Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Chilly Effect is sponsored by Walls's Windows, Dott and listen, yeah,
Speaker 2: now agivated an audia.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you it's the twenty first day of January
Speaker 3: twenty twenty six, allegedly according to that thing we call
Speaker 3: a calendar. And I'm broadcasting late on a Wednesday here
Speaker 3: because usually I would have gone live at eight o'clock.
Speaker 3: But I made special arrangements. Why because I've got Larry
Speaker 3: Hancock with me, and you'll see the link to Larry's
Speaker 3: blog in the show notes. I might even provide you
Speaker 3: with a preview by sending you over to a series
Speaker 3: of articles he's writing on you know what, I'm going
Speaker 3: to save that for two weeks from now. And you
Speaker 3: know why, because I want to talk to Larry about well,
Speaker 3: the thing that he is expert in. You can't tell
Speaker 3: me that Larry Hancock, with all the books he's written
Speaker 3: and well written, and even people that sit there and go,
Speaker 3: I disagree with this guy, they all respect his opinion.
Speaker 3: They all respect the way he's written stuff. Because he
Speaker 3: brings receipts every single time. Nothing is ever like well,
Speaker 3: I speculate this just because I'm you know, I'm Larry Hancock.
Speaker 3: He doesn't do that. You got to check out his
Speaker 3: blog if you haven't, and if you're a longtime listener
Speaker 3: of the show, you know he's been here a while
Speaker 3: with me, and I'm so grateful that he puts up
Speaker 3: with me. But looking at what's happening in Europe right now,
Speaker 3: and I do mean in two places right not only
Speaker 3: the issue over Greenland, and well, we're just going to
Speaker 3: take that, I guess, but also you know, Ukraine is
Speaker 3: still happening I and on top of it, we have
Speaker 3: this situation with Iran that is apparently escalating and hardly
Speaker 3: anybody's paying attention to because we're taking Greenland. Okay, this
Speaker 3: is giving me a headache because I understand that the
Speaker 3: Trump administration is transactional. I understand that they are very
Speaker 3: results oriented. I understand the people tell me, oh, this
Speaker 3: is the change we wanted. Careful what you wish for,
Speaker 3: is all I got to say. But I need somebody
Speaker 3: to go through this with me and soberly explain to
Speaker 3: me what the national security benefits are, what the game
Speaker 3: is here. And by the way, there's always a hidden
Speaker 3: game in almost all of these issues of diplomacy. There's
Speaker 3: triangular diplomacy. And even if you don't intend it, or
Speaker 3: you don't game it out, or you don't play four dchs,
Speaker 3: there is always the unintended results the echoes of these
Speaker 3: things later on. And I'm telling you, I can't wait
Speaker 3: until people are surprised at all that as it happens
Speaker 3: from all of these situations which are one way or
Speaker 3: another interconnected. But again, Larry Hancock, if you look at
Speaker 3: surprise attack, shadow warfare, creating chaos, Larry, what other books
Speaker 3: would be good here to people like say, look, this
Speaker 3: is what you should study to understand the history of
Speaker 3: before we get into what this uh mess is about
Speaker 3: to make What should we do there?
Speaker 1: Well, I'd like to say, I'd like to say surprise
Speaker 1: attack check. But since we're not surprise, we've given up
Speaker 1: surprising anybody. We we like to tell them we're going
Speaker 1: to attack them for several weeks before we actually do,
Speaker 1: just to give them, you know, a fair opportunity to
Speaker 1: be ready for us.
Speaker 4: Uh. We used to think in terms as a operation, right,
Speaker 4: you're be be.
Speaker 1: You know, to protect forces about But anyway, so we
Speaker 1: surprisingly political warfare, asymmetrical warfare.
Speaker 4: This covers the.
Speaker 3: Well, right, Okay, so national security implications, right, and the
Speaker 3: idea that you'd want operational yeah, operational security, right, hang
Speaker 3: on just a second, like immute up for a second
Speaker 3: and just let it, let it re regain the bandwidth.
Speaker 3: I don't know why we were talking, just mine before
Speaker 3: I went to air and here we go might be
Speaker 3: my end jeez. Anyway, Uh, the thing is this, you'd
Speaker 3: think that revealing these things upfront is a serious violation
Speaker 3: of that. But we're not dealing in the subtlety and
Speaker 3: shadowy world that we were dealing in before. Because putting
Speaker 3: out the threat is also a move, because that's a
Speaker 3: way to say, well, now I'll just make deals with
Speaker 3: other people because they don't want me to make this move,
Speaker 3: or maybe they'll give me something in exchange, you know, Well,
Speaker 3: here's what we'll do. We'll let you build a base
Speaker 3: in our country instead of you taking our country, you know,
Speaker 3: things like this. That's the transact that might be acceptable
Speaker 3: in this case or not, depending right. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: almost seems to be the strategy. I mean, maybe I'm
Speaker 3: oversimplifying this. Perhaps I'm not understanding the forty chess. What
Speaker 3: are your thoughts there, Larry?
Speaker 1: Now, I think it does all that game it looks
Speaker 1: like it's military because we're deploying so many forces, we're consuming,
Speaker 1: we're consuming so much of our weaponry, We're expending a
Speaker 1: lot of resources right now. We expended a lot of
Speaker 1: resources that are hard to get in Venezuela. We're expending
Speaker 1: a lot of consumables in deploying aircraft carriers. And last
Speaker 1: night I watched tracks of twelve to twenty tankers at
Speaker 1: the east and clearly those tankers are being deployed towards
Speaker 1: Iran before we're deployed, and each of those stankers would
Speaker 1: normally be dragging four fighters with it we're deployed. I
Speaker 1: saw a graft today an immense amount of resources towards Iran, and.
Speaker 4: This is an expensive thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's lots of wear and tear on pilots, on crews,
Speaker 1: aircraft carriers. But I think it's not really part of
Speaker 1: the military is going to stand or fall by itself.
Speaker 1: This is part of deal making, as you said, it's
Speaker 1: it's out front. When when we actually go to the tack,
Speaker 1: those transponders will be turned off as they were in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: you know, but it was it's part of the deal
Speaker 1: making up front. And I have I have to say,
Speaker 1: you know, transactional maybe okay, if you do do business
Speaker 1: this this way may be your successful tactical tactically for
Speaker 1: the short term, you know, in deal making a lot
Speaker 1: a lot of details. Deals can be a very productive
Speaker 1: in the short.
Speaker 3: Term, right.
Speaker 4: However, audios have long term consequences, kind of like a
Speaker 4: blue mortgage. Well, yeah, see mortgages. Mortgages are great. Balloon
Speaker 4: mortgages not so much.
Speaker 3: We'll see, there you go. And the one, you know,
Speaker 3: immediate consequence that's obvious is we're going to look at
Speaker 3: a National Defense Authorization Act for next year. That's going
Speaker 3: to require guess what, a higher budget, you know, because
Speaker 3: they do those every year basically under one batter or another.
Speaker 3: The military budget has to go up because guess what
Speaker 3: they wound up. They're gonna wind up spending a lot
Speaker 3: doing all these actions. Unless I'm wrong, I can't see
Speaker 3: how you do that without spending you know, additional resources,
Speaker 3: et cetera. Plus you're gonna have to replace things that
Speaker 3: are now spent in these operations. I mean, that's just
Speaker 3: the easiest, the low hanging fruit of the extended consequences.
Speaker 4: Unless I'm wrong, No, that's absolutely right. I mean there
Speaker 4: are consequences short term.
Speaker 1: One of our admirals requested not to deploy I think
Speaker 1: the Eisenhower back to the Gulf again, because it's been
Speaker 1: at sea for months. You've got a crew that's been
Speaker 1: deployed without any relief that aircraft carriers not had any
Speaker 1: import maintenance, and basically said, you know, this is there's
Speaker 1: gonna be consequences for my ship and my trew and
Speaker 1: personnel retention.
Speaker 5: This is not good.
Speaker 4: But it didn't matter. It's going anyway in any event.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, there are short term consequences, but I was
Speaker 1: thinking about the conquences, consequences longer term. But so to
Speaker 1: pull back, I think most of what we're seeing is, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's easy to cheer on deals when they're successful. It's
Speaker 1: harder to pull back and say, you know, okay, you
Speaker 1: and I have talked about the many, many regime change
Speaker 1: operations that the US did from Guatemala on.
Speaker 4: I mean, Guatemala.
Speaker 1: Was pretty much as easy and as successful as Venezuela.
Speaker 1: And by the way, now we're pretty sure regime change
Speaker 1: in Venezuela was not really regime change. We did a
Speaker 1: deal with their vice president who by the way, is
Speaker 1: on the DEA list for you know, drug smuggling and
Speaker 1: has been investigated. We did deal with her to let
Speaker 1: her and her regime essentially stay in power to sell
Speaker 1: us their oil.
Speaker 4: The snap shot of that oil, we're going to sell it,
Speaker 4: and you know what, the transparency plan.
Speaker 1: For tracking out actually goes back to benefit the average
Speaker 1: Venezuelan hasn't been published yet, but I would say, you know,
Speaker 1: there's you stand up and cheer about Guatemala. Oh, we
Speaker 1: free the Guatemalans from an evil dictatorship. We free the
Speaker 1: Venezuelans from the end. Then you can come back and
Speaker 1: you look at it five or ten later years later,
Speaker 1: and Guatemala ended up in the literal political genocide of
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of people over the next twenty years.
Speaker 1: We have no idea what's happening in Venezuela, but that
Speaker 1: regime is not not committed to popular elections. It's not
Speaker 1: released most of its political prisoners, and from what I'm seeing,
Speaker 1: most of the lower level regime figures are still there.
Speaker 1: You know, they didn't immediately walk off. So the net
Speaker 1: result we're not going to see. It's, like I say,
Speaker 1: easy to stand up and cheer. Being hard nosed short term,
Speaker 1: long term court consequences another story, right.
Speaker 3: So right, I mean, just like what we saw with
Speaker 3: those other ones and those historical regime changes perspectives, right
Speaker 3: like those other historical regime changes, what that winds up
Speaker 3: leading to is the issues in El Salvador. What that
Speaker 3: winds up leading to is the Contra situation, you know,
Speaker 3: a decade later, et cetera, et cetera, and that stuff
Speaker 3: was the unintended consequences and led to other actions. Some
Speaker 3: of those were covert, you know again, and it's but
Speaker 3: it's almost like we're not doing any sort of covert actions.
Speaker 3: We're threatening all kinds of things. And I mean the
Speaker 3: odd thing is we have a president who's almost upset
Speaker 3: when they go, well, when are you actually going to
Speaker 3: do the attack? And he goes, I'm not telling you.
Speaker 3: I mean I saw that press clip. I found that
Speaker 3: kind of hilarious. But I mean, you know, you're signaling
Speaker 3: all kinds of things to people in the world. I'm
Speaker 3: wondering if that's going to get anybody itchy enough, you know,
Speaker 3: to cause us more national security issues than say, you know,
Speaker 3: taking Greenland is supposed to solve. What do you think
Speaker 3: of that.
Speaker 1: Well in Latin America and South America, and you can
Speaker 1: see again we have the history there.
Speaker 4: Whenever we put a regime in place.
Speaker 1: As we've done for decades and decades and decades back
Speaker 1: to the you know, early nineteen hundreds, played eighteen, it
Speaker 1: was gunboat diplomacy.
Speaker 4: It was clear to everybody what we're doing. We wanted
Speaker 4: a regime in place that was friendly to the United States,
Speaker 4: and who doesn't want that.
Speaker 1: But what friendly to the United States always meant was
Speaker 1: selling us your resources at.
Speaker 4: A good deal for us, and we'll give you your
Speaker 4: the payment to the regime and how they use it,
Speaker 4: you know, let's see how it happens.
Speaker 1: That's not our thing, we you know, and it never
Speaker 1: worked out well. And that's why lots of Latin America,
Speaker 1: you know, as always considered us, the US as a
Speaker 1: colonial power. And certainly this will not diminish that, will
Speaker 1: They nod their heads.
Speaker 4: And go ahead and say, you bet, we'll do deals
Speaker 4: with you.
Speaker 1: Because they're afraid of being smashed. Sure, but these are
Speaker 1: smart people, and they also know how to do deals,
Speaker 1: and they also you know, it's it's it's not let's
Speaker 1: not assume that they're simple minded. They can easily see
Speaker 1: what's going on, and other powers can see what's going on.
Speaker 4: It's it's it's a return to that kind of relationship.
Speaker 1: There have been periods of time when we had good relationships.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like equal trade relationships. But we keep
Speaker 1: turning around and doing this periodically to let.
Speaker 4: Them know kind of like our real character.
Speaker 1: And so you know, we're we're going to be back
Speaker 1: to the ugly American says, it's I don't know, check
Speaker 1: I'm old enough.
Speaker 4: You ever heard the song Roman Coca Cola?
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, I have.
Speaker 4: Don't know what that means.
Speaker 1: It means the Yanks are here and they're spending money
Speaker 1: and they're taking There are women great Roman Coca cola.
Speaker 4: You know times, so let's party down. That was not
Speaker 4: a really friendly song, however it may sound.
Speaker 1: It's like they're taking advantage of us again. Okay, but
Speaker 1: that's so that's Latin America. But I think that Latin America.
Speaker 1: Short term, we got oil. You know, we've we've established
Speaker 1: what our position is in this hemisphere. So everybody's now
Speaker 1: knows how we're playing the game again. Long term, the
Speaker 1: consequences are pretty clear because we've done this before and
Speaker 1: we know what it looked like. The consequences for NATO
Speaker 1: and Greenland are far more severe, and I think far
Speaker 1: more severe. You actually saw it at the Median DeVos
Speaker 1: this week, and what you really saw was the Europeans
Speaker 1: raise their backs and say they are really big economic
Speaker 1: powers too. They have they own big markets, they own
Speaker 1: big purchasing, they do trade deals, and you listen to
Speaker 1: every one of their speakers stand up and say that.
Speaker 1: And I've sent a leak so you can hear some
Speaker 1: of their statements, powerful statements, far better statements than our statements.
Speaker 4: And what they all said was they all issued an
Speaker 4: open invitation to China to invest in Europe. That is tragic.
Speaker 1: The US owned European investment are these are friends, these
Speaker 1: are allies, and suddenly as of this week, they're looking
Speaker 1: for Chinese investment. Now, I can't think of anything. We're
Speaker 1: tragic long term.
Speaker 3: Now, that's the big question with all that, because is
Speaker 3: it performative to get Trump to back down? So listen,
Speaker 3: we'll keep things the way they are, but you got
Speaker 3: to knock this off, or is it really a legitimate call,
Speaker 3: Hey China, listen, we're willing to talk now because these
Speaker 3: guys are not being reasonable. Come be reasonable with us
Speaker 3: and we'll work it out. Or is it, you know, again,
Speaker 3: a transactional reaction to the Trump administration's posture. That's I
Speaker 3: think that's a fair question, don't you.
Speaker 1: Certainly it's a transactional reaction, and it appears to have
Speaker 1: worked today based on Trump's turnaround as far as tariffs.
Speaker 1: But I will tell you this, what Trump has done
Speaker 1: during the last year, constantly threatening different sets of tariffs,
Speaker 1: constantly putting on tariffs on individual products and pulling them off.
Speaker 1: That's that creates a very unstable situation for their business people.
Speaker 1: Forget about their politicians. Their politicians, I think effectively used
Speaker 1: it transactionally. But they're they have business people. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have people who do major investments, and they do
Speaker 1: strategic business planning. And I've got to tell you, if
Speaker 1: I'm in any one one of those countries doing five
Speaker 1: ten year strategic business plans, and I have no idea
Speaker 1: what the American president is going to do this week
Speaker 1: and next week on tariffs, what would what would be
Speaker 1: in your plan? I'm going to look for more stable
Speaker 1: sources and investment. I may not get on the rooftop
Speaker 1: and shout it. I may not say, you know, they'll
Speaker 1: just go ahead and do it there there. They have
Speaker 1: to look for stability in long term business. So yeah,
Speaker 1: politically transition actional, but business wise, I think it may
Speaker 1: be another story.
Speaker 3: Well see, there you go, because the immediate consequences of
Speaker 3: that problem are guess what, Yeah, if China comes in
Speaker 3: and gives them anything like a friendly deal, why not
Speaker 3: deal with them as opposed to us? If we're going
Speaker 3: to be the you know, the the instability. And by
Speaker 3: the way, if you go to Larryhancock dot WordPress dot com,
Speaker 3: which you just spell Larryhancock all one word dot WordPress
Speaker 3: dot com, that's where you can follow Larry's blog and
Speaker 3: he has talked about this in addition to other things.
Speaker 3: But I don't know if you've written all the way
Speaker 3: up to the Davos meeting about it, but it is
Speaker 3: it is something to witness. Good. Yeah, No, I have it.
Speaker 4: I don't think I can keep up with it, Chuck,
Speaker 4: I have to kind of.
Speaker 1: Before this show, I had to look, you know, ten
Speaker 1: different places to cratic you feel with the situation was
Speaker 1: today And at one point in my career I did
Speaker 1: strategic business planning right, And I would never hold a
Speaker 1: planning meeting under these circumstances and say, guys, you know,
Speaker 1: let's plan for this.
Speaker 4: You know, you look at your variables, what you.
Speaker 1: Look for, your value of cash, and you try to
Speaker 1: reject those and and for international business, terrace terras used
Speaker 1: not to be a big consideration. Now they've entered the
Speaker 1: field is a consideration, and it's certainly.
Speaker 4: Making things more chaotic. But no, I have not written
Speaker 4: about that. That's just trying to follow it. And I
Speaker 4: think if I think you saw it today, to the well, yesterday's.
Speaker 1: Point had gotten that the Europeans were ready to sign
Speaker 1: their trade deal with the administration. Yesterday they said no,
Speaker 1: we're not signing. We're going to back off.
Speaker 4: And I think to some extent, they finally.
Speaker 1: Realized their power, and they've realized the fact that signing
Speaker 1: deals doesn't necessarily mean what it used to mean, because
Speaker 1: that deal may only last.
Speaker 4: You know, they had a deal on the table that.
Speaker 1: We've negotiated, they're about to sign, and then over the
Speaker 1: weekend the president just says, oh, I'm going to increase
Speaker 1: at ten to twenty five percent.
Speaker 4: How did that effect? Where's our deal? You just changed
Speaker 4: the deal. You just can't tolerate that kind of dynamic.
Speaker 3: Well, not only that, but several times we've noticed this
Speaker 3: administration turned around and saying, you know what, we don't
Speaker 3: like the situation. We're withdrawing from some other you know,
Speaker 3: the deal we have, whatever it was, whether it was
Speaker 3: signed by a previous administration or not, and we're going
Speaker 3: to come back and give you a whole other idea.
Speaker 3: And then they don't even come back to the table.
Speaker 3: So you don't know what the Americans are going to
Speaker 3: do at this point. They are the definition of you know, unpredictable,
Speaker 3: you know, as far now. Some people say, well, that's
Speaker 3: part of Trump's genius. Look, I don't think for a
Speaker 3: second he's the guy designing this. Okay, he loves to
Speaker 3: make the statements. But the point is, this is what
Speaker 3: they're dealing with, is we don't know what happens. Even
Speaker 3: if we make an agreement, it may not even hold right.
Speaker 1: And there are these general agreements, and then there are
Speaker 1: all these product specific agreements.
Speaker 4: You know, we've excluded this, We've excluded that. Now this
Speaker 4: week will exclude something else.
Speaker 1: Or by the way, this week we decided that o're
Speaker 1: going to suspend this particular item for twelve months, okay.
Speaker 1: And the tariff we talked about being in place last week,
Speaker 1: we're going to postpone for twelve months, which sounds good okay,
Speaker 1: and that that is good to one, but it's not
Speaker 1: good for business planning. I got to tell you, how
Speaker 1: do you how do you use size your production? How
Speaker 1: do you size your inventories? How did how do you
Speaker 1: side your shipping logistics? These people got to got a
Speaker 1: book freighters and air cargo.
Speaker 4: And you need stability to do that and make it
Speaker 4: come out. Say you know you're going to have a problem.
Speaker 4: So a lot of that I think the general public
Speaker 4: is not following.
Speaker 1: I try to follow it, Like I haven't seen anybody
Speaker 1: say that they could actually write up a statement of
Speaker 1: what the terror situation is this week right across the
Speaker 1: board on all the products to all the countries.
Speaker 4: I know now we're collecting there's so many variables.
Speaker 3: Well you see That's where I'm at with it. Okay.
Speaker 3: Now when you look at that, okay, there's part of
Speaker 3: the European situation, but then also Ukraine because what could
Speaker 3: have happened this week if we were really engaged with
Speaker 3: that process where it seems like Trump just went, well,
Speaker 3: you know what, Putin wouldn't listen to me, so I
Speaker 3: give up. It almost seems like that in public, you know.
Speaker 3: And this is still a factor for Europe. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, yeah, they've stepped up, and he says, oh,
Speaker 3: look I got him paying more in the NATO, so
Speaker 3: you know, NATO's actually doing something. But I don't know
Speaker 3: if I even need NATO, you know, like, regardless of
Speaker 3: the commitment, right.
Speaker 4: Like, yeah, I think I think.
Speaker 1: What's happening there is the North Atlantic Alliance presumed there
Speaker 1: was a presumption that America was under as much threat
Speaker 1: as European would you know, for the Soviet Union it
Speaker 1: would be a strategic threat, you know, and everybody needed
Speaker 1: recon together. What's happened over the last year with Ukraine
Speaker 1: is Russia has started asymmetric warfare against the Europeans, cyber warfare, sabotage, and.
Speaker 4: The Europeans know it. I mean, if you look at
Speaker 4: how many cables have.
Speaker 1: Been cut by Russian linked freighters, they know that they're
Speaker 1: already in asymmetric warfare. Putin is showing is trying to
Speaker 1: show them their weakness. He's not doing that to the US,
Speaker 1: So to some extent, Europe is already under attacked. The
Speaker 1: United States is not acknowledging that it's not to the
Speaker 1: level of where you invoke Article. But Europe needs knows
Speaker 1: that it needs to rearm and actually enter at least
Speaker 1: one level of combat already, which the US is not
Speaker 1: even acknowledging. So that has fragmented the alliances extent because
Speaker 1: we're ignoring what's happening between Russia and Europe, not just Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Russia and Europe, and Europe is again, if you listen
Speaker 1: to the speeches today, Europe is buckling up its belt
Speaker 1: and going, you know, either.
Speaker 4: Either we face up to this and form a new
Speaker 4: military alliance.
Speaker 1: It may be built around the alliance that helped Ukraine,
Speaker 1: but Europe is facing a situation, and we have left
Speaker 1: them on their own essentially, And now we not only
Speaker 1: left them on their own because we're not acknowledging the
Speaker 1: Russian threat to them and what's going on. By the way,
Speaker 1: we're not acknowledging what's really in play.
Speaker 4: Now we set up a picture where we're actually gonna we.
Speaker 1: Threatened I mean he threatened to invade an ally, right,
Speaker 1: I mean that was you can't ignore them, it's sort of.
Speaker 4: NATO. Is NATO going. How Why would NATO.
Speaker 1: Trust the US that we threatened to invade an ally
Speaker 1: they would have to invoke I mean technically speaking, that
Speaker 1: would break their lives. I can't again, I can't think
Speaker 1: of anything or as someone pointed out, and I think
Speaker 1: if people don't understand this, over the last sixty years,
Speaker 1: we had dozens of military installations in Greenland. We posted
Speaker 1: thousands and thousands of.
Speaker 4: Troops in Greenland.
Speaker 1: Greenland was We've always had a major military presence there
Speaker 1: and Greenland was very receptive to it, including not just missiles,
Speaker 1: sack bases, aircraft, Navy ships being ported to surveil the
Speaker 1: sub gap that runs east of Greenland. It was always
Speaker 1: a very cooperatives There was never any question that Greenland
Speaker 1: was not a major base for US and that we
Speaker 1: were ready to protect it.
Speaker 4: And it was a forward leading base.
Speaker 1: By the way, I should say that for SAK this
Speaker 1: is not just a defensive base. This was for a
Speaker 1: period of time, you know B thirty six bombers and
Speaker 1: early on this was the forward leading strike place. There
Speaker 1: were even plans for major missile installations of ballistic missiles
Speaker 1: which Greenland and Denmark accepted there is nothing from a
Speaker 1: national security standpoint that they wouldn't willingly allow us to do,
Speaker 1: which raises the whole question of where in the world
Speaker 1: did this come from.
Speaker 4: They've always been very supportive.
Speaker 1: And someone also did an interesting CALLI despite, are the
Speaker 1: Chinese really a threat to Greenland? I don't think so,
Speaker 1: as Russia really has threat to Greenland? Probably not. But
Speaker 1: if they were, I mean, Russia has lots of icebreakers,
Speaker 1: three times as many icebreakers as we do. We're talking
Speaker 1: about needing Greenland for national security and we haven't even
Speaker 1: built a new icebreaker in ten years, and it's like,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, are we doing anything for the Arctic.
Speaker 4: Anyway?
Speaker 1: I just as far as national security what we have
Speaker 1: done there the consequences of this move to Greenland when
Speaker 1: it was totally unnecessary, I would argue anyone that told
Speaker 1: me differently, just the consequences for that are.
Speaker 4: Decades long, right.
Speaker 3: And here's the thing about it, too, is there is
Speaker 3: a long term effect that nobody's talking about at this
Speaker 3: point in time, which is that this allows China to breathe.
Speaker 3: I mean, they're basically not involved in the hostilities here
Speaker 3: on a level. I mean like everything that is, you know,
Speaker 3: in turmoil has nothing to do with China. Zero.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and if you've got a good point, especially in
Speaker 1: terms of dollars. We keep wondering how China can build
Speaker 1: this immense navl I mean, China is building a United
Speaker 1: ground and air and navy.
Speaker 4: Capability far and excess of us. Or did they get
Speaker 4: all the money?
Speaker 1: Well, one of the reasons is they're not spending all
Speaker 1: the money on operations that we are. They're not they're
Speaker 1: not deploying forces around the worldld they're not consuming ammunition
Speaker 1: and weaponry. They can focus everything on construction.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is the military. This is the military phase. Yeah, sorry, Larry,
Speaker 3: this is the military phase in my mind. You could
Speaker 3: tell me I'm wrong also, but to my mind, this
Speaker 3: is the military phase of what we brought. Aready seen
Speaker 3: happen in manufacturing with China? In consumer manufacturing, they did
Speaker 3: the same thing already where they stayed out of the fray.
Speaker 3: They just built their infrastructure. Come on in, We'll give
Speaker 3: you the cheap rates. Let's go. You just got to
Speaker 3: cooperate with the Chinese government. And you know, an international
Speaker 3: businessman has no problem whatever kind of government. They have
Speaker 3: a technique to deal with them, So come in and
Speaker 3: deal with us. We're not involved in bombing people. We're
Speaker 3: not doing these things. Yes, we want to take over
Speaker 3: you know, this one little piece of territory near us,
Speaker 3: but outside of that, we're not doing military actions.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're suppressive to our own people. We got slave labor,
Speaker 3: that's fine. But they built an economic machine and manufacturing
Speaker 3: and even a middle class in China during the time
Speaker 3: that we were involved in guess what, the War on Terror.
Speaker 3: So my point is that now you're seeing the military
Speaker 3: phase of this, and they're going to build an immense
Speaker 3: military power while we're sitting here doing all this. I'm thinking,
Speaker 3: while we're expending all these resources, shuffling troops all over
Speaker 3: the place and doing this, it just seems to me
Speaker 3: as though, Okay, whatever those benefits are, we better be
Speaker 3: ready to respond, because you're going to have a massive
Speaker 3: military ready, okay, with again, you know, a population larger
Speaker 3: than ours, a group of people that are going to
Speaker 3: be a little more dedicated to to you know, survival
Speaker 3: than us. We got a problem here that they can
Speaker 3: build nights and quietly while we're sitting here squabbling with
Speaker 3: our allies, squabbling with and we haven't even gotten to
Speaker 3: the Middle Eastern element here yet, which I'd like you
Speaker 3: to cover, because this is all going to interact with.
Speaker 3: You know, nothing happens in a bubble. You've heard that phrase.
Speaker 3: International diplomacy doesn't happen in a bubble either, So you
Speaker 3: know he's doing this with Okay, so we could see
Speaker 3: China could come in and offer a better deal, so
Speaker 3: they could tell us take our tariffs and stuff them.
Speaker 3: And that's fine, Okay, fine, we'll just do it without them.
Speaker 3: I get it. But after a while, I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: what are you doing except fueling this thing that's sitting
Speaker 3: there building up its resources while not expending them in
Speaker 3: squabbles on three different, three distinctly different geographical locations on
Speaker 3: the planet. Or am I just out of my mind
Speaker 3: thinking this way?
Speaker 4: Well, and one would have to wonder.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like, okay, I mean, morally, you can't
Speaker 1: question the thought that, you know, we hate to see
Speaker 1: the Iranian government killing thousands of its citizens. That's terrible.
Speaker 1: There's no reason not to be disgusted about that. But
Speaker 1: are we not equally disgusted about other regimes around the
Speaker 1: world that routinely do that? And are we going to
Speaker 1: intervene in every single one of them? I mean, not
Speaker 1: that we haven't or the past try to do that,
Speaker 1: never terribly effective. But at what the quandary that I
Speaker 1: have is, how can you be so personally, morally, you know,
Speaker 1: engaged with the regime in Iran when you're ignoring Russia
Speaker 1: trying to phrase tens of thousands of Ukrainians to death
Speaker 1: this winter?
Speaker 4: Well, just ignore that.
Speaker 3: There's that, and it's what, Well, the majority of the
Speaker 3: population still alive in Iran probably doesn't remember the shaw
Speaker 3: on the Slavaka anymore either. You know that guy? Remember
Speaker 3: that guy? Okay, you know, we sort of installed that guy. Uh,
Speaker 3: you know, let's bring him back their king and oh,
Speaker 3: by the way, let's train their death squad their secret police,
Speaker 3: because that's what the Savak was. Okay, but I think
Speaker 3: maybe that generation has aged out, maybe they're all dead,
Speaker 3: they don't remember that. But now they're looking at this new,
Speaker 3: weird existential threat from the United States. I don't know,
Speaker 3: you know, what do you think?
Speaker 1: And politically it's kind of fascinating because and by the way,
Speaker 1: way not that I don't politically one of the huge
Speaker 1: arguments about former administrations was Libya and other regimes in Africa.
Speaker 4: We remember the period of.
Speaker 1: Time when we were looking for, you know, a new
Speaker 1: wave of democracy across Africa, a new wave of democracy across.
Speaker 4: Oh I don't know, the crimea all of.
Speaker 1: The former Soviet We were really excited because it looked
Speaker 1: like democracy was taking hold, and.
Speaker 4: We put a lot of money into that.
Speaker 1: We supported democratic movements. And then we got to Libya
Speaker 1: and it's like Glibya had a civil war, and there
Speaker 1: was this huge outcryft why are we intervening in the
Speaker 1: Libyan civil war?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 1: And our only excuse was we're on the side of
Speaker 1: the people and we're for democracy.
Speaker 4: I won't say it's about it, but I shouldn't say excuse.
Speaker 1: Our reason was where, and that was, let's just say
Speaker 1: that that was widely opposed by one of the political parties.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not our business. It's not our business
Speaker 1: to be the world's policeman. It's not our business to
Speaker 1: engage in military over affairs overseas that are strictly political.
Speaker 1: We may not like it, but that's not our job.
Speaker 1: And there's not a single protest about Iran.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: No, we're terribly offended by the fact that they've got
Speaker 1: a brutal, illegal, dictatorial government that's beheading people with acxes.
Speaker 4: I don't like that.
Speaker 1: But if we don't like that, we need to suddenly go, Okay,
Speaker 1: we now redeclare that we are the world policeman and
Speaker 1: we will pick you know, where's our checklist, like how
Speaker 1: many thousands of your people do you have to kill
Speaker 1: this month before we send in our police force?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: Because so that's what we're doing in Iran. And these
Speaker 1: are like three totally different situations. And that's why I
Speaker 1: would argue that there can't be anything other than a
Speaker 1: transactional strategy because we're treating them all totally different. Iran
Speaker 1: is the you're you know, you're being brutal and terrible.
Speaker 1: So we not just we, but we and Israel are
Speaker 1: going to crush you. And the narrative as of today
Speaker 1: that I'm here and I can't swear to this is
Speaker 1: that one of the reasons, you know, Trump said that
Speaker 1: he was going to intervene in arn a week ago.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I'm hearing is Israel said, no,
Speaker 1: don't do that yet, because we need more air defense missiles,
Speaker 1: we need more air stuff in place, because when you
Speaker 1: do that, they're going to attack with it.
Speaker 4: Don't attack them until we're prepared. We'll go with you.
Speaker 1: We'll both get together and totally destroy them. But we
Speaker 1: need more missiles first, and we have been shipping missile
Speaker 1: systems Israel.
Speaker 3: This week, right and last I saw according to troop deployments,
Speaker 3: I mean, and there's like thirty thousand American troops within
Speaker 3: striking distance of Iran if they want to get serious.
Speaker 1: This afternoon, looking at the charts for the last week,
Speaker 1: we have been deploying forces like mad East, like I
Speaker 1: talked about those tanker right, So it looks like you know,
Speaker 1: and one of the things the way it's being managed
Speaker 1: is he's simply saying, well, they didn't hang people last week,
Speaker 1: so I'm not doing it. But when they when they
Speaker 1: go overboard, we'll do it. And it looks to me
Speaker 1: like that's just just a timing thing, you know. Then
Speaker 1: he'll declare they did something. But that's what really troubles
Speaker 1: me is again, what is the rationale? Did Congress really
Speaker 1: say that, you know, as we're Paul enough to declare
Speaker 1: war against because this is not to be a police action.
Speaker 4: This is going to be a full scale strike.
Speaker 1: The attack on the Atomic Center was at least a
Speaker 1: targeted attack, but in any event, completely different scenario. That's
Speaker 1: why it makes it when you ask the question what
Speaker 1: is the strategy, it's sort of like, if there is one,
Speaker 1: it's so deep, I haven't seen one, and it just
Speaker 1: looks purely transactional.
Speaker 3: That's my point about these three areas. Basically we're talking
Speaker 3: about okay, which is, you know, let's just boil it down.
Speaker 3: You got your Middle Eastern area, which, by the way,
Speaker 3: it's acceptable for the regime in Syria to be just
Speaker 3: by now, even though you know, I could have swore
Speaker 3: that one guy was supposed to be like an ISIS leader,
Speaker 3: wasn't he anyway? You know, pay no attention to that.
Speaker 3: I don't think anybody even uses that term anymore, you know.
Speaker 3: But you have Iran in the Israel circumstance, you have
Speaker 3: what's happening in Ukraine and Europe, and you have what
Speaker 3: we got going on in South and Central America. So
Speaker 3: I don't see how this strategically makes any sort of
Speaker 3: reconcilable sense according to the ways of doing things before.
Speaker 3: But again, lots of transactions can be made out of this. Uh,
Speaker 3: but are they going to be to our better.
Speaker 4: Let's get back to China.
Speaker 1: Let's get back to China for a minute and think
Speaker 1: about this at This is just something that has occurred
Speaker 1: to me. One of the things that does link all
Speaker 1: of these things together is control of oil.
Speaker 4: Not Greenland.
Speaker 1: Okay, fine, that's the but Iran and Venezuela, and if
Speaker 1: we do put regimes in place where in both countries
Speaker 1: where you know, we no longer has to sanction sales
Speaker 1: because they're selling to whom and when we want them to,
Speaker 1: which is literally what we said about Venezuela, We'll we'll
Speaker 1: take your oil and we'll tell you who to sell
Speaker 1: to what you know, everything other than what price, I guess,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure about that. But if if we
Speaker 1: essentially take control of the oil coming out of South America,
Speaker 1: the oil coming out of the Mid East, you know,
Speaker 1: China has been a major buyer of oil from Venezuela,
Speaker 1: from Iran, right, and my thought is that China is
Speaker 1: going to be forced to the huge reserves of oil
Speaker 1: have now been discovered off the Philippines, and my guess
Speaker 1: is that you may scare China to the point where
Speaker 1: China moves to protect itself by controlling those oil reserves.
Speaker 4: And up to now, you know, they've been able to
Speaker 4: get oil globally, so why tap the reserves.
Speaker 1: They're just kind of claiming this territory. They're not really
Speaker 1: producing out of it, you know. But if we get
Speaker 1: to the point where they clearly realize that somehow we
Speaker 1: have managed to control the world's oil supply to a
Speaker 1: large extent, we.
Speaker 4: Scare them into doing something we really don't want to
Speaker 4: see them do. Long term.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that.
Speaker 4: Oil is one common.
Speaker 1: Thing about both of those and I can understand why,
Speaker 1: you know, the administration would want oil to be as
Speaker 1: cheap and gasoline is to be as cheap as possible.
Speaker 1: But again, there are long term consequences of these things
Speaker 1: that are strategic, so that may be.
Speaker 4: Transactional as well.
Speaker 1: Certainly, gaining control of oil that we didn't have control
Speaker 1: before is a strategic play. It it's a strategic play.
Speaker 1: I just hope we aren't playing it strictly tactically. You
Speaker 1: know what's good for the next two years, you know, Oh,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, we didn't look at what the effect
Speaker 1: would be ten years down the line.
Speaker 3: Well, it's like in a poker game. It's not always
Speaker 3: good to bankrupt the guy sitting next to you because
Speaker 3: you could use them to play off of the other
Speaker 3: who's got a bigger, you know, bank And that's what
Speaker 3: the problem is here is, Look, if we end up
Speaker 3: taking okay, you take absolute control of Venezuela's oil, but
Speaker 3: that's a long term problem because it's not like crude.
Speaker 3: It's not going to come up easy. So there's that problem.
Speaker 3: Then you take into account the other oil interest over
Speaker 3: there in Iran who even knows at this point, because
Speaker 3: you know, we had all these sanctions against them, right,
Speaker 3: so their oil was going places, but it wasn't going
Speaker 3: to the places that we were getting it from. So
Speaker 3: we're gonna end up with again a different kind of
Speaker 3: product if we even took that all. Right, now, if
Speaker 3: that all happens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you take the shadow fleet out of the
Speaker 1: equation and remove a lot of Russia's ability to explore
Speaker 1: a whale, you know, we kind of think, oh, the
Speaker 1: shadow fleet thing is, you know, something separately, but that
Speaker 1: really to a large extent is it's it's removing Russian
Speaker 1: exports too, So that this if there's any strategy in
Speaker 1: all of this, and this doesn't include Greenland. If there's
Speaker 1: any strategy that links all of it, it's controlling oil.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, given the current administration's total
Speaker 1: focus on oil for energy, uh, and really the disregard
Speaker 1: of any other energy source than oil, you know, that
Speaker 1: may be the game that's in play that just because
Speaker 1: it's it's like it's in hand now.
Speaker 4: It's something that we can control.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: It's not futures.
Speaker 1: It's just let's let's make a play for the energy
Speaker 1: resources available to us, and if we control it, we've
Speaker 1: got a strategic win for X number of years at least.
Speaker 3: Yeah. But here's the thing. Is it bringing down the
Speaker 3: price for anybody's heating oil right now? Prime time? Is
Speaker 3: it doing it?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: Is it bringing down the gas price?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: Is it bringing down any price?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: See, here's the thing. We're not seeing the benefits here,
Speaker 3: not on the ground, not in America.
Speaker 1: We didn't build any more refineries, and I thought that
Speaker 1: they're really I don't call it humorous, but I just
Speaker 1: kind of shaped shook my head when I heard it
Speaker 1: last week. It's sort of you know, when when the
Speaker 1: oil companies who are pushing back on the Venezuelan and like,
Speaker 1: we don't want to pump a major investment in there.
Speaker 4: It's kind of like you.
Speaker 1: Guys haven't built any new refineries in a long time either, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And the exchange that was had was, well, they're going
Speaker 1: to do this for the good of the country because
Speaker 1: it will reduce the price of gasoline.
Speaker 4: My immediate thought is.
Speaker 1: Does corporate America really do things like that these days?
Speaker 1: You know, are they really going to make some move
Speaker 1: that's going to reduce their income and are they're like
Speaker 1: all their boards are hyper patriotic and they're going to
Speaker 1: give them salary increases for doing that. I think they're
Speaker 1: going to look at their price points and their cost
Speaker 1: of investment and return.
Speaker 4: You know, I think they're business people.
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny because after that exchange, the president said, say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, these are really business people. I'm going, yeah,
Speaker 1: yes they are, and reducing the price of their product
Speaker 1: is not necessarily their first choice.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: So anyway, Larry, what else is there to take from
Speaker 3: all this, Because, like I say, this is just a
Speaker 3: whirlwind of stuff going on, and I think we are
Speaker 3: coming to the right idea here, is that there is
Speaker 3: an emerging sort of strategy that you could say regarding oil. Now,
Speaker 3: whether it's the why strategy or not, is something that
Speaker 3: time is going to tell us here, because again, if
Speaker 3: China has an idea that they're going to get strapped
Speaker 3: down because they don't have access to energy, they're going
Speaker 3: to punch a hole somewhere and get it. And you
Speaker 3: know what kind of hole are they going to have
Speaker 3: to punch? Is the question? Is it going to be
Speaker 3: a business punch or is it going to be a
Speaker 3: military punch? Is it going to be something else where?
Speaker 3: We have to respond because look, Philippine territory is supposed
Speaker 3: to be what a protectorate of ours?
Speaker 1: Not?
Speaker 3: Right? So you know what are we looking at here? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think the takeaway of all of this is that
Speaker 1: we've got to step back and it's easy to be
Speaker 1: a cheerleader, you know. I again, everybody knows I'm like
Speaker 1: pro military and it's okay, it's easy to be a cheerleader.
Speaker 4: When you see how well our forces performed in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: That's great, and I you know, they are extremely competent,
Speaker 1: extremely professional, and it's easy to be a cheerleader and
Speaker 1: kind of step back and say we can take anybody in.
Speaker 4: The world, you know, But then the question that you
Speaker 4: have to ask is what's the consequence of that? I mean,
Speaker 4: that's like the stool.
Speaker 1: Youard bully saying they're bigger and they have the ability
Speaker 1: to get money from anybody on the school ground.
Speaker 4: Is that does long term? How does that work for you?
Speaker 1: It work for you know, first through fifth grade, but
Speaker 1: you know, is this a long term strategy? Are you
Speaker 1: going to are people going to love you for this?
Speaker 1: Are you going to have relationships long term? To me,
Speaker 1: there's a sports metaphor. It's sort of like, well I
Speaker 1: got all the way to the finals, but along the
Speaker 1: way I broke my quarterback's leg.
Speaker 4: Everybody's out. You know.
Speaker 1: The good news is we got to the finals. Wait
Speaker 1: a minute, what were the consequences?
Speaker 4: I just we shouldn't. We shouldn't.
Speaker 3: I saw a.
Speaker 1: Picture today that I thought was appalling, and I would
Speaker 1: tell everybody in the room, you people are idiots.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Personally, it was a people, a number of art congress
Speaker 1: people and administrative They had made a cake of greenland
Speaker 1: and they we're cutting pieces apart, and the whole message obviously,
Speaker 1: we can do whatever we want to do to anybody
Speaker 1: when we want to do it, and that's insane that
Speaker 1: just all of us know people that are like that,
Speaker 1: and you have to ask yourself, does that ever come
Speaker 1: out good in the long term. Yeah, it's fun and
Speaker 1: you can beat your chest, but you know, think about that.
Speaker 3: For a minut Yeah, but I can't. I can't. I
Speaker 3: can't tell you how many.
Speaker 4: Times about everybody, what every foreign right say, what about
Speaker 4: every foreign country that saw images of that little cake
Speaker 4: cutting incident?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they think about us now exactly. I was just
Speaker 3: gonna say to you, I can't tell you how many
Speaker 3: times I saw a bully, right, you know, a guy
Speaker 3: who was just bigger than everybody else do quite well
Speaker 3: for a little while until guess what happens? Three guys
Speaker 3: figure out, you know, if we all go at him
Speaker 3: at once, he's going down.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: That's that's the way that works. And this is what
Speaker 3: I'm wondering. If anybody's you know, really taking this in, like,
Speaker 3: you know, can we take Greenland? Probably? Is this wise
Speaker 3: to do? Is any other friendly, cooperative place going to
Speaker 3: look at this and go, you know, what, they took Greenland?
Speaker 3: We might need to prepare ourselves to deal with they
Speaker 3: come to take us, you know, is this wise again?
Speaker 3: So again, look, time will tell it is transactional. Like
Speaker 3: you said, that's a great takeaway, and it is a
Speaker 3: great way to kind of, you know, sus it out
Speaker 3: and understand that there may be a strategy here. But
Speaker 3: is it long term? I don't see how it can be.
Speaker 3: Perhaps we're entering into a time Larry, where you know what,
Speaker 3: the world has changed, right, you know, so we need
Speaker 3: to change with it. But it just doesn't make enough
Speaker 3: sense to me to seem like something that's going to
Speaker 3: get us, you know, stability ten years from now. I
Speaker 3: think we're going to be feeling these problems ten years
Speaker 3: from now still.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and even if it was just a deal, Chuck,
Speaker 1: we all know that we've all been in deals and
Speaker 1: deals both parties.
Speaker 4: Really, if it's going to be a long term relationship,
Speaker 4: you don't ice cut a deal.
Speaker 1: And if somebody walks away feeling like they've really been screwed,
Speaker 1: they're not going back. Right, You're gonna buy a car
Speaker 1: there again, You're gonna have lunch there again. You know,
Speaker 1: deals assume that everybody may not get exactly what they want,
Speaker 1: but they all walked away with something that's being different
Speaker 1: than the bully thing.
Speaker 4: Okay, maybe if it's on the playground. I did a deal.
Speaker 1: Here, here's my quarter, now protect me from the other kids.
Speaker 1: But a deal has to have something for both sides.
Speaker 1: The way we're kind of approaching deals at the moment
Speaker 1: doesn't feel that way. So even if we're just deals,
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel up, doesn't feel quite right.
Speaker 3: There you go. And again, guys, look, I obviously always
Speaker 3: tell you, you know, I recommend all of Larry's books
Speaker 3: for sure, but also go over to Larry Handcock dot
Speaker 3: WordPress dot com and check out his blog. And you
Speaker 3: know what, next time I get together with Larry, I'm
Speaker 3: actually hoping to talk a little uh little Lee Harvey
Speaker 3: Oswald with him. Uh maybe maybe some stuff like that,
Speaker 3: because he's been writing a series of articles uh that
Speaker 3: jfk Fax has published, and I do want to get
Speaker 3: into that with you, because you've said some interesting things
Speaker 3: in those articles that I didn't quite expect. Larry, honestly, Uh,
Speaker 3: I I must have I I really, I must have
Speaker 3: missed something in The Oswald Puzzle, which is another book
Speaker 3: I highly recommend, but I guess I got to give
Speaker 3: it another read because I was like, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: is this new information because it was a little a
Speaker 3: couple of new things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, there is some new information in there.
Speaker 1: There's some new information that's going to be coming out
Speaker 1: in the uh the uh next version of the Oswald Puzzle.
Speaker 1: Will we added a couple of chapters. Uh or Yeah,
Speaker 1: there is some new information. But chuck before I forget it,
Speaker 1: since they're going to be looking at my blog. The
Speaker 1: most recent thing I posted this evening was a link
Speaker 1: to Stuart Wexler is going to be appearing before the
Speaker 1: Lunar Panel tomorrow giving testimony and taking questions about MLK
Speaker 1: document releases. And you know, for those that they're interested
Speaker 1: in the Keen assassination, that would probably be pretty interesting
Speaker 1: to follow. It should be on c SPAN. Certainly, it
Speaker 1: will be streamed from the link on my blog, and
Speaker 1: I sent you a copy of the link so that
Speaker 1: it's it's getting hard to follow everything.
Speaker 4: It's like, okay, what is today? What was yesterday?
Speaker 3: Right? And look, I will publish that and that'll be
Speaker 3: around what time did you say on the It'll be
Speaker 3: the twenty second of January.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, it'll be the twenty second, and I think
Speaker 4: it starts at ten eastern.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, wait a minute, maybe it starts at eight eastern.
Speaker 4: I know it's nine indural for me, So let's let's
Speaker 4: just say that people can figure the time zones.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 4: We'll give them give them a time no problem.
Speaker 3: Nine central means ten eastern, so that is where you'll
Speaker 3: be able to catch it. And I guarantee it'll be
Speaker 3: on either C Span one, two or three. Uh, depending
Speaker 3: on their programming schedule that day.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: But uh, you know the Lunar panel now focusing on
Speaker 3: MLK document releases. I think they're done with JFK, by
Speaker 3: the way, but I guess we'll see.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: But but either I think they're done with JFK. I
Speaker 4: think there might be an RFK hearing. There has not been,
Speaker 4: but I think they're done with JFK. I think they're
Speaker 4: done with UFOs. I think you know, this will do MLK.
Speaker 4: I think it's a If there's anything added, it might
Speaker 4: be one on RFK.
Speaker 3: There you go. So again, Yeah, check out Larry's blog.
Speaker 3: I'll give you guys all the links in the show
Speaker 3: notes that that Larry dropped me, including the link to
Speaker 3: Stu Wexler's testimony tomorrow. And I want to talk to Stu,
Speaker 3: by the way, just let him know I'd love to
Speaker 3: talk to him, especially after he does his testimony. I
Speaker 3: certainly would love to speak with him next week. If
Speaker 3: he has time, I'll do it. You know, I'd like
Speaker 3: to discuss that experience, because you know, it was like
Speaker 3: difficult to get anybody from the panel to talk to
Speaker 3: me last time when they did JFK stuff. So but
Speaker 3: but Stu, you know, I've always supported his work as
Speaker 3: well when he was co authoring with you, and even
Speaker 3: stuff that he wrote on his own. Stu is an
Speaker 3: amazing researcher and and and somebody who you know is
Speaker 3: probably one of the most underrated guys out there as
Speaker 3: far as you know historical excavation, let's put it that way.
Speaker 3: But again, I'm happy to talk about about and to
Speaker 3: Larry Hancock. I recommend all of his books, and I
Speaker 3: can't wait to see this update at Oswald Puzzle. But
Speaker 3: maybe that's what we'll talk about in two weeks. Until then,
Speaker 3: I am ocelly. You are the effect. I've been with
Speaker 3: Larry Hancock for almost an hour tonight here on a Wednesday,
Speaker 3: and hopefully you got something out of it.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: M M.
Speaker 3: Dot Com Radio di viuse expressed by caller schools. There
Speaker 3: anyone else who happens to get on the air of
Speaker 3: Keelly dot com do not necessarily reflect the views of
Speaker 3: Kelly dot Com or Chef Chilly, and we are not
Speaker 3: responsible for any stupidity which might ensue. Thank you, Wall Street, Street,
Speaker 3: Window dot dot com, Wall Street, Windows dot Com, Doo
Speaker 3: dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State,
Speaker 3: gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street, Go there, now, there,
Speaker 3: now there Now.
Speaker 2: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 2: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 2: nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 2: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 2: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 2: Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 2: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 2: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 5: In Denial, Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 5: Larry Hancock. Secret Wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 5: operations are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial
Speaker 5: rips the.
Speaker 6: Cover off many of them using new files. It exposes
Speaker 6: things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has
Speaker 6: ever written about before. It shows why it really failed
Speaker 6: and why the United States did not.
Speaker 3: Earn from it.
Speaker 6: It also shows why other countries today are doing secret
Speaker 6: operations with more success. This is the book that puts
Speaker 6: what some want to deny into the light. In Denial
Speaker 6: secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock. For
Speaker 6: more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick
Speaker 6: up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 6: In Digital or Physical.
Speaker 2: Force, Revelation through Conversation.
Speaker 7: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 7: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 7: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 7: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 7: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 7: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 7: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 7: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 7: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 7: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 7: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 7: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 7: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 7: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 7: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 7: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 7: up against.
Speaker 2: For more information, the Warstate dot com, oh Chili dot
Speaker 2: com