what is the end result here giving up twenty percent
Speaker 1: of Ukraine in order to secure peace. I have a
Speaker 1: bad feeling that that's not going to work out either
Speaker 1: for the long term. In the short run, it will
Speaker 1: put an end to things and allow many people to
Speaker 1: declare victories here.
Speaker 5: Right, everybody except so might get President Trump a Nobel prize.
Speaker 5: I doubt it, but it could could very clear that
Speaker 5: he wants that. But that's a that's a rather limited
Speaker 5: outcome in terms of what's in the best hinters for
Speaker 5: everybody else.
Speaker 1: Right, So, anyway, Larry, I know I've taken you, you know,
Speaker 1: a little over the hour here. In conclusion, what could
Speaker 1: we say to the audience here as far as what's coming?
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think it is just as predictable
Speaker 1: as that we're going to see Zelenski return, apologize He's
Speaker 1: going to give up his mineral rights and secure peace
Speaker 1: and then Trump will declare victory and that'll be that.
Speaker 1: Of course he's now the peace president.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it. Unfortunately it is that simple because
Speaker 5: we let it. And by the way, I will I
Speaker 5: will be the first to say that. You know, the
Speaker 5: Biden administration takes a lot of blame for all of
Speaker 5: this because this never should have happened, rightfully, so, but
Speaker 5: it goes all the way back to the Obama The
Speaker 5: place to has stopped all of this was crimea in
Speaker 5: the first place. It was if you were going to you,
Speaker 5: if you're going to take a stand, you take a
Speaker 5: stand then. And the way that we the way we respond, well,
Speaker 5: not just Obaba, Trump and Biden, the previous administrations all
Speaker 5: failed to respond to this, and maybe Biden has failed
Speaker 5: failed most dramatically to seize the moment and give Ukraine
Speaker 5: what it needed to actually retain its territory.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: If they had had what they needed uh two years
Speaker 5: ago when they began their offensive, they probably could have
Speaker 5: taken most of Ukraine back. We didn't give them what
Speaker 5: they needed when they needed it, which which means we
Speaker 5: left the plane field. So when you leave the plane
Speaker 5: field essentially, which we did, then this is what we
Speaker 5: end up with and pragmatically I saying, I think that
Speaker 5: would be my conclusion. I would you can you can
Speaker 5: toss blame back over many administrations in many years. But
Speaker 5: the bottom line is what I really wish people would
Speaker 5: take more of is is to look at what the
Speaker 5: situation really is in Ukraine, the situation really is in Europe,
Speaker 5: not what's being covered in the American media because it's
Speaker 5: it's it's as good as repeating as you said earlier,
Speaker 5: the Russian line. I don't know why both sides, liberal
Speaker 5: and conservative are both doing that, but they are. But
Speaker 5: if people really want to know what's going on they need,
Speaker 5: this is going to be resolved in Europe and Europe
Speaker 5: and Zelensky is they're going to give Trump what Trump
Speaker 5: needs to feel good and take his position and look good,
Speaker 5: and then they're going to go on with their own business.
Speaker 5: And we just to a large extent, that means we
Speaker 5: just exited the playing field totally, not just a little bit,
Speaker 5: but totally.
Speaker 1: And the last thing I have to ask you, and
Speaker 1: then we'll close this out entirely, is that are we
Speaker 1: looking at a related or unrelated next situation? Because you
Speaker 1: and I both know I mean we're still dealing with
Speaker 1: the you know, the Palestinian thing, which is now going
Speaker 1: to be a real estate deal too. And I told
Speaker 1: people that that's what that is. I mean, and that's
Speaker 1: where he's looking at is. We're gonna just build it.
Speaker 1: We're going to own it. I don't know what he
Speaker 1: means by owning it, but that's weird. But anyway, I think, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the way he's looking at it is, I'll just
Speaker 1: build a Trump tower there in a resort. Let's what
Speaker 1: casinos in Palestine. I mean, this is where he's at.
Speaker 1: Although don't let him put a casino there because he
Speaker 1: will run it into the ground. But the thing is
Speaker 1: a resort, you know. That's the way he's looking at that,
Speaker 1: and that's where that's going. But you know, there are
Speaker 1: people that are still willing to go to war and
Speaker 1: still have these you know, principles of all sorts, and
Speaker 1: it could go in a lot of directions. I may
Speaker 1: have lost Larry again. I'm not sure Larry you there. Oh,
Speaker 1: I may have lost Larry again. But you know what,
Speaker 1: he's given us a great conclusion. We exit the field
Speaker 1: there it is, and outside of the Palestinian Israeli situation.
Speaker 1: I got to say, I don't know where the next
Speaker 1: fire is going to get lit on the planet, but
Speaker 1: I'm figuring that the US is definitely not going to
Speaker 1: be there to put it out or police it. And
Speaker 1: that is the newest world order. Larry Hancock. Go to
Speaker 1: larrydsh hancock dot com check out as many writings as
Speaker 1: blog everything Larry Hancock. I recommend all of his books
Speaker 1: and an interesting and open discussion here tonight about Ukraine,
Speaker 1: the US foreign policy situation as it is, as it
Speaker 1: was and as it has been reset to. And there
Speaker 1: you go, Ukraine in a nutshell, and I tried not
Speaker 1: to interfere with it at all. And there's Larry Hancock's
Speaker 1: very considered and measured analysis. So we got that and
Speaker 1: Mike Swanson in the first hour to tell us about
Speaker 1: the economy of economics and how bad it might be,
Speaker 1: where it's going and where it's been. What the hell
Speaker 1: we're in a new age. And we'll just see if
Speaker 1: the o'celly effects survives it. After all, you are, indeed
Speaker 1: the effect. I am merely o'celly. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: this if you don't support me in the next month
Speaker 1: or so. Who knows if I'll be able to pay
Speaker 1: the big bills or not. I guess stay tuned and
Speaker 1: find out if I disappear. Hopefully it's not because I
Speaker 1: ended up being shut down somewhere and stuck in a
Speaker 1: black site, but that might come up depending on how
Speaker 1: crazy it is. I want to go with the next
Speaker 1: set of guests and the next set of topics on
Speaker 1: the show, and what the hell? I guess rock out
Speaker 1: m nuclear holocaust?
Speaker 17: You know what uranium is, right?
Speaker 4: Just think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots
Speaker 4: of you know what uranium is right? Bad things having
Speaker 4: things are done with uranium, including some bad things.
Speaker 1: Nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 2: I have been gree.
Speaker 1: Nuclear holocaust is nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 17: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 4: They just think called nuclear weapons and other things like
Speaker 4: lots of you know what uranium is right?
Speaker 12: This is James Corbetty Order Report dot Com and you're
Speaker 12: listening to the dot com.
Speaker 2: Cool.
Speaker 17: Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that
Speaker 17: an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninjas to
Speaker 17: take down the Illuminati.
Speaker 12: Oh that's interesting, yeah in the clutchroon?
Speaker 17: Yeah did that ever work out too?
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 17: No it didn't, did it. But here on o'chelly dot
Speaker 17: com Radio network, things work out a bit better, don't
Speaker 17: they much better?
Speaker 5: Much is clear and understanding about the programs, The programs
Speaker 5: much clearer, getting live people into it.
Speaker 12: They really have a good conversation going.
Speaker 1: Much better, much better scene.
Speaker 17: I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen
Speaker 17: to the Ocelly dot com Radio Network.
Speaker 16: I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and
Speaker 16: I like that idea dot com.
Speaker 13: Chill dot com.
Speaker 16: A conversation.
Speaker 13: Do you like history, real history that you were never
Speaker 13: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 13: nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 13: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 13: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 13: Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 13: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 13: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike.
Speaker 12: Swanson dot Com Radio Network.
Speaker 2: The Mayor humped dumps Am, the Mayor hay holding the
Speaker 2: DA