Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome everybody to another edition of The Cajun
Speaker 1: Night Live. I am your host, the Cage to Night,
Speaker 1: Jacob Mook, and I want to thank everybody for joining
Speaker 1: me on this evening. If you're listening to this the
Speaker 1: following day, you need to be a part of this conversation.
Speaker 1: The only place to go to do that would be
Speaker 1: to go to patreon dot com slash Cajun Night and
Speaker 1: it's in the link in the description below.
Speaker 2: Only one tier for entry.
Speaker 1: Come join us every Wednesday night at nine pm Central
Speaker 1: and be a part of the conversation. A lot of
Speaker 1: things going on, y'all. As always, there's never a shortage
Speaker 1: of buffoonery that is happening in our world. And honestly,
Speaker 1: I kind of almost forgot that the Clintons were out
Speaker 1: and about.
Speaker 2: I know that they're, you know, free people.
Speaker 1: They're out here breathing the free air, and I have
Speaker 1: an issue with that, but whatever, they kind of fall
Speaker 1: into the realm of you know, irrelevance from time to time.
Speaker 1: Then out of nowhere, they just they come right back
Speaker 1: up in the headlines. And boy, oh boy, this is
Speaker 1: not a good one for them to come up while
Speaker 1: talking about. But let's get into it together, y'all. So
Speaker 1: this is from NBC News. House Republicans plan on holding
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing to testify in Epstein probe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a thing. That's the thing.
Speaker 1: So the announcement comes a day after the Oversight Committee
Speaker 1: chair James Comer said he would seek to hold former
Speaker 1: President Bill Clinton in.
Speaker 2: Contempt for skipping his deposition.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So essentially they have been called in for questioning
Speaker 1: and they both said, no, we're not gonna do that.
Speaker 1: We're doing something else because they know how deeply embedded
Speaker 1: they were with Epstein. We're gonna play this short little
Speaker 1: clip here, and then we're gonna read the article. But
Speaker 1: you know, every time, every time you think the Clintons
Speaker 1: might just be going to the House for good, they're irrelevant.
Speaker 1: They're retired, they're old school now here. They are out
Speaker 1: here just doing the shit. Again.
Speaker 2: Here we go.
Speaker 3: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are facing the prospect
Speaker 3: of being held in contempt of Congress. This after failing
Speaker 3: to peer for a closed door deposition as part of
Speaker 3: the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Speaker 4: I think it's very disappointing as a result of Bill
Speaker 4: Clinton not showing up for his lawful subpoena.
Speaker 3: The Clinton's informed the committee they had nothing material to
Speaker 3: offer the investigation, and in a letter to Chairman James Comer,
Speaker 3: they argued his subpoenas were legally invalid, writing every person
Speaker 3: has to decide when they have seen or had enough
Speaker 3: and are ready to fight for this country, its principles,
Speaker 3: and its people, no matter the consequences for us. Now
Speaker 3: is that time. The former president has long denied any wrongdoing,
Speaker 3: but Republicans point out that Clinton has repeatedly appeared in
Speaker 3: photos and documents connected to Epstein, arguing he has information
Speaker 3: to provide.
Speaker 4: No one's accused of Bill Clinton of any wrong doing.
Speaker 5: We just have questions.
Speaker 3: Most Democrats we spoke to today either avoided the question
Speaker 3: or defended the Clinton's decision to skip the deposition. But
Speaker 3: Democrats wrote Sonna, who wrote the law to force the
Speaker 3: DOJ to release all the files, had a different take.
Speaker 3: Do you think the president should have appeared?
Speaker 5: He should appear.
Speaker 6: I have always said that this needs to be transparent.
Speaker 6: Everyone involved should be providing an explanation, and I have
Speaker 6: conducted this in a way that doesn't single out Republicans
Speaker 6: or Democrats.
Speaker 2: Yo, shout out to Rocanna.
Speaker 1: I know he's a Democrat, and I don't necessarily agree
Speaker 1: with the majority of his statements that he makes on
Speaker 1: the political scale. He just went on The Sean Ryan
Speaker 1: Show and he is very loudly proclaiming that Congress, Senate,
Speaker 1: the White House are all going out of their way
Speaker 1: to protect pedophiles and they're not even being shy about
Speaker 1: it anymore. It was a great episode just throwing that out.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I agree with Roe. These two if they
Speaker 1: were questioned, if they were subpoenaed, they should be they
Speaker 1: should show up, and they said, no, your subpoena is
Speaker 1: invalid because we already told you we don't have anything
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if you were subpoena to appear before
Speaker 1: a judge in your local community and you just said, no,
Speaker 1: I have nothing to say to you, because that's that's
Speaker 1: just gonna go over so well, so well right, that's
Speaker 1: not gonna lead any bit towards And they're not even
Speaker 1: saying that they did anything wrong. They got some questions
Speaker 1: for them and that's all there is to it. Wow,
Speaker 1: But you know, rules for thee, not for me. Go ahead, Sam.
Speaker 1: Before I read this article wagh In.
Speaker 7: I was gonna say, it's funny because they are these
Speaker 7: the same Clintons that men's the land, that no man
Speaker 7: is above the law when and trying to get Trump
Speaker 7: and when it's the both of them are stumbbags.
Speaker 1: It's the same Clinton's with the emails, the private servers,
Speaker 1: the whole Bengati situation. What does it matter? The Lewinsky,
Speaker 1: the whole nine, The same Clinton that he's painted on
Speaker 1: a giant mural in Epstein's house in a blue dress,
Speaker 1: the whole nine.
Speaker 8: All that keeping keep in mind.
Speaker 7: Uh uh, Hillary, she started out as the one too.
Speaker 8: Uh uh. The she started out as a lawyer under
Speaker 8: the Nixon things on Watergate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then she also worked under a very loud
Speaker 1: and proud Klansman.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 10: And she also said that, well, what are you about
Speaker 10: tending to montic Lensky about her getting caught blowing about
Speaker 10: the mess in the office.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 10: She said, well, what do you expect when you drag
Speaker 10: one hundred dollars through a treasure park? And I'm like,
Speaker 10: it's just a loyal cut.
Speaker 1: She is, she is God. I'm trying to remember the Klansmen.
Speaker 1: That was that they worked under Bob's Dewey something there
Speaker 1: wasn't David Duke, it was I.
Speaker 10: Thought it was Dewey or am I thinking about the
Speaker 10: treasurer that killed herself on lot of TV?
Speaker 1: Look it up?
Speaker 2: Look it up.
Speaker 1: Because Biden and Killery both really got their start in
Speaker 1: politics working under him, and uh, that was a whole thing.
Speaker 1: His big push was to resegregate schools, and he was
Speaker 1: on that kick well into the nineties.
Speaker 2: But yeah, somebody looked that up. I'm drawing a blank
Speaker 2: on the name here.
Speaker 10: But anyway, Biden was it was Biden, and that said
Speaker 10: he didn't want his kids to go up in a
Speaker 10: school in a zoo.
Speaker 2: And then I was like, if you don't vote for me,
Speaker 2: you ain't black. Yeah.
Speaker 1: These people, these people don't have like functioning brains in
Speaker 1: my opinion.
Speaker 8: The audacity of their caucacity.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's it's boundless. It's boundless.
Speaker 2: But anyway, anyway, get into the article here.
Speaker 1: The House Oversight Committee will seek to hold former Secretary
Speaker 1: of State Killery Clinton in contempt of Congress after she
Speaker 1: did not appear for a scheduled deposition as part of
Speaker 1: the Republican led Panels investigation into Jeffrey Epstein chairman James
Speaker 1: Comer announced Wednesday. The move comes days after Comer said
Speaker 1: the committee would seek to hold former President Billium in
Speaker 1: contempt for failing to appear for his scheduled deposition Tuesday.
Speaker 1: So basically both of them just decide they're not showing
Speaker 1: up again. Just kind of reiterating what Comber said. We're
Speaker 1: going to hold both Clinton's and criminal contempt of Congress,
Speaker 1: he said this Wednesday morning. The House Oversight Committee will
Speaker 1: vote on both content measures next Wednesday and then bring
Speaker 1: them to the House floor. The committee had negotiated in
Speaker 1: good faith, good faith rather with the Clinton's attorneys for
Speaker 1: five months.
Speaker 2: We have bent over.
Speaker 1: Backwards, he said. Wow. The committee subpoenaed the Clintons last year.
Speaker 1: They were scheduled to appear in October, but that was
Speaker 1: later pushed to December because of their attendance at a funeral.
Speaker 1: Comber said the Clinton's lawyer did not provide alternate dates,
Speaker 1: so he rescheduled their depositions for mid January and larry
Speaker 1: to Comber on Tuesday. The Clinton's argued that the subpoenas
Speaker 1: were quote legally invalid end quote, because that's that's how
Speaker 1: that works, and said they did not plan to appear
Speaker 1: for depositions. The letter cited legal analysis prepared by two
Speaker 1: law firms, which they said they provided to the committee Monday.
Speaker 1: Every person has to decide when they have seen or
Speaker 1: had enough in a raid, a fight for this country.
Speaker 2: It's principles and it's people's, no matter the consequences.
Speaker 1: When of these two ever, ever, period ever fought for
Speaker 1: this country its principles or its people.
Speaker 2: But all right for us, now is that time?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 1: Yeah, because that's coming in to get questioned about some connection,
Speaker 1: some ties to Epstein, just some questions, some things.
Speaker 2: Clearly, this is your time to stand.
Speaker 1: On principles of America. What the fuck are you talking
Speaker 1: about anyway. The letter also said the Clintons expected the
Speaker 1: Committee to vote to hold them in contempt, saying, you
Speaker 1: will say it is not your decision to make, but
Speaker 1: we have made it.
Speaker 2: Now you have to make yours. Damn go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 11: So even with the whole thing about them, have the integrity.
Speaker 11: Part of that integrity should be showing up in court
Speaker 11: when they're supposed to. You would sink, since since they've
Speaker 11: never been held the cattle for either actions. Hillary with
Speaker 11: all of her males, uh you know, her husband with
Speaker 11: everything else, is like they're not first of all, they're
Speaker 11: not showing any kind of good precedent and they just
Speaker 11: aren't gonna do anything and that like so, I mean
Speaker 11: literally literally, how many times were they gonna hold a
Speaker 11: hunter and contempt because he didn't show up? And then
Speaker 11: nothing ever happened to that? And the same thing I
Speaker 11: kind of feel with these guys, like, yeah, they there,
Speaker 11: you know, there's a lot of saber rabbitaling going on. Yeah,
Speaker 11: holy my contempt. But let the actual chances for them
Speaker 11: to do something, I would say are is very minimal.
Speaker 11: I don't really have too much faith in the system anymore, honestly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm with you on that. And then continuing here,
Speaker 1: it says the Clinton's lawyers, Ashley Callen David E. Kendall
Speaker 1: wrote in a separate letter to Comber on Monday that
Speaker 1: the subpoenas were and there's a direct quote here, and
Speaker 1: also listen to the amount of of just outlandish language
Speaker 1: they are you using. It's subpoenas for questioning. They're doing
Speaker 1: a deposition into Epstein. Some names are brought up, Hey,
Speaker 1: you two, your names are brought up, and we need
Speaker 1: you two to come in and talk to us a
Speaker 1: little bit about this. Their lawyer's response was that these
Speaker 1: subpoenas were quote, invalid and legally unenforceable because they are
Speaker 1: untethered to a valid legislative purpose, unwarranted because they do
Speaker 1: not seek pertinent information. And unprecedented infringement on the separation
Speaker 1: of powers. All right, invalid and legally unenforceable. Congress is
Speaker 1: subpoenaing them to show up and talk about some things
Speaker 1: that is legally enforceable, and it is valid, okay, untethered
Speaker 1: to valid legislative purpose. They are currently doing a deposition
Speaker 1: into a guy where both of these individuals clearly had ties. Yes,
Speaker 1: it is very legislatively purposeful, invalid, okay, unwarranted because they
Speaker 1: do not seek pertinent information.
Speaker 2: That's literally what the deposition is about.
Speaker 1: That's literally what these questions are is to extract pertinent information,
Speaker 1: and if there is none, then there will be nothing
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 2: It will be very clear at that time, given a.
Speaker 1: Written statement is not the same as showing the fuck up,
Speaker 1: but all right, and an unprecedented infringement on the separation
Speaker 1: of powers no, no, this is this is literally what
Speaker 1: the House Oversight Committee does. This is this is the
Speaker 1: system of checks and balances. This is within their powers.
Speaker 1: So the lawyers are basically just throwing out this flamboyant
Speaker 1: legal language to try to make it seem like this
Speaker 1: is all superferous, and it's like, no, it's not, it's not.
Speaker 2: This is actually very pertinent. It's something needs to happen.
Speaker 2: And the fact that.
Speaker 1: Y'all are crawl fishing this hard, this early, that's that's
Speaker 1: not playing well. But also to your point, Royce, I agree,
Speaker 1: I don't know what's actually gonna shake out from this.
Speaker 1: I hope they see their day in court. I hope
Speaker 1: they both go to jail. I don't believe it's ever
Speaker 1: gonna happened in my lifetime, but we can try to
Speaker 1: get high on hopium, you know. On Monday, House Speaker
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson, Republican from Louisiana, said that the Clintons of
Speaker 1: the Clinton's rather I think it would be contempt of
Speaker 1: Congress if they didn't turn up, which is true. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton spoke a person Nick Merrill, it's a raging piece
Speaker 1: of shit question the Committe's approach. In a statement, last month,
Speaker 1: saying since this started, we've been asking what the hell
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton has to do with this, and he hasn't
Speaker 1: been able to come up with an answer. All right,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton has not been accused of any wrongdoing related
Speaker 1: to Epstein, and her name has not appeared in the
Speaker 1: thousands of files the Justice Department has released so far
Speaker 1: after the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed. No, but your
Speaker 1: husband did. Your husband did, and you're not going to
Speaker 1: testify against your husband. They're questioning you on some things,
Speaker 1: maybe some whereabouts, maybe some specific dates, things like this.
Speaker 1: That's not necessarily testifying against Bill. You have to go
Speaker 1: there and see what the trying to find out. That's
Speaker 1: how this goes. And if they are trying to make
Speaker 1: you testify against your husband, you complete the fifth and
Speaker 1: you can walk away, and then that's just the way
Speaker 1: it goes in a legal sense.
Speaker 2: But all right, cool.
Speaker 1: The first set of files released last month included numerous
Speaker 1: pictures of Bill Clinton, who was also not accused of
Speaker 1: any wrongdoing. A bit okay. Clinton said he cut ties
Speaker 1: with Epstein, the late sex offender, before Epstein was accused
Speaker 1: of having sex with a minor in two thousand and six.
Speaker 2: That is actually very, very inaccurate.
Speaker 1: There's actually quite a paper trail to show that the
Speaker 1: Clintons were very close with him up until two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, and even some might argue into the twenty teens.
Speaker 1: When the Clintons left office, they were broke, like they
Speaker 1: were broke broke, so they had to do something to
Speaker 1: make some money. Yeah, they could have wrote some books
Speaker 1: and whatever, but at the time Bill was still kind
Speaker 1: of living an infamy from the who Lewinsky situation. So
Speaker 1: what did they do. They called their homeboy, Jeff, and
Speaker 1: he put them on a speaking tour that was paying
Speaker 1: big money for both of them. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: cut to Killery later on became a Secretary of State
Speaker 1: under Obama in the twenty teens, which the whole reason
Speaker 1: why she even stayed relevant in that, although she did
Speaker 1: run against him at one point for the Democratic nomination,
Speaker 1: whatever was because she was still making her rounds on
Speaker 1: the speaking circuits and Jeff Epstein is the one that
Speaker 1: made sure that they were getting their paychecks. So yeah,
Speaker 1: to say there's no connection past six, I'm sorry, that's
Speaker 1: like mathematically paper trail bank statements. That is an incorrect statement.
Speaker 1: But anyway, The Justice Department set in a court filing
Speaker 1: last week that more than two million Epstein files have
Speaker 1: yet to be released. The statutory deadline to release all
Speaker 1: the files was December nineteenth. Okay, so that's the first
Speaker 1: article we have on the Clintons, and then again we're
Speaker 1: talking ABC News now. Clintons say now is the time
Speaker 1: to fight for this country as they targeted, as they
Speaker 1: were being targeted for contempt. I wanted to play this
Speaker 1: one as well. See how that compares in contrast to
Speaker 1: what the last article said.
Speaker 12: The extraordinary standoff between the Clintons and congressional Republicans. The
Speaker 12: chair of the GOP led House Oversight Committee moving forward
Speaker 12: with the unprecedented step of trying to hold former President
Speaker 12: Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 12: contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from an investigation into
Speaker 12: convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton skipping his scheduled
Speaker 12: testimony yesterday and Hillary Clinton expected to do the same today.
Speaker 4: No one's accused of Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. We
Speaker 4: just have questions, and that's why the Democrats voted along
Speaker 4: with Republicans to subpoenavill.
Speaker 12: Clinton standing alongside two Republicans who themselves defied subpoenas from
Speaker 12: the House. January sixth, Committee Oversite Chair James Comer, promising
Speaker 12: his panel will take contempt votes next week, but an
Speaker 12: escathing four page letter the Clinton's calling the investigation partisan
Speaker 12: and the subpoenas legally invalid, writing, the committee's probe is
Speaker 12: supposed to be directed at the government's handling of the
Speaker 12: Epstein case, all while you have done nothing with your
Speaker 12: oversight capacity to force the Department of Justice to follow
Speaker 12: the law and release all of its Epstein files, adding,
Speaker 12: every person has to decide when they have seen or
Speaker 12: had enough and are ready to fight for this country,
Speaker 12: its principles, and its people, no matter the consequences.
Speaker 2: For us.
Speaker 12: Now is that time Bill Clinton was friendly with Epstein
Speaker 12: in the nineties and early two thousands. No Epstein survivor
Speaker 12: has ever accused the former president of wrongdoing, and both
Speaker 12: Clinton's have denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, writing to the Committee,
Speaker 12: we have tried to give you the little information we have.
Speaker 12: We've done so because mister Epstein's crimes were horrific.
Speaker 1: So I'm just going to ask a quick question here.
Speaker 1: Anybody feel free to unmute yourself if you know the
Speaker 1: answer to this. What year was Jeffrey Epstein arrested?
Speaker 2: Anybody?
Speaker 5: Which time?
Speaker 8: Wasn't it two thousand and six?
Speaker 1: Well, two thousand and six is the first time, yes,
Speaker 1: and that's when he got the lightest of sweet hard
Speaker 1: deals ever. But the time he actually got arrested for good?
Speaker 1: Anybody remember what year that was?
Speaker 8: Twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen?
Speaker 2: Was it?
Speaker 8: One?
Speaker 1: In twenty sixteen he was actually arrested, but then he
Speaker 1: was sentenced in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 11: That sounds accurate. Sounds like yeah, it sounds it out ballpark?
Speaker 2: Okay, So just and correct me if I'm wrong. Here?
Speaker 1: Who was the Secretary of State in twenty sixteen? Hilly
Speaker 1: and correct me if I'm wrong. But the Virgin Islands
Speaker 1: and Little Saint James, which is Little Saint Thomas is
Speaker 1: little island is a part of the US territory. Correct,
Speaker 1: I believe, sir, So just gonna throw this out.
Speaker 13: Who comes out bad way? John Kerry was twenty sixteen.
Speaker 13: Hillary Clinton I think exited in twenty twelve or twenty eleven,
Speaker 13: right after Libya.
Speaker 2: She left because of Benghazi. Yeah, that's right. And then
Speaker 2: Carrie stepped in. Damn, Damn.
Speaker 1: I was trying to draw a connection there, but Damn
Speaker 1: I was off by a few years. Fuck well, it'd
Speaker 1: be like that anyway. I still do believe that they
Speaker 1: had full knowledge of his quote unquote wrongdoings. I'm not
Speaker 1: even gonna say quote unquote him being a real motherfucker here.
Speaker 1: They fully were aware of it, They fully knew about it.
Speaker 2: There's no way.
Speaker 1: So yeah, them being subpoened and brought in for questioning
Speaker 1: on this, I don't even think this is a crazy
Speaker 1: point to make, honestly.
Speaker 11: I mean, I mean, there was a portrait of Bill
Speaker 11: Clinton in a blue dress on the island, so obviously
Speaker 11: both Bill Clinton and I imagine his wife probably had
Speaker 11: a good idea what was going on, just a hunch.
Speaker 2: Oh for sure.
Speaker 1: And then there's also so many pictures of Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: with Epstein, Like we saw a couple of them in
Speaker 1: those clips. There's pictures of Bill with young women sitting
Speaker 1: on his lap with their faces redacted because those women
Speaker 1: are victims, confirm victims of Jeff Epstein. So again I'm
Speaker 1: having a real hard time seeing has he has one
Speaker 1: of the victims sitting on his lap in pictures like
Speaker 1: I'm there's gonna be a connection here. Yeah, and again,
Speaker 1: the House isn't even saying that they definitely were involved
Speaker 1: in any kind of wrongdoing. They're just want to ask
Speaker 1: them some questions, and they are trying to throw all
Speaker 1: the legalies they can out there to say, Nah, bro,
Speaker 1: they ain't us. You can't you can't make a show up.
Speaker 1: You can't even make your show up. So like whatever,
Speaker 1: it's it's unlawful, it's it's unprecedented, it's whatever. Dude.
Speaker 2: Oh, I hope they see their day in court.
Speaker 1: But anyway, this pretty much just reiterates what we already
Speaker 1: read about. So I'm not gonna I'm not gonna bore
Speaker 1: everybody with another iteration of it. But yeah, anyway, moving
Speaker 1: on to another shithead politician here. California Governor Newsom says
Speaker 1: he's blocking Louisiana's push to extradite doctor accused of mailing
Speaker 1: abortion pills. Yeah. I had just found this article and
Speaker 1: I was like, you know what, this is probably going
Speaker 1: to be a decent one to talk about. Let's get there.
Speaker 1: Newsom said, extra diagnot the doctor would have violated an
Speaker 1: executive order he signed in twenty twenty two. Barring state
Speaker 1: agencies in his administration from assisting other states' efforts to
Speaker 1: prosecute abortion providers. Man fuck Gavin Newsom. Oh, let's get
Speaker 1: into it here. So, California Governor Newsom said Wednesday he
Speaker 1: was blocking Louisiana's attempt to extradite a doctor in the
Speaker 1: Golden State accused of mailing abortion pills. The Democrat governor's
Speaker 1: announcement comes a day after Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry shout
Speaker 1: Out said he sent the extradition paperwork in an effort
Speaker 1: to bring the physician to justice. Louisiana has some of
Speaker 1: the strictest anti abortion laws in the country, while California
Speaker 1: law aims to protect abortion providers from criminal prosecution for
Speaker 1: treating out of state patients. See, this is the problem.
Speaker 1: This is the problem. If this person wanted that, they
Speaker 1: could have gone to California and gotten the procedure, the pills,
Speaker 1: or whatever else. If it's happening in California, that's a
Speaker 1: California problem. If it's happening in Louisiana, that's a Louisiana problem.
Speaker 1: So yeah, this is this absolutely within the rights. But
Speaker 1: let's get into it here. The Democratic governor's announcement. Oh,
Speaker 1: we already said that one. I'm sorry, Newsom said. Extrading
Speaker 1: to the doctor would have violated an executive order he
Speaker 1: signed in twenty twenty two barring state agencies in his
Speaker 1: administration from assisting other states' efforts to prosecute abortion providers.
Speaker 1: Once again, an executive order in California for his states'
Speaker 1: efforts to prosecute these providers. We're not talking about that.
Speaker 1: This is a Louisiana thing. That's ridiculous out loud, but okay.
Speaker 1: We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to
Speaker 1: reach into California and try to punish doctors based on
Speaker 1: allegations that they provided reproductive health care service. That's I
Speaker 1: really don't like the verbiage that this cunt is using.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest with you, but all right, not today,
Speaker 1: not fit, he says. Landers's office did not immediately respond
Speaker 1: to your request for comment on Newsom's announcement. Louisiana was
Speaker 1: pushing to extradite remy quoita koee taokoe too quoito koto fuck.
Speaker 1: I don't know a physician in San Francisco Bay Area,
Speaker 1: Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrel said Tuesday that Cotex faced
Speaker 1: a criminal charge of abortion by means of abortation inducing
Speaker 1: drugs and risking risk, spending up to fifty years in
Speaker 1: jail if convicted. An email and telephone message seeking comment
Speaker 1: on Tuesday from cotexs on the extradition push went unanswered.
Speaker 1: So I guess we'll see how this shakes out. But essentially, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're not talking about extraditing somebody.
Speaker 2: For the principle of it.
Speaker 1: They're saying that, Yo, you're doing California things in Louisiana
Speaker 1: and we don't like it.
Speaker 2: We'll see how that shakes out.
Speaker 1: Be completely honest with you, I hope that his ass
Speaker 1: comes here and gets the justice, but I guess we'll say,
Speaker 1: we'll have to see. Moving all, let's talk about Trump,
Speaker 1: that's talking about shitead politicians. Let's talk about this, And
Speaker 1: I actually I want to hear y'all's opinions on this one,
Speaker 1: because depending on which side of the aisle you lean
Speaker 1: more towards. Some people are saying that this is an
Speaker 1: amazing idea for America. It's gonna help us and all
Speaker 1: these things, and other people are saying that this is
Speaker 1: going to basically lead to a recession and into more
Speaker 1: inflation and all these things. So I'm not an economist.
Speaker 1: I've never claimed to be. I barely understand how the
Speaker 1: math be math in half the time.
Speaker 2: Right, But that.
Speaker 1: Being said, should the Fed cut interest rates to make
Speaker 1: it cheaper for the federal government to borrow? Now, they're
Speaker 1: not talking about just cutting interest rates for the federal government.
Speaker 1: They're talking about cutting interest rates for everybody, for us. Right,
Speaker 1: he is trying to cut it down to one percent,
Speaker 1: which would be dope. But the other side of that
Speaker 1: is this could lead to inflation, and some have said
Speaker 1: that this could also lead to economic collapse. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I would love to hear everybody's opinion on this.
Speaker 1: As we read in here. President Trump has said repeatedly
Speaker 1: that he wants the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates
Speaker 1: to bring down the cost of the large and growing
Speaker 1: federal debt. In June twenty twenty five, the Truth Social
Speaker 1: post that he made said, if too late Federal Chair
Speaker 1: Jerome Powell and the Fed would cut we would greatly
Speaker 1: reduce interest rates long and short on debt, and that
Speaker 1: is coming due. He is costing our country. If fortune
Speaker 1: borrowing costs should be much lower, he said another truth
Speaker 1: social post in July of twenty twenty five, FED should
Speaker 1: cut rates by three points very low inflation, one trillion
Speaker 1: dollars a year would be saved. Okay, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that math is accurate, but fair enough. The Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal reported in December of twenty twenty five, so just
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago, after an interview with the president,
Speaker 1: quote asked where he wants interest rate to be a
Speaker 1: year from now, Trump said one percent and maybe lower
Speaker 1: than that. He said rate cuts would help the US
Speaker 1: Treasury reduce the cost of financing thirty trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: government debt. The federal government does spend a lot on interest,
Speaker 1: about nine hundred and seventy billion dollars in the fiscal
Speaker 1: year of twenty twenty five, which, just so we're all
Speaker 1: clear here was about three point two of America's GDP.
Speaker 1: So three point two percent of our GDP was spent
Speaker 1: just on interest on our own debts. Okay, not a
Speaker 1: big fan of that, but I'm also not a big
Speaker 1: fan of the amount of debt that we have accrued.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I get that this is a double
Speaker 1: handed sword here or a double edged sword or and
Speaker 1: fourteen percent of all federal outlays. So over the past
Speaker 1: several years, it benefited from issuing bonds during a period
Speaker 1: of very low interest rates. On average, it is paying
Speaker 1: three point three percent on its debt, but bond market
Speaker 1: interest rates have been rising. CBO estimates estimates. It's rather
Speaker 1: that if all interest rates, including those three month Treasury
Speaker 1: bills and ten year Treasury notes, were zero point one
Speaker 1: percentage point higher each year than they are in the
Speaker 1: CBO's economic forecast, rising government net interest costs would cause
Speaker 1: deficits to exceed the agency's baseline projections by three hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty one billion dollars or one point six percent
Speaker 1: over the twenty twenty six to twenty.
Speaker 2: Thirty five period.
Speaker 1: Damn. This post explains why the Fed and most economists
Speaker 1: believe that making the treasury borrow cheaper should not be
Speaker 1: the FED subjective. Okay, So before we get into this,
Speaker 1: I would love to hear if anybody has an opinion
Speaker 1: on this, or if somebody understands economics a little bit
Speaker 1: better than I do. Is cutting the federal interest rates
Speaker 1: positive or negative for America as a whole?
Speaker 13: Okay, personally, I think we need higher interest rates. I
Speaker 13: think Trump's wrong. This is short term thinking to boost
Speaker 13: and goose the economy.
Speaker 2: All right, explain all this.
Speaker 1: Why do interest rates need to be higher in your perspective.
Speaker 13: I think natural interest rates should be around six percent
Speaker 13: per year. If you borrow a dollar, you should have
Speaker 13: to pay about a dollar and six cents to back
Speaker 13: after a year and most the Federal Reserve and the
Speaker 13: government do have quite an incestuous relationship. So the Federal
Speaker 13: Reserve gets its authority from Congress from an Act from
Speaker 13: nineteen thirteen, and the President appoints the chairman, and it's
Speaker 13: actually twelve banks, but effectively it's just one, and their
Speaker 13: decisions are usually unanimous, with the Fed chair appointed by
Speaker 13: the President. But anyway, normally the Federal Reserve ends up
Speaker 13: printing way more money than it should be printing to
Speaker 13: keep interest rates low so that people can borrow money easily,
Speaker 13: and this results in too much of a booming economy
Speaker 13: in the short term at the expense of a big
Speaker 13: recession or depression that comes later. This is called Austrian
Speaker 13: business cycle theory. If anyone wants to look that up,
Speaker 13: if they haven't already heard of it, named after Austrian
Speaker 13: economists like Ludwig vun Misus and yeah, Trump Nixon fell
Speaker 13: into the same trap. He just really wanted to win
Speaker 13: the next election and instituted a lot of you know,
Speaker 13: price and wage controls on the one side, and also
Speaker 13: printed a bunch of money which led to huge interest
Speaker 13: rate explosions later in the seventies when mortgage rates were
Speaker 13: like seventeen eighteen percent per year. So, yeah, you can't
Speaker 13: be forcing the interest rates low by just printing a
Speaker 13: bunch of money. When you introduce a bunch of money
Speaker 13: into the banking system or buy a bunch of treasury
Speaker 13: bonds with it with new money, that does keep interest
Speaker 13: rates throughout the economy low for the short term, but
Speaker 13: it's going to result in a massive misallocation of capital
Speaker 13: and you know, a huge market bubble in the dot
Speaker 13: com bubble or real estate bubble, or maybe an AI
Speaker 13: bus which we may be in right now, and then
Speaker 13: one day, you know, all those stock prices are going
Speaker 13: to collapse and the loans can't be paid back, and yeah,
Speaker 13: we need higher interest rates. The Federal Reserve can lower
Speaker 13: them temporarily for like the two thousand and eight recession,
Speaker 13: but they want to get what they call a soft
Speaker 13: landing where they eventually re equilibrate to like three to
Speaker 13: six percent. Trump wants to reduce it right now to
Speaker 13: goose the economy, but that's the wrong thing to do,
Speaker 13: and we're all going to pay for it massively later.
Speaker 13: That's my opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm not disagreeing with you. My next question is, just
Speaker 1: like you said, Nixon tried doing this. I think Reagan
Speaker 1: even tried doing this to a lesser degree, but these were,
Speaker 1: like you said, to try to get everybody on their
Speaker 1: side for a re election. That's typically why presidents have
Speaker 1: done this in the past. Trump doesn't have his sites
Speaker 1: on another election cycle, or at least he hasn't made
Speaker 1: that public. If I don't know, maybe he'll try for
Speaker 1: a third time and all the legalities and things that
Speaker 1: go with that. But what would be his motive behind this?
Speaker 1: Just to boost the economy in the short term and say,
Speaker 1: look what I did. I'm out of here, doup and
Speaker 1: it's no longer his problem because he's still a business.
Speaker 13: I think Republicans are going to have a bad midterm election,
Speaker 13: but it would be even worse if the economy really sucked.
Speaker 13: I think that's his calculation.
Speaker 1: But okay, even with that being said, nobody actually takes
Speaker 1: the mid terms very seriously. They they talk a big
Speaker 1: game on all the mainstream media things, and the politicians
Speaker 1: are always talking about it. It's typically a wash. It's
Speaker 1: typically a pendulum swing, and then this midterm election is
Speaker 1: going to go this way, the next one goes this way.
Speaker 1: It doesn't.
Speaker 2: It doesn't like actually account for a fart in the win,
Speaker 2: doesn't it.
Speaker 13: Yeah? I agree. It normally just goes against whichever party
Speaker 13: controls the presidency. I think it always does. I don't
Speaker 13: think there's any exceptions to that. So he could just
Speaker 13: he should just accept that, and he should want higher
Speaker 13: interest rates. But politicians don't want to think long term.
Speaker 13: They want to think short term and just maximize the
Speaker 13: short term. I think that's just the problem here.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, Okay, Well, let's read in a little bit
Speaker 1: here and see if what Tony is saying is what
Speaker 1: the economists are saying here. If the Fed were to
Speaker 1: set the short term interest rate, that is the primary tool,
Speaker 1: lower than necessary to achieve its congressional mandated goals of
Speaker 1: maximum employment and price stability, history suggests that the likely
Speaker 1: result would be an unwelcome inflation. Lower rates tend to
Speaker 1: stimulate borrowing and faster economic growth, and when demand grows
Speaker 1: faster than supply, prices rise. In the latter part of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century, Argentina, Brazil, and Israel suffered high inflation
Speaker 1: when their central bank kept issuing or interest rates low
Speaker 1: at a time of large budget deficits. Lessons of history
Speaker 1: are stark, especially when central banks are focused or excuse me,
Speaker 1: or forced to help finance budget deficits by keeping interest
Speaker 1: rates too low. Former Fed share Ben Barnacneki.
Speaker 13: He was during the two thousand and eight points.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, fair so, Ben Bernanki said in a recent
Speaker 1: Hutchins Center video, added former FED Chair Janet Yellen in
Speaker 1: the same video, the result has almost always been high
Speaker 1: and sustained inflation.
Speaker 5: Damn.
Speaker 2: So that is what the math does in this.
Speaker 1: Regard, So has the Federal Has the Fed ever explicitly
Speaker 1: suppressed interest rates to lower federal borrowing costs? Yes, the
Speaker 1: Fed put out a point three seven five ceiling on
Speaker 1: short term treasury securities and a two point five percent
Speaker 1: ceiling on thirty year bonds during World War II to
Speaker 1: maintain that rate. As the Treasury borrowed more, the FED
Speaker 1: bought more treasury securities to keep interest rates from rising.
Speaker 1: When the war ended, the FED gradually allowed rates to rise.
Speaker 1: But November nineteen fifty, with the Korean War beginning, President
Speaker 1: Truman asked the FED to reaffirm its commitment to keep
Speaker 1: long rates below two point five percent. The FED balked.
Speaker 1: The result was the March nineteen fifty one Treasury Fed Accord,
Speaker 1: which freed the FED to set rates as it deemed
Speaker 1: appropriate to manage the economy. Wow, so this this all
Speaker 1: goes back to fuck the Korean War. I didn't know this.
Speaker 13: I wish I understood this a little better. Somebody like
Speaker 13: Bob Murphy would be perfect to talk to on this.
Speaker 13: But basically, the Federal Reserve prints a bunch of money
Speaker 13: when the government asks them to to, and that gooses
Speaker 13: the economy, keeps interest rates low so people can borrow
Speaker 13: money easily and normally. Wartime is the main excuse the
Speaker 13: government gives from why it needs the Federal Reserve to
Speaker 13: be able to do this. Well, if we go to war,
Speaker 13: we don't have to be reliant on selling war bonds.
Speaker 13: We want to be able to just print what we
Speaker 13: need and even Milton Friedman back in the eighties said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 13: we need the Federal Reserve for this reason. But more
Speaker 13: radical libertarians that definitely believe that we don't need a
Speaker 13: federal reserver or central banking system at all.
Speaker 2: I see, I see their talking points.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest with you, I don't inherently agree
Speaker 1: with all of them. I do believe the taxation is theft,
Speaker 1: but I also like, that's that's what happens. You're never
Speaker 1: going to live somewhere where you're not paying some sort
Speaker 1: of an extortion fee for living there. That's the law
Speaker 1: of the land, and it has been since the very
Speaker 1: beginning of time, you know what I mean. At least
Speaker 1: we're living in the superpower on Earth, and I'm good
Speaker 1: with that.
Speaker 13: But I mean, also, yeah, the founders were really skeptical
Speaker 13: of central banking. That we got the first national bank
Speaker 13: that lasted twenty years and then it went away, and
Speaker 13: then the second National Bank from something like eighteen sixteen
Speaker 13: to eighteen thirty something. Andrew Jackson made that one go away.
Speaker 13: But and we did have a relatively free banking system
Speaker 13: where the dollar was just pegged to a quantity of gold.
Speaker 13: The Civil War kind of ruined that for a lo
Speaker 13: little while, but the country kind of got back on
Speaker 13: track after the Civil War, and then nineteen thirteen is
Speaker 13: when the Federal Reserve came into existence, and there was
Speaker 13: the whole bimetallism question at that time too, which I
Speaker 13: don't fully understand. I can't do justice to it. But basically,
Speaker 13: the dollar was very stable in the eighteen hundreds and
Speaker 13: the early twentieth century, and now like a dollar can
Speaker 13: buy you only what like one or two pennies could
Speaker 13: have bought you back in nineteen thirteen, right, and it's
Speaker 13: only gonna get worse. And by the way, even nickels
Speaker 13: now it costs like six point two cents to make
Speaker 13: a nickel, and.
Speaker 1: We're going to be the next year to drop absolute
Speaker 1: I actually don't think they're gonna take away the nickel.
Speaker 2: I think there's going to do away with all coinage, honestly.
Speaker 1: Which in one regard sucks, but in another regard, my
Speaker 1: coin collection value is kind of ghost sky high, and
Speaker 1: I'm kind of here for that in my own personal
Speaker 1: selfish reasons. But yeah, I hear you a hundred percent,
Speaker 1: and I wish that we would go back to a
Speaker 1: gold backed currency. I don't like the fiat currency. I
Speaker 1: don't like how it's basically an open traded it's a
Speaker 1: stock and it can go up and down depending on
Speaker 1: the market and depending on the Fed, and depending on
Speaker 1: the reserve, and depending on how it compares against other
Speaker 1: people's currencies. I am not a fan of that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But yeah, every president that's tried to get us back
Speaker 1: on the gold standard has ended up with a bullet
Speaker 1: in their heads. So there may be reasons why the
Speaker 1: people at the top want to stay that way. Not
Speaker 1: trying to go conspiratorial, but that is there's definitely a
Speaker 1: historical precedence for that one. But as we are talking
Speaker 1: about this, I have actually never given the shameless plug
Speaker 1: on the Cage to Night. But as we're talking about this,
Speaker 1: if anybody listening to the Cage Night, we'll have to
Speaker 1: get your start in the buying and selling and trading
Speaker 1: of gold and silver bullion. Then go to cocsilver dot com.
Speaker 1: The link is in the description below, because as we're
Speaker 1: talking about these things, literally to your point, Tony, when
Speaker 1: we started this affiliate program with coc Silver, this coin
Speaker 1: costs a little over thirty dollars.
Speaker 2: It's one troy ounce of pure soil.
Speaker 1: Right now, it's over eighty five dollars for this coin
Speaker 1: and we've only been an affiliate of theirs for a year,
Speaker 1: a little over a year. I mean we're talking a
Speaker 1: few weeks here. Just in that one span of time,
Speaker 1: the dollar is going up down and doing all that shit.
Speaker 1: Silver and gold have always maintained a value. I think
Speaker 1: it's a wise investment anyway. I know that there's more
Speaker 1: aggressive investment opportunities that you could do, right, And I
Speaker 1: was talking to shit. I think I was talking to
Speaker 1: my dad about this as a matter of fact, and
Speaker 1: they were looking at if you were to put your
Speaker 1: money just in a mid level or even a low
Speaker 1: risk of financial investment portfolio, you would have gained more
Speaker 1: money in a twenty year span than if you would
Speaker 1: invest in precious metals. And I get that, However, that
Speaker 1: financial system can collapse because there's always an event like
Speaker 1: a bubble, There's always an event like a nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: There's always an event that can happen right around the corner,
Speaker 1: and your whole nest egg just got ripped out from
Speaker 1: under you. Meanwhile, silver and gold are always going to
Speaker 1: be rocked. I love them. I love these these backings anyway, Uh, Sam,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 7: Brother, I was I was gonna say about the gold
Speaker 7: did we got took off of that so that we
Speaker 7: could get put on the the Federal Reserve money situation
Speaker 7: the Greenbacks in nineteen twelve, which was why they used
Speaker 7: the Titanic.
Speaker 2: Correct, that's that's the conspiracy for sure.
Speaker 8: But that which was even referenced in the movie. But
Speaker 8: it's funny.
Speaker 7: You're talking about how they're gonna get rid of the
Speaker 7: the coins. Does that Does that mean that the Rednecks
Speaker 7: that the it would be more valuable per shot if
Speaker 7: we used a porter nickel.
Speaker 8: Rounds with segage you all.
Speaker 1: If you're gonna melt down a quarter to make a
Speaker 1: slug to go in your twelve gage, you.
Speaker 7: Pack the packed them into the thing. You make a
Speaker 7: quarter shot that way. It still acts like it'll spread
Speaker 7: out like bird and butt. But it's fucking coins.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Like if you were to take the no,
Speaker 1: that's way more expensive. I haven't priced shotgun shells in
Speaker 1: a while. I just go buy a box whenever I
Speaker 1: go hunting. But if you're looking at the price per show, no,
Speaker 1: I hear you.
Speaker 2: But you're reloading them with quarters.
Speaker 1: So like, even if you're putting like four quarters in there,
Speaker 1: you're putting like a dollar worth of shot lead is
Speaker 1: going to be cheaper than the quarter. That's that's an
Speaker 1: expensive action.
Speaker 8: Get rid of the coins when they get rid.
Speaker 1: Of I know these these little nine mills that I
Speaker 1: have that are silver. These are like fucking fifteen bucks
Speaker 1: a pop. But I mean it's a silver nine mil bullet.
Speaker 2: What I'm gonna do? I got a whole I got
Speaker 2: two mags full.
Speaker 8: I mean I gotta. I guess a Canadian.
Speaker 7: Nickel it's five cents, has a beaver on it.
Speaker 8: I wonder how much it would be actually worth if
Speaker 8: you go off of the weight.
Speaker 1: Is it actual silver?
Speaker 11: I don't know.
Speaker 8: It's Canada nineteen seventy nine. It has a beaver on it.
Speaker 2: Look into it. I mean it might be.
Speaker 8: All knows that it has a young Elizabeth the second,
Speaker 8: so she's dead. It gotta be worth something.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe, no doubt. Let's get into this.
Speaker 1: What about quantitative easing, which I think is what you
Speaker 1: were talking about earlier Tony. Most of the time the
Speaker 1: FED sets very short term interest rates and lets the
Speaker 1: bond market move longer term interest rates, which depend on
Speaker 1: the market's expectations about the economy, inflation and the federal deficit,
Speaker 1: and the federal short term interest rates. But when the
Speaker 1: FED short term interest rates hit zero during the global
Speaker 1: financial crisis of eight nine and during the COVID pandemic,
Speaker 1: the FED policymakers decided the economy needed more stimulus. The
Speaker 1: FED brought trillions in long term treasuries and mortgage based
Speaker 1: securities in what is called quote unquote quantitative easing or QE,
Speaker 1: with the stated objective of lowering long term interest rates.
Speaker 1: And although saving the treasury money was not the reason
Speaker 1: for the QE, it did have that effect. Okay, so
Speaker 1: what does economists mean by fiscal dominance. Fiscal dominance occurs
Speaker 1: when government borrowing is so large that the central bank
Speaker 1: is pressured to keep interest rates low to reduce the
Speaker 1: government's borrowing costs, even if the economic conditions call for
Speaker 1: higher interest rates. Fiscal dominance is a is dangerous because
Speaker 1: it typically results in higher and more volatile inflation or
Speaker 1: politically driven business cycles. That's what Yellen said at the
Speaker 1: January twenty twenty five American Economic Association meeting. When the
Speaker 1: central bank is constrained from raising rates or shrinking it
Speaker 1: it's balance sheets because that would increase debt service or
Speaker 1: trigger fiscal stress. Inflation expectations may become unanchored. Households and
Speaker 1: firms may come to expect that inflation is the path
Speaker 1: of least resistance for managing high debts. Once such expectations
Speaker 1: take hold, stabilizing prices become significantly more costly. Fiscal dominance
Speaker 1: is also likely to raise term premium and borrowing costs
Speaker 1: as investors become concerned that the government will rely on
Speaker 1: inflation or financial repression to manage its debts. In addition,
Speaker 1: a central bank that is perceived as an arm of
Speaker 1: the treasury may have less space to act forcefully in
Speaker 1: a crisis. For all those reasons, avoiding fiscal dominance has
Speaker 1: been a central objective of modern central banking framework.
Speaker 2: Wow, yeah, I'm I hear both sides.
Speaker 1: I see why Trump would want to lower these interest rates.
Speaker 2: To stimulate and help boost things and all of this.
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 1: But I also hear what the Fed is saying, right,
Speaker 1: doing this with the interest rates will screw us over.
Speaker 1: Maybe not now, maybe not a year from now, but
Speaker 1: maybe five years from now, maybe ten years from now,
Speaker 1: I don't know, But that also is very subjective based
Speaker 1: off of the world economics at that time, right, and
Speaker 1: how our dollar compares to everything else, and what our
Speaker 1: debt looks like at that time.
Speaker 2: So I hear it on both ends here.
Speaker 1: So how much higher or how much could in higher
Speaker 1: inflation lower the cost of debt? How much could higher
Speaker 1: inflation lower the costs of debt? Okay? For many debt ors,
Speaker 1: inflation is a plus, y'all. Bet it allows them to
Speaker 1: pay back their loans with cheaper dollars. But inflation wouldn't
Speaker 1: do much to lighten the burden of the federal government's debt.
Speaker 1: Two reasons. One, much of the federal government's the debt
Speaker 1: is short term. When it matures, it will be replaced
Speaker 1: by debt at then current interest rates, and those rates
Speaker 1: will be higher if there's more inflation. About twenty two
Speaker 1: percent of the debt outstanding matures in a year or less.
Speaker 1: The weighted average maturity of federal debt is under six years. Wow.
Speaker 1: And number two, the government is running big debt deficits,
Speaker 1: so it has to borrow more every year at current
Speaker 1: interest rates. Yeah, I also don't I understand the whole
Speaker 1: running the country in a deficit. And again, I'm not
Speaker 1: an economist, I'm not a math guy, and I get
Speaker 1: that it It doesn't make sense to me out loud.
Speaker 2: Okay, I own a business. I own, I own two
Speaker 2: of them.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, if I was to go
Speaker 1: to my bank or my or even my accountant and
Speaker 1: tell them, hey, bro, I am gonna start running my
Speaker 1: business in a deficit and we're just gonna use that
Speaker 1: moving forward so that I can be a little more
Speaker 1: flexible when curveballs come and shit hits the fan, because
Speaker 1: we've we both know that's gonna come, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. So I'm just gonna run it in a
Speaker 1: deficit and it's just gonna work out in the long run.
Speaker 1: I think my accountant might actually quit on me, like
Speaker 1: out loud, I don't think my boy would stay my
Speaker 1: boy at that point. And I understand that we're talking
Speaker 1: about a small business as opposed to a actual nation.
Speaker 2: I understand there's some some differences here.
Speaker 1: It's not apples stole oranges, but out loud, that makes
Speaker 1: no fucking sense to me. If we have the ability
Speaker 1: to run in a surplus, why don't we and We
Speaker 1: do have that ability, right. The last time we ran
Speaker 1: in a surplus was during the dot com bubble, and
Speaker 1: I understand the dot com bubble was the reason for
Speaker 1: the surplus, I get it. But we have the capability
Speaker 1: to do that now, especially with the amount of industry
Speaker 1: we have in this country. Why must we run in
Speaker 1: a deficit it I don't know. Anyway, I don't want
Speaker 1: to spend too much time on this one, but I
Speaker 1: did want to bring up the fact that Trump is
Speaker 1: talking about cutting interest rates.
Speaker 2: He's talking about one percent, if.
Speaker 1: Not lower, So be on the lookout for what that
Speaker 1: might mean on the nationwide, if not global scale, as
Speaker 1: far as debts and money and inflation and all of
Speaker 1: these things are concerned. I thought it was worth mentioning
Speaker 1: on this episode. Moving on here, I wanted to give
Speaker 1: an update on what's going down with Maduro right, So
Speaker 1: in Venezuela Live updates, multiple detained Americans have been released.
Speaker 1: The State Department says, you know what, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and play this little quick video talking about some of
Speaker 1: these things.
Speaker 14: Now to the new report on a US strike against
Speaker 14: an alleged drug voat, detailing how the military may have
Speaker 14: disguised its plane as Ciciclian aircraft in a way that
Speaker 14: violated the laws of war. Chief Global Affairs anchor Martha
Speaker 14: Ratits says the story, good morning, Martha.
Speaker 15: Good morning George. This morning. More controversy over that US
Speaker 15: strike on a suspected drug boat last September, where survivors
Speaker 15: clinging to the boat who were killed, legal experts saying
Speaker 15: that may have violated the laws of war. Now The
Speaker 15: New York Times is reporting that there may have been
Speaker 15: an additional violation of the law. According to The Times,
Speaker 15: the US military aircraft used in the stripe was painted
Speaker 15: to look like a civilian plane. The Times also says
Speaker 15: the plane carried munitions in its fuselage that were not
Speaker 15: visible under its wings. This raises questions about whether or
Speaker 15: not the United States committed what is called perfidy, which
Speaker 15: prevents combatants from intentionally fooling adversaries into believing they are civilians.
Speaker 15: President Trump has said that the United States is engaged
Speaker 15: in an armed conflict with drug cartels, and the paper
Speaker 15: sites one former JAG officer saying that if the aircraft
Speaker 15: disguised its military nature and got close enough for people
Speaker 15: on the boat to see it, they may have failed
Speaker 15: to realize they should take evasive action or surrender to survive,
Speaker 15: which could be a war crime under armed conflict standards.
Speaker 15: A White House spokesperson told The Times that the strike
Speaker 15: was fully consistent with the law of armed conflict, and
Speaker 15: the Pentagon telling the paper the US military utilizes a
Speaker 15: wide array of standard and non standard aircraft depending on
Speaker 15: mission requirements. Adding prior to the fielding and employment of
Speaker 15: each aircraft, they go through a rigorous procurement process to
Speaker 15: ensure compliance with domestic law, Department policies and regulations, and
Speaker 15: applicable international standards, including the law of armed conflict. But
Speaker 15: all of this definitely prompting new questions, guys, definitely.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I'm not one hundred percent on this. I
Speaker 1: hear what they're saying as far as perfidy, Okay, got you.
Speaker 1: If they put bombs on like a bow in seven
Speaker 1: forty seven or something like that, yeah, that's absolutely against
Speaker 1: the rules here. But to say that bombs were not
Speaker 1: attached to the wings and they were internal, most of
Speaker 1: our bombers drop ordinance in that manner. So I I'm not.
Speaker 2: Sure one hundred percent what they mean by this.
Speaker 1: If it is true that they were using a civilian
Speaker 1: aircraft with no identifying markers to show that it was
Speaker 1: a military aircraft. That that's the conversation, right, that they
Speaker 1: may actually have a leg to stand on on this
Speaker 1: one if it was a plane that the Venezuelans or
Speaker 1: even the boat itself couldn't identify because they don't have
Speaker 1: adequate radar systems to be able to tell what that
Speaker 1: is or something like that. And I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: take this opportunity to shit on Venezuela. I'm saying, if
Speaker 1: for whatever reason their radar didn't see it or didn't
Speaker 1: properly identify it, but it was by I view identifiable,
Speaker 1: then this is blown in the water. Wow, puns, puns, y'all.
Speaker 2: Anyway, let's talk about it here, so depose.
Speaker 1: Venezuelan Prime President Nicholas Muduro and his wife appeared in
Speaker 1: federal court in New York last week following their capture
Speaker 1: by the US forces in a military operation Venezuela, capital
Speaker 1: of Caracas. Following the operation, President Trump said that the
Speaker 1: US would run Venezuela for an unspecified period of time.
Speaker 1: Venezuelan Vice President Delse Rodriguez has been sworn in as
Speaker 1: interim leader to lead the country. Since the operation to
Speaker 1: capture Maduro, Trump has also issued threats against Cuba, Columbia,
Speaker 1: and Mexico.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no doubt. DOJ releases legal rationale from a dureau operation. Okay.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice released a redacted opinion and a
Speaker 1: redacted opinion from its Office of Legal Council Interesting on
Speaker 1: Tuesday that laid out the legal justification for the US
Speaker 1: operation to arrest Nicholas Maduro and remove him from Caracas.
Speaker 1: The Justice Department document defined the operation as an active
Speaker 1: armed conflict to be found it within the president's unilateral
Speaker 1: constitutional authority.
Speaker 2: Fairfair.
Speaker 1: The opinion said that the DOJ was briefed and assumed
Speaker 1: that there is no contingency plan to engage in any
Speaker 1: substantial and sustained operation in Venezuela. Well, that's good. Hopefully
Speaker 1: they don't put boots on the ground and have some
Speaker 1: sort of like an actual forward offensive into Venezuela.
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody would benefit from that, but all right.
Speaker 1: The legal memo was transmitted to the National Security Council
Speaker 1: on December twenty second, roughly two weeks before the operation,
Speaker 1: and signed by the Assistant Attorney General. Some senators viewed
Speaker 1: the opinion behind Closed Doors earlier Tuesday, with their views
Speaker 1: of its quality split among party lines. So now let's
Speaker 1: talk about this. Multiple Americans detained of Venezuela have been released.
Speaker 1: Multiple Americans released. The State Department said on two day.
Speaker 1: We welcome the release of detained Americans of Venezuela. This
Speaker 1: is an important step in the right direction by the
Speaker 1: interim authorities, the State Department spokesperson said on Tuesday. So yeah,
Speaker 1: for anybody who's been paying attention, some of these American
Speaker 1: citizens that happened to be in Venezuela at the time
Speaker 1: were detained by the government after the Maduro snatch and
Speaker 1: grab operation took place, and now they're been released, which
Speaker 1: is very smart for them. It's very smart. This marks
Speaker 1: the release of detained Americans since the ouster of former
Speaker 1: President Nicholas Maduro. Okay, anyway, let's see show more if
Speaker 1: I can find more. President Trump said that on Sunday
Speaker 1: that Venezuela had started the process in a big way
Speaker 1: of releasing their political prisoners. Very good, anyway, I didn't
Speaker 1: want to bring up that at least. So Maduro he's
Speaker 1: in jail, he has been he's had his day in court.
Speaker 1: As far as what he's being arrested for, he has
Speaker 1: pled not guilty to all charges. He's still being held
Speaker 1: in New York as of this moment. They haven't given
Speaker 1: him any kind of verdict just yet. He will see
Speaker 1: what happens. I still find it incredibly interesting that they
Speaker 1: took his wife with him. Typically, when you go and
Speaker 1: do a snatch and grab operation, you're just going after
Speaker 1: the guy. You're going after the HVT, right, the high
Speaker 1: value target. To bring his wife along with him. This
Speaker 1: and again, I'm not trying to go into the conspiratorial
Speaker 1: talking points, but I can't not hear this leads me
Speaker 1: to believe that he knew they were coming, and he
Speaker 1: cut a deal with them, and he went willingly.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: This could completely be out of left field and completely
Speaker 1: based in nonsense, but I could you imagine that if
Speaker 1: the Trump for instance, let's say the Democrats win the
Speaker 1: next election and they fry him alive for all of
Speaker 1: his you know.
Speaker 2: Things that he's done that they hate. All right?
Speaker 8: Cool?
Speaker 1: Could you also see them arresting Millennia for what? What
Speaker 1: does she do? She was the first lady? Unless you
Speaker 1: have some sort of documented proof that she was involved
Speaker 1: in all the buffoonery here in the chicanery, why would she.
Speaker 2: Get arrested too.
Speaker 1: And it's not to make him a more compliant prisoner
Speaker 1: by any means. I'm just saying, I think that there
Speaker 1: was a little bit more to the story than what
Speaker 1: we're being led to believe. And then, oh, my god,
Speaker 1: the stories y'all, the stories about these energy wave attacks
Speaker 1: that uh that the security guards suffered through. They were
Speaker 1: knocked out and they all had nosebleeds and concussions and
Speaker 1: all this, And dude, I read so many of these
Speaker 1: first hand accounts. I'm gonna be honest with you, Although
Speaker 1: it is possible, there's very it's very possible that this
Speaker 1: took place.
Speaker 2: I don't I don't really. For instance, I'll give you
Speaker 2: a just for instance. Here the dude who was.
Speaker 1: Saying that they heard a high pitched, whining noise and
Speaker 1: then he, you know, he just collapsed and he woke
Speaker 1: up with a migraine and his noses bleed, and he's
Speaker 1: trying to claim that now he's got like cancer or something,
Speaker 1: who knows, who knows. He also said that out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: all we knew is the there was no planes in
Speaker 1: the sky. The radars went down inexplicably. And then it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: because America has this thing called a growler, and that's
Speaker 1: what it does. It knocks out radars like out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: That's the whole purpose of it. But okay, Then it
Speaker 1: sounded like there was weapons firing at three hundred rounds
Speaker 1: a minute, y'all. The saw the squad automatic weapon. My
Speaker 1: baby fires at twelve hundred rounds a minute. But the
Speaker 1: three hundred rounds a minute is not a that's not
Speaker 1: a very high bar to say that, Like they're using
Speaker 1: advanced weapons, like most most weapons that fire in a
Speaker 1: fully automatic fashion can go over three hundred a minute.
Speaker 2: Throwing that out here, but okay, whatever.
Speaker 1: Then he's talking about the nosebleeds and the migraines and
Speaker 1: he on hundred of them got knocked out all at once,
Speaker 1: and it's like, ah, are we sure about that? Are
Speaker 1: we sure you didn't just kind of get scared and
Speaker 1: hide and now you're coming up with a story to
Speaker 1: make up for your blatant disregard of your position and
Speaker 1: abandoning your post. I don't know that sounds a little
Speaker 1: more credible to me now again, is it possible that
Speaker 1: we use some sort of a sonic weapon on these people.
Speaker 2: It's very possible. It's possible.
Speaker 1: I'm also not mad at that because the alternative is, Okay,
Speaker 1: you have a migreen and a nosebleed, or you took
Speaker 1: a three hundred blackout to your dome. I honestly think
Speaker 1: that this was actually the more humane way to go
Speaker 1: about it. If they really did use sonic weapons on
Speaker 1: these people, I don't know. I guess more information will
Speaker 1: come out as the week's go on, But anyway, we'll
Speaker 1: keep everybody updated on what's going on with Maduro as
Speaker 1: the things go forward. Now, let's talk Greenland, y'all. Let's
Speaker 1: talk Greenland. Last year, Trump had made mentions that he
Speaker 1: wanted greenland, America needs greenland for reasons and things.
Speaker 2: And stuff and all the shit.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest, I thought that he was joking
Speaker 1: a little bit, kind of flexing's kind of putting his
Speaker 1: dick on the table to see who noticed. It appears,
Speaker 1: as of this moment, members of the retinue that Trump
Speaker 1: was not joking, he was not bluffing, that he really
Speaker 1: really wants greenland and the day and I'm also pulling
Speaker 1: this up here because CNN is saying one thing and
Speaker 1: Fox is saying another about the exact same situation. And
Speaker 1: I think that it's interesting and very important for us
Speaker 1: as well informed individuals to look at the full picture
Speaker 1: and to see the mainstream media spinning the narrative into
Speaker 1: the wild assertions that they're making. Before I get into it, Royce,
Speaker 1: go ahead, brother.
Speaker 5: Good question.
Speaker 11: So no, just a quick question, because notoriously, CNN obviously
Speaker 11: is very left wing. Fox went well, I don't know
Speaker 11: if I would call Fox so much rightly. Are definitely
Speaker 11: not as right as what they used to be. What
Speaker 11: is your opinion about newsbacks because they obviously they claim
Speaker 11: to be more middle But I haven't done a whole
Speaker 11: lot of research, but I know that my aunt watches
Speaker 11: it like almost twenty four to seven, So I'm just
Speaker 11: kind of curious.
Speaker 2: About that.
Speaker 1: It depends on the talking point, and if we're talking
Speaker 1: about their literature, it depends on who wrote the article.
Speaker 1: I'm be honest with you, dude, and I wish god
Speaker 1: if ground News is listening, please give me a sponsorship.
Speaker 1: I love your product. Ground News is a website that
Speaker 1: will show you all of the articles left right, center,
Speaker 1: all the stuff, and they'll also show you this publication
Speaker 1: or this news outlet is traditionally more this way or
Speaker 1: that way, left of center, center, right of center, far right,
Speaker 1: far left, whatever the case is. I like ground News
Speaker 1: a lot for at least giving everybody that uh that
Speaker 1: lends to look through Uh Newsmax, I want to say,
Speaker 1: is a little bit more left of center.
Speaker 2: But I could be wrong, could be wrong.
Speaker 11: So I'll tell you this.
Speaker 16: As far as their political sphere, they are very, very
Speaker 16: very pro Trump, which I mean, I understand it.
Speaker 11: But there are.
Speaker 16: A few pundits that are like they love sucking his dick,
Speaker 16: and I'm like, I just I just get into item, like
Speaker 16: please just shut the hell up, Like just.
Speaker 1: Am I getting them confused with another publication. To be
Speaker 1: honest with you, Newsmax might be very conservative. I'm unfamiliar
Speaker 1: as at this moment.
Speaker 11: Okay, fine, so like then there's one American nation. I
Speaker 11: know that, but yeah, so Newsmax there are a few.
Speaker 5: Just very yeah.
Speaker 11: It just it's almost disgusting.
Speaker 5: It's like I think, Uh news Max is trash. Ground
Speaker 5: News is the way to go.
Speaker 2: Hex head on, brother, is this your first time jumping
Speaker 2: on the cage and Night Live.
Speaker 17: It's like second or third time. Yeah, but first time
Speaker 17: I actually said anything.
Speaker 1: Fuck Yeah, well welcome, welcome, And okay, so you said
Speaker 1: Newsmax is trash, give us the breakdown here.
Speaker 2: I'm kind of unfamiliar with them.
Speaker 17: News Max is just it's almost like just a knockoff
Speaker 17: of Fox News. But it's uh, it's just crappy, crappy reporting.
Speaker 17: Ground News is the way to go. Yeah, you can
Speaker 17: see everything.
Speaker 5: There's no I don't know, there's no bias on ground News.
Speaker 1: Well, at least they show you what the bias.
Speaker 2: Is right, exactly exactly, and at.
Speaker 1: Least I'll appreciate that if I know what I'm about
Speaker 1: to read is super left leaning, Okay, I know what
Speaker 1: I'm getting into, and I'll still read it at least
Speaker 1: with that that knowledge in the back pocket. But yeah,
Speaker 1: ground News they're they're putting in the lord's work in
Speaker 1: my opinion.
Speaker 5: Oh man, yeah, yep.
Speaker 17: And Newsmax, their their app and their website are just
Speaker 17: total crap.
Speaker 5: And it's slow and just I mean it's dial up.
Speaker 5: It's almost dial up shit.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, there we have it, I suppose. And
Speaker 1: then even still as we're talking about that, Trump arrangement
Speaker 1: syndrome is a real thing on both sides of the aisle,
Speaker 1: And it sounds like the people in Newsmax have it
Speaker 1: on that side where your boy can do no wrong,
Speaker 1: everything he does is from Jesus himself. Then you also
Speaker 1: have the people like this on CNN that believe that
Speaker 1: every single thing Trump does is clearly satanically uh, you know, motivated.
Speaker 1: So take that for what it is.
Speaker 5: Yep, he's killing kitts, He's.
Speaker 1: Killing them all yeah. Anyway, all right, so let's get
Speaker 1: into it here. So the Danish officials say there's a
Speaker 1: fundamental disagreement with the US over Greenland. Uh, you know what,
Speaker 1: let's let's just read into it here. So what we're
Speaker 1: covering here tensions over Greenland. Leaders from Denmark and Greenland
Speaker 1: said a fundamental disagreement persists with the Trump administration over
Speaker 1: the future of the territory, following their meeting with Vice
Speaker 1: President Jade Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Today's
Speaker 1: meeting came after President Trump said anything less than US
Speaker 1: control of Greenland is unacceptable. Yo. Trump is using some
Speaker 1: very uh using some very hardline words as far as
Speaker 1: this goes. He wants Greenland bad, which he's saying that
Speaker 1: it is a matter of national security. I've I have
Speaker 1: never I don't think I've ever heard of president say
Speaker 1: we must take over this sovereign land as a matter
Speaker 1: of national security in quite some time, quite some time. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about Iraq. He was talking about deposing Saddam.
Speaker 1: We weren't talking about taking over Iraq. We didn't take
Speaker 1: over Afghanistanford, That's that was different. These were operations. He's
Speaker 1: talking about buying it, and they actually did a numbers
Speaker 1: crunch seven hundred billion dollars to buy Greenland. Now that's
Speaker 1: kind of crazy to me that enough economists got together
Speaker 1: was like, hey, you know what, this giant iceberg with
Speaker 1: only a few thousands inhabitants, seven hundred billion would be
Speaker 1: a fair asking price for it. And then the people
Speaker 1: of Denmark are like, yo, it's not for fucking sale.
Speaker 1: And I just have a weird feeling that Trump's gonna
Speaker 1: be like, I mean, there's everybody's got a price. I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: This is God, It's a weird time to be alive.
Speaker 1: Sam, I see your hand, brother, go ahead.
Speaker 18: Does that mean that instead of does that mean we're
Speaker 18: gonna get if we if they don't want to sell
Speaker 18: it and Trump's gonna be this big swinging dick of America,
Speaker 18: does that mean that we're gonna have to start issuing all.
Speaker 10: We're gonna start fighting in the Arctic night they wanted
Speaker 10: to in World War Two.
Speaker 2: I don't think that would be a very good idea.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be.
Speaker 8: Honest say it was a good idea.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's nice.
Speaker 19: You don't you don't invade Russia doing fucking winter and
Speaker 19: this is winter twenty four fucking seven.
Speaker 2: It's an icy hellskate.
Speaker 1: Bro Their population somebody correct me on this one. It's
Speaker 1: under one hundred thousand. It's like fifty six thousand or
Speaker 1: some shit.
Speaker 17: Fifty fifty seven thousand, fifty six fifty seven thousand.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about there. We have more marines in
Speaker 1: the infantry then they have citizens of that nation.
Speaker 8: See is it?
Speaker 2: Is it Glendon or Iceland.
Speaker 10: That has like there's this big ass vault there that
Speaker 10: has like all the virusis and shit of the Greenland.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and this is what we're trying to buy.
Speaker 1: Correct, Yes, but there's there's more strategic reasons for it
Speaker 1: than just that. Although that is a thing. So Historically speaking,
Speaker 1: if you look back in the Cold War, when we
Speaker 1: didn't have the satellite technology that we have now, we
Speaker 1: had a series of radar bases in basically a straight
Speaker 1: line across Greenland because we were expecting Soviet subs or
Speaker 1: Soviet ships or Soviet plans to make their way across
Speaker 1: the North Pole essentially and attack us from up top.
Speaker 1: So we had these radar stations set up all over
Speaker 1: Greenland and it wasn't in an invasion sense. We ridged
Speaker 1: the land as we do every other nation that we
Speaker 1: have a military base, outposts and all these things.
Speaker 2: We rent the land.
Speaker 1: Everybody benefits all the things, all the stuff we abandon them.
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken, in the mid seventies or early eighties,
Speaker 1: I forget when the last one was finally decommissioned. But
Speaker 1: my point is, yeah, so like us, having a military
Speaker 1: presence in Greenland is a thing with historical precedents.
Speaker 2: That being said, we don't need Greenland for that anymore.
Speaker 1: We have all the capabilities to see shit well before
Speaker 1: it ever gets to us. We don't need it for
Speaker 1: the radar outposts. I don't know what he's thinking as
Speaker 1: far as the national security is, can and I don't
Speaker 1: see it.
Speaker 17: I think there's something more behind the scenes, something's going on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. And then to further that point, so
Speaker 1: let's talk about Fox. So CNN is obviously saying everything
Speaker 1: Trump's saying is bad, fundamental differences. They're pissed off Trump
Speaker 1: is making Greenland doesn't fall into the.
Speaker 2: Lapse of China and Russia. And this is what Fox
Speaker 2: is saying.
Speaker 1: This is why he's trying to buy Greenland, because Russia's
Speaker 1: gonna buy it or China's gonna buy it once again.
Speaker 1: Denmark is not getting ready to sell this bitch to anybody.
Speaker 1: So what exactly does he mean? Let's talk about it here,
Speaker 1: let's listen in is happening.
Speaker 20: I think it's not a matter of whether we're gonna
Speaker 20: take de facto control of Greenland, it's how and when
Speaker 20: the leaders of both Greenland and Denmark traveling all the
Speaker 20: way to the White House to meet with Vice President
Speaker 20: Vance and Secretary of Rubio today, and as expected, their
Speaker 20: leaders are digging in their heels.
Speaker 21: We had what I will describe as a frank but
Speaker 21: also constructive discussion.
Speaker 10: We also agreed to.
Speaker 21: Disagree and therefore we will, however, continue to talk The
Speaker 21: big difference is whether that must lead to a situation
Speaker 21: where where US acquire Greenland, and that is absolutely not necessary.
Speaker 20: I mean, okay, that's fine, but who do you trust
Speaker 20: more to decide what's necessary for US national security? Trump,
Speaker 20: Rubio and Vance? Are those two all right? Having Greenland
Speaker 20: under US authority? However, that's structured, it's critical given both
Speaker 20: Russia and China's ambitions in the region. So, except for
Speaker 20: wounding their pride, US commander the second largest island in
Speaker 20: the world will mean both Denmark and Greenland are better off, because,
Speaker 20: after all, a strong and safe America means a stronger,
Speaker 20: safer Europe.
Speaker 9: You know, we're doing the Golden Dome, We're doing a
Speaker 9: lot of things, and we really needed. If we don't
Speaker 9: go in, Russia is going to go in, China is
Speaker 9: going to go in. And there's not a thing that
Speaker 9: Denmark can do about it, but we can do everything
Speaker 9: about it.
Speaker 20: More here to discuss, as Carla Sans, former US Ambassador
Speaker 20: to Denmark and share for Foreign policy at the America
Speaker 20: First Policy Institute, Madam ambassador.
Speaker 1: Great, real quick, real quick, before we listen to the
Speaker 1: former ambassador, but what the fuck is he talking about?
Speaker 1: Did I miss something. China and Russia. I understand they
Speaker 1: have ambitions for so many things, China more than Russia
Speaker 1: as far as like ambitions for business things and things
Speaker 1: like that. Russia's got their hands full right now. And fine, cool,
Speaker 1: What the fuck are we talking about right now? That
Speaker 1: this is actually better for Greenland for America to just
Speaker 1: take it over and like this, Like I'm not inherently
Speaker 1: disagreeing because I am a bit of a patriot. I
Speaker 1: do think that America is the best country on Earth.
Speaker 1: That's just my opinion. I have no ready to really
Speaker 1: quantitate that other than my own egoic sensive patriots. I
Speaker 1: get it, I get it, But what the fuck is
Speaker 1: he talking about? Did I miss something?
Speaker 5: There's got to be something there that we don't know about.
Speaker 1: Did they just find oil.
Speaker 5: Or the rare earth minerals.
Speaker 17: There's got to be a positive something, a huge depositive
Speaker 17: rare earth minerals that.
Speaker 5: I think is the goal.
Speaker 17: But I really don't know. I mean, I'm speculating.
Speaker 1: I think you might be right here, because I mean
Speaker 1: I haven't heard of Greenland's booming, you know, hydrocarbons industry,
Speaker 1: although they may have one. I'm not very familiar with it,
Speaker 1: but with that being a very mountainous and cold terrain
Speaker 1: like that, it would.
Speaker 2: It would stand to reason that there may be some.
Speaker 1: Proven, rare earths somewhere on the island that they're not
Speaker 1: being very public about right now for their own national security.
Speaker 1: That Trump may have gotten a memo and he's like, hey,
Speaker 1: guess what look sounds like Greenland needs some freedom from
Speaker 1: those oppressive.
Speaker 2: Danes that have been over them for so long. It
Speaker 2: sounds very crazy in the rhetoric. But here we are, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: this bitch is behind basically all.
Speaker 1: Right, let's hear from the former ambassador, and I have
Speaker 1: a weird feeling she's gonna be like, Yep, Greenland just
Speaker 1: wants America to take over.
Speaker 2: I just have a weird feeling.
Speaker 1: But let's see.
Speaker 20: To see you tonight. You heard what the foreign officials
Speaker 20: were saying. But the Danish foreign minister says, the US
Speaker 20: has quote wide military access already to Greenland, and we
Speaker 20: can ask to increase our presence there. So why wouldn't
Speaker 20: that be enough?
Speaker 22: Why wouldn't American taxpayers pay more for Europe's defense or Greenland,
Speaker 22: which is a possession of Denmark? Right, I don't think so.
Speaker 22: President Trump is looking at this with clear eyes. Greenlanders
Speaker 22: will go independent in the twenty first century. Just like
Speaker 22: Iceland left the Kingdom of Denmark in the twentieth century,
Speaker 22: Greenland will leave. President Trump's making sure they don't fall
Speaker 22: into the lap of China or Russia. That's a good thing.
Speaker 22: Greenlanders really want the Greenlandic dream. They want prosperity, they
Speaker 22: want good paying jobs. They don't have that because they
Speaker 22: rely on welfare from Denmark. Denmark doesn't have the ability
Speaker 22: to develop Greenland. It doesn't have the ability to defend
Speaker 22: Greenland either. And in fact, in twenty nineteen, when President
Speaker 22: Trump asked the current Prime Minister Mitri Friedrichsen to please
Speaker 22: put more assets into Greenlandic security because it was unsecure,
Speaker 22: she said, yes, she would, she'd put two hundred million
Speaker 22: dollars into that security.
Speaker 8: And you know what she did.
Speaker 22: She put two million and it wasn't into security at all,
Speaker 22: so one percent of what she committed to, and that
Speaker 22: wasn't even real security. So you can't trust what she says.
Speaker 22: She and Denmark will never be able to afford to
Speaker 22: defend or secure Greenland.
Speaker 20: Greenland would be gone right now if we weren't gonna
Speaker 20: we weren't defending it. I mean, I mean, I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: But that's just a fact.
Speaker 1: I mean it.
Speaker 20: Ditto with Canada. So not to say we don't love
Speaker 20: our Canadian military counterparts.
Speaker 1: We do.
Speaker 5: We love them.
Speaker 20: But without the United States might and all the billions
Speaker 20: and billions we put into our military, they'd already have
Speaker 20: fallen to China.
Speaker 2: Okay, I don't inherently disagree with what she just said.
Speaker 2: I I wouldn't. Wow, all right, a lot.
Speaker 1: Of TI unpacking that one. Without America defending Greenland, it
Speaker 1: would have already fallen. That is an inaccurate statement. I
Speaker 1: believe without America defending Canada, which I mean, it would
Speaker 1: have fallen into China. Man maybe not maybe again, but yeah, no,
Speaker 1: Canada has US protecting it, so it doesn't need much
Speaker 1: of a military. So like, I'm good with that. That
Speaker 1: is a true statement. Maybe the angle that shees you're
Speaker 1: trying to work is accurate because Canada got in bed
Speaker 1: with China, real, real, real hard just four or five
Speaker 1: years ago. As a matter of fact, they were allowing
Speaker 1: China to amash troops in Canada to do training operations
Speaker 1: really close to the United States border and nobody bad
Speaker 1: Deny at that point, and it.
Speaker 2: Was all, well, that's not true.
Speaker 1: There's never been Chinese troops cut to the local town
Speaker 1: outside of where the Chinese troops were encamped. Were pissed
Speaker 1: off when the Chinese troops left because they were spending
Speaker 1: money in this small town and they actually their economy
Speaker 1: boomed because of it. So there's actual boots on the ground,
Speaker 1: well civilian boots on the ground that are saying no, no,
Speaker 1: the Chinese were absolutely here. So and I mean that
Speaker 1: was under Trudeau and the guy running Canada right now
Speaker 1: is a Trudeau junior and it's really sad, but it's whatever.
Speaker 1: But yeah, now Canada's got us protecting them. That's a
Speaker 1: true statement. I am unaware of Greenland's Shield of America
Speaker 1: that's been protecting it from big bad China and Russia
Speaker 1: for the last few decades. I may be very ignorant
Speaker 1: to this. I could be so wrong. I could be
Speaker 1: so wrong. I just I have a weird time putting
Speaker 1: that together. But all right, let's yeah, let's keep going.
Speaker 20: But the NATO allies and BESSA are getting involved as well.
Speaker 20: According to reports, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, are sending
Speaker 20: troops to Greenland. I've been continuing threats.
Speaker 12: Okay, what is that gonna do?
Speaker 13: I'm sorry, I'm laughing.
Speaker 20: That's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They're
Speaker 20: not even willing to send troops to, you know, protect Ukraine.
Speaker 20: They're going to send troops to Greenland.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, a couple things there. One Greenland and Denmark
Speaker 1: or NATO that the NATO people, that's our homies. So
Speaker 1: they're sending troops to a NATO country, but they're not
Speaker 1: willing to send to you because Ukraine is not a
Speaker 1: NATO country.
Speaker 2: That's not within their wheelhouse.
Speaker 1: That's not they could they could be generous and send
Speaker 1: Ukraine troops if they so chose, but all these countries
Speaker 1: have been sending them armaments and funding and resources to
Speaker 1: help them defend themselves. So yeah, this is why, this
Speaker 1: is why I wanted to show both the CNN and
Speaker 1: the Fox's opinion on the Trump Greenland situation. Y'all see
Speaker 1: how the narratives are very different and they're being spun
Speaker 1: very extremely in very very opposing ways. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: this is where we're at.
Speaker 2: I guess hex head, what's your thought bro, I think.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 17: I I think Ukraine we're sending our moldy bread. It's
Speaker 17: not moldy yet, but we're sending our munitions out there.
Speaker 17: It's not moldy yet.
Speaker 5: But we we're getting new stuff going.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we're clearing out our old inventory.
Speaker 15: God.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't know. On the other side, I really.
Speaker 1: Don't Tony way In on this, brother, you have a
Speaker 1: You've got a really interesting take on a lot of geopolitics.
Speaker 1: What do you think is the overall goal here or
Speaker 1: the reason behind it?
Speaker 13: In Greenland? I've heard it might be minerals. I've also
Speaker 13: heard it might be to get more military up there.
Speaker 13: But did you know we'd already have a small military
Speaker 13: presence there. It's called the Thuley Air Base, and it's
Speaker 13: really really small. Calling it a base isn't really even
Speaker 13: the right word for it. It's like a strip.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I don't really have a strong opinion about Greenland.
Speaker 13: There's fifty thousand people there. They probably wouldn't mind if
Speaker 13: America formally took over, And yeah, I don't have a
Speaker 13: strong opinion about it, really.
Speaker 1: I mean I agree that people there probably would be
Speaker 1: They probably would actually be happy, And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that because I'm a patriot. Like realistically, like our economy
Speaker 1: is doing better than Denmark. We're not a socialist nation
Speaker 1: or borderline socialist nation. They probably wouldn't really notice much
Speaker 1: of a difference, to be completely honest with you, as
Speaker 1: far as their day to day lives are concerned.
Speaker 2: But even so, yeah, we have a base up there.
Speaker 1: If a matter of fact, I'm trying to remember, the
Speaker 1: first country to build an airstrip was England.
Speaker 2: They built an air airport for.
Speaker 1: Lack of better words, I'm not even gonna call it
Speaker 1: like a base, and then a few years later America
Speaker 1: decided to build one there too, and then we started
Speaker 1: to operate it as a if you want to call
Speaker 1: it a military installation or an international airport or what
Speaker 1: I guess both could be used. An interchangeable dialogue on
Speaker 1: this one, But even still, I don't see the purpose.
Speaker 1: Like you said, it might be minerals, it might be,
Speaker 1: But what would be the purpose of us having a
Speaker 1: higher military presence in Greenland. No one's invading the fucking
Speaker 1: giant iceberg with fifty thousand inhabitants. Okay, I'll say sixty
Speaker 1: bord around Okay, so sixty thousand people live on the
Speaker 1: second largest island on Earth, and it's also a fucking
Speaker 1: ice block. No one wants to invade that, bitch, So
Speaker 1: what are we do? I'm there, I feel like there's
Speaker 1: so much more here that we're missing. I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to do more of a deep dive.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have to go.
Speaker 13: And yeah, there could be a lot of oil under
Speaker 13: the Arctic Ocean too, and Rush is the closest to it.
Speaker 13: But like everyone's kind of tried to agree not to
Speaker 13: drill yet, but everyone wants to be in a position
Speaker 13: where they could.
Speaker 1: Okay, I could see that being a possibility, But hell,
Speaker 1: didn't we just quote unquote takeover Venezuela. They got more
Speaker 1: oil than Saudi Arabia, and we have all the refineries
Speaker 1: to refine the sour crude or.
Speaker 2: Whatever the fuck they want to call it.
Speaker 1: I mean, if that's what it is, if it's oil.
Speaker 17: I think the idea is to use up everybody else's
Speaker 17: oil first, the first, and then we have ours for
Speaker 17: the rest of them, you know, for eternity or whatever
Speaker 17: however long oil lasts. And I've heard that they're offering
Speaker 17: each resident one hundred thousand dollars for to join the States.
Speaker 2: They're offering the inhabitants of Greenland.
Speaker 1: One hundred thousand dollars apiece to become a US citizen.
Speaker 5: I think so. I think I've read a couple of articles.
Speaker 17: And I think so that they are like, yeah, just
Speaker 17: throw money at them.
Speaker 1: Now the tinfoil hat comes on as far as I'm concerned. Uh,
Speaker 1: whenever the government is willing to offer large sums of
Speaker 1: money to people just for the fuck of it, there
Speaker 1: is always I actually can't think of one time where
Speaker 1: there wasn't.
Speaker 2: Some serious fuckery afoot. So now I'm gonna have to
Speaker 2: do a whole deep dive on this.
Speaker 1: I'm probably gonna make a fucking cult to Conspiracy episode
Speaker 1: about this one.
Speaker 5: I'm ready.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, Royce, lay in here, brother.
Speaker 11: There are two quick thoughts, the first of which, so,
Speaker 11: h the minerals could be one thing. Also, doesn't Greenland have.
Speaker 16: A ship ton of bunkers that are filled like with
Speaker 16: all these the foods and seeds for the for the.
Speaker 11: Star pile of the world, So that could be power
Speaker 11: to have access to that as a hey, you know,
Speaker 11: like it doesn't matter what you guys do we have
Speaker 11: means to survive.
Speaker 17: And there there is a seed bunker that has I
Speaker 17: think every seed that is available is stored.
Speaker 5: There, right.
Speaker 11: So the so the fact that that's there and Trump
Speaker 11: is so adamant on being there, there could be a
Speaker 11: connection at the very least as far as that and
Speaker 11: you and then the only other thing as far as
Speaker 11: even though people aren't going to attack Greenland directly, it's
Speaker 11: almost an intermediary between America and Europe or you know,
Speaker 11: you know, it's a nice it's a nice barrier.
Speaker 2: It could be used as a staging ground.
Speaker 1: It absolutely could be used as staging ground if somebody
Speaker 1: was to try to attack mainland USA. I hear this
Speaker 1: and I'm that's absolutely a possibility. The bunkers absolutely also possibility.
Speaker 1: Minerals oil all that could be. And I will say
Speaker 1: to the point that you and Hexhead are making here,
Speaker 1: Ravenly has done this for years. You can look at
Speaker 1: every single simulation where it talks about a global pandemic,
Speaker 1: a global catastrophe, the polar ice cap shifting, you name it,
Speaker 1: whatever mass scale disaster you can think of.
Speaker 2: Greenland seems to be the one spot.
Speaker 1: That will probably be okay more or less than anywhere
Speaker 1: else on Earth, and there's reasons for that. On the
Speaker 1: plate tectonic scale, there's reasons for that. As far as
Speaker 1: their distance from the equator, there's reasons for that. As
Speaker 1: far as they're low population, there's a reason for that.
Speaker 1: For their because they're mountainous and those are pretty fucking stable.
Speaker 1: There's tons of reasons for this. So perhaps that is
Speaker 1: the case. Maybe there is something way more catastrophic than
Speaker 1: what we have information on as of this moment.
Speaker 2: That's right around the corner, and Trump is society.
Speaker 1: He's pulling out all the stops to get to as
Speaker 1: many Americans to the actual bunker as possible.
Speaker 2: That's there's a greater than zero percent chance of that
Speaker 2: for sure.
Speaker 1: Wow wow wow wow. Okay, let's continue on with the
Speaker 1: conversation here. So Trump issues a stern warning to NATO
Speaker 1: ahead of vance's high stakes Greenland meeting. Okay, so, uh,
Speaker 1: let's see. Should we hit play the headlines? Should we
Speaker 1: read the article? What would y'all prefer?
Speaker 5: I'll throw the headlines out.
Speaker 1: Let's do it. Let's see what's up. Number one Ice
Speaker 1: agents struck renee Goods vehicle.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, wait wait wait, hold on I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Let me let me read that one again.
Speaker 1: Let me lower the wine. So the ICE agent that
Speaker 1: struck miss Goods car suffered from internal bleeding to the
Speaker 1: torso because yes, she did in fact hit him with
Speaker 1: her car, and you could see that from his bodycam footage.
Speaker 2: And so yeah, she hit the dude and she got got.
Speaker 1: The federal agent who fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in
Speaker 1: Minneapolis last week suffered internal bleeding to his torso when
Speaker 1: he was struck and her vehicle. Department Homeland Security Assistant
Speaker 1: Secretarya Tricia McLoughlin confirmed on Fox News on Wednesday, Yep,
Speaker 1: no doubt. And keep in mind also this same ICE
Speaker 1: agent was drug underneath a car six months prior. The
Speaker 1: same dude who was making a stop got ran over
Speaker 1: and drug under a car just a few months prior
Speaker 1: to this incident. So yeah, it's not like he didn't
Speaker 1: know what time it was when the car lunched forward
Speaker 1: at him and then hit him.
Speaker 2: So yeah, did she That is what happens.
Speaker 1: And also there's people that are saying that she was there,
Speaker 1: you know, she was peaceful, she was protesting. No, she
Speaker 1: was literally sent there and was successful in uh, basically,
Speaker 1: what's the word uh something in uh something in investigation
Speaker 1: or something in a rest about Yeah, her and a
Speaker 1: group of people in their cars went there to obstruct
Speaker 1: ICE agents in doing their duty, which is against the law.
Speaker 1: So yeah, she wasn't just like an innocent Biastand and
Speaker 1: they kept using the video where she backed up a
Speaker 1: little bit and waved people through. See, she wasn't obstructing traffic.
Speaker 1: That's that's beside the point. It's not about her being
Speaker 1: in the middle of the road that was the issue.
Speaker 1: The fact that she was blocking in ICE agents was
Speaker 1: the issue. Then they had told her multiple times to
Speaker 1: get out, to move to whatever. Her wife got out
Speaker 1: of the car and started shit talking one of the
Speaker 1: ICE agents, which fine, freedom of speech, cool things when
Speaker 1: they were trying to remove her from her vehicles, when
Speaker 1: she hit the dude and yes he is he suffered
Speaker 1: internal belying he's fine, I'm sure, but yeah, she hit
Speaker 1: him and she got got This is absolutely a thing.
Speaker 1: The extent of the blame of the US Immigrations officer
Speaker 1: Jonathan Ross was not immediately clear. Christine nom Said had
Speaker 1: previously said the agent was treated out of hospital following
Speaker 1: the incident, before being released later that same day. Oh god, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this. All the headlines are going to be
Speaker 1: about the mayor, Jacob Frey. He downplayed the incident but
Speaker 1: then told the ICE agents to get the fuck out
Speaker 1: of them in the as And it's like, dude, you're
Speaker 1: a mayor. You're a mayor. You're talking about federal agents.
Speaker 1: You have no power here. But all right, anyway, next one,
Speaker 1: number two, US freezes all visa processing for seventy five countries,
Speaker 1: including Somalia, Russia, and around the State Department is pausing
Speaker 1: immigrant visa processing. Jesus, hold on, I'm gonna turn off
Speaker 1: that music because I thought there was gonna be people
Speaker 1: talking during this.
Speaker 2: There is not, So let's just read it here.
Speaker 1: The US State Department is pausing immigrant visa's processing for
Speaker 1: seventy five countries in an effort to crack down on
Speaker 1: what was that, to crack down becoming a citizen. The
Speaker 1: State Department memo, seen first by Fox News Digital Directors,
Speaker 1: consiler officers to refuse visas. Jesus, they're rolling fast at
Speaker 1: this and I am not reading fast enough. The countries
Speaker 1: include Samalia, Russia, Afghanistan, Brazil, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, Thailand, Yemen,
Speaker 1: and one more. The pause will begin January twenty first,
Speaker 1: and will continue indefinitely until the Department conducts a rea
Speaker 1: assessment of immigration. Third one rfj RFK Junior comments on
Speaker 1: Trump's unhinged eating in jokes with Okay, never mind, RFK
Speaker 1: Junior is given Trump shit for having a bad diet.
Speaker 2: Who cares anyway?
Speaker 1: To the article itself here, President Trump sent a warning
Speaker 1: to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO ahead of jd
Speaker 1: Vance's high stakes meeting with the Danish and Greenlandic officials.
Speaker 1: The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security,
Speaker 1: he wrote on a truth social post on Wednesday. He
Speaker 1: added that the acquisition was vital for the Golden Dome
Speaker 1: that we are building. The Golden Dome is the cutting
Speaker 1: edge missile defense system meant to intercept threats targeting the
Speaker 1: American homeland, similar to the Iron Dome in Israel. NATO
Speaker 1: should be leading the way for us to get it.
Speaker 1: If we don't, Russia or China will. And that's not
Speaker 1: gonna happen militarily without the vast power of the United States,
Speaker 1: much of which I built during my first term and
Speaker 1: am now bringing to a new and even higher level.
Speaker 1: NATO would not be an effective force deterrent, not even close.
Speaker 1: They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far
Speaker 1: more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of
Speaker 1: the United States.
Speaker 2: Anything less than that is unacceptable, he added.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind he just mandated and actually got the
Speaker 1: thumbs up for all NATO members to start spending five
Speaker 1: percent of their GDP on their military, which is impressive.
Speaker 1: I am happy about that also, but a lot of
Speaker 1: these countries are spending somewhere between two and three percent,
Speaker 1: and help the thing, it was like a little under
Speaker 1: half of the countries couldn't even make the two percent minimum.
Speaker 1: Trump just strong on them into making five percent GDP
Speaker 1: their minimum.
Speaker 2: I'm here for it.
Speaker 1: But also, if that's the case and NATO is going
Speaker 1: to be stronger overall very soon, I don't see why
Speaker 1: Greenland is such an asset. But again, we may just
Speaker 1: have more things that are going to be coming out
Speaker 1: about this here soon, I don't know. Follow up posts
Speaker 1: on truth social On Wednesday morning, Trump shared a report
Speaker 1: by just the News stating that the day Defense Intelligence
Speaker 1: Service issued a warning regarding Russian and Chinese military ambitions
Speaker 1: toward an expansion around Greenland in a recent assessment. So
Speaker 1: the Danish are actually saying that China and Russia are
Speaker 1: actually making their way towards Greenland.
Speaker 2: That's interesting.
Speaker 1: NATO tell Denmark to get them out of here now.
Speaker 1: Two dog sleds won't do it. Only the USA can trump.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, two dog sleds. This fucking dude. Danish
Speaker 1: intel warren last year about Russia and Chinese military goals
Speaker 1: towards Greenland and the Arctic. In recent years of the
Speaker 1: United States has significantly increased its security policy focused on
Speaker 1: the Arctic, while Russia continues its military build up and
Speaker 1: China continues to develop its capacity to operate both submarines
Speaker 1: and surface vessels in the region. That's from the d
Speaker 1: DIIS Danish Department of Intel reportedly said in its intelligence
Speaker 1: Outlook in twenty twenty five. The DDIS noted that neither
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine nor the increased US focus on
Speaker 1: Greenland and the Arctic has altered Russia's long term interests
Speaker 1: and objectives in the region. Oh, okay, does make America
Speaker 1: go away? Hat with the that's funny, that's funny. Greenland's
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Jens Friedrich Nelson. Nielsen told a news conference
Speaker 1: in Copenhagen on Tuesday that quote, if we had to
Speaker 1: choose between the United States and Denmark here and now,
Speaker 1: we choose Denmark, we choose NATO, we choose the Kingdom
Speaker 1: of Denmark, we choose the EU. Okay. Trump later responded
Speaker 1: to Nielsen, saying, I disagree with him. I don't know
Speaker 1: who he is. I don't know anything about him, but
Speaker 1: that's going to be a big problem for him. Wow.
Speaker 1: I don't even know who that guy is, but it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a problem if he keeps talking like that.
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ Trump, He's out here doing the most speaking
Speaker 1: of and with my bullshit Trump impersonation. This is a
Speaker 1: Trump impersonation that Royce actually sent us. In the beginning
Speaker 1: of the episode, doctor Drea is behind him Trump with
Speaker 1: doctor Dre in the studio. Let's listen in on this one.
Speaker 8: Dre.
Speaker 5: He's a real doctor.
Speaker 9: He's a really good doctor.
Speaker 5: I have some good doctors. I never met a doctor.
Speaker 1: That made beats, never made it before. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he went to medical school, but I'm gonna tell.
Speaker 9: You right now, this guy has the best music.
Speaker 4: I love.
Speaker 5: We're not doing this.
Speaker 1: He's a Negro with a great attitude.
Speaker 4: I love this guy.
Speaker 9: He's one of my favorite black producers.
Speaker 1: You're so gray, You're so amazing.
Speaker 14: I swear it got all your music that the g
Speaker 14: thing is my favorite.
Speaker 5: You gotta do a t thing, a Trump thing. I
Speaker 5: did not approve this message. I love this guy.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 1: That's fucking great. Oh my god, Royce, thank you for
Speaker 1: sharing that with the class.
Speaker 5: Bro.
Speaker 11: Holy so I saw that out like that. That's a
Speaker 11: pretty damn great impression, just with the r movements, the
Speaker 11: facial movement, like everything was just like.
Speaker 5: Chits on it was.
Speaker 11: It was fantastic. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: That's fucking great and a really good way to get
Speaker 1: off of that topic and onto the next one. Here
Speaker 1: as we were talking about Trump, as we're talking about
Speaker 1: Russia and all this silliness, and Tony, I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: you're gonna weigh in on this one here, brother, because
Speaker 1: I found this article. I don't know how verified it is,
Speaker 1: but this was posted December thirty first of last year,
Speaker 1: just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 2: Ten thousand in counting Russian soldiers are surrendering in record numbers. Okay,
Speaker 2: now let's read in.
Speaker 1: Here more than ten thousand Russian soldiers have been taken
Speaker 1: prisoner by Ukrainian forces since the start of the Russian
Speaker 1: full scale invasion in February of twenty twenty two. Now
Speaker 1: I find that interesting, and there's gonna be people that
Speaker 1: are gonna say some crazy things here, like so you're
Speaker 1: telling me more Russians have surrendered than the entire American
Speaker 1: forces lost in twenty two years of combat in two countries.
Speaker 1: And okay, I hear that, But we also got to
Speaker 1: look at the scale of how many Russian troops have
Speaker 1: been sent to Ukraine versus how many American troops went
Speaker 1: to those two countries. It's not an apple to apples comparison.
Speaker 1: I feel like that's worth mentioning. But anyway, according to
Speaker 1: the data published on December thirty first by Ukraine's Coordination
Speaker 1: Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the number
Speaker 1: of captured Russian personnel continues to rise annually, with twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five showing the highest figures to date. The statistics
Speaker 1: are released through the I Want to Live project And
Speaker 1: if you want to check out this website, it's actually
Speaker 1: it's a realistic website. The Ukrainian set this up basically
Speaker 1: to make or entice the Russian soldiers to just sign
Speaker 1: on and become a prisoner and maybe even become a citizen,
Speaker 1: like maybe after the whole thing is situated, after the fact.
Speaker 1: But it's called the I Want to Live Project, and
Speaker 1: apparently a lot of Russian troops who were conscripted into
Speaker 1: service would rather just go chill at a POW camp
Speaker 1: than fight the drones and the trench warfare and shit.
Speaker 1: According to the project data, an average of sixty to
Speaker 1: ninety Russian troops surrender each week. In August twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four alone, the number peaked at three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: in a single week. Since June twenty twenty three, Russian
Speaker 1: forces have captured more frequently than Ukrainian troops, reversing earlier trends.
Speaker 1: The majority of POWs are taken in the Dunets region,
Speaker 1: particularly Pokrovsk and Bachmut districts, as well as the Zaparisha
Speaker 1: region and Russia's Kersk region. In twenty twenty five, Ukrainian
Speaker 1: authorities recorded a sharp increase in the number of foreign
Speaker 1: nationals among Russian forces. That's actually very well documented as well.
Speaker 1: Russia was taking in and to be fair, Ukraine has
Speaker 1: also had their foreign legion, right A guy I served
Speaker 1: with as a matter of fact, which I'm still pissed
Speaker 1: about that he was an American. He retired from the
Speaker 1: Marine Corps. He was a grunt, great guy. He signed
Speaker 1: up for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion. He was killed in
Speaker 1: action and the Russian fuckers desecrated his body and it
Speaker 1: was his picture was all over the internet. It was
Speaker 1: fucking horrible. But anyway, Approximately seven percent of all captured
Speaker 1: soldiers were identified as mercenaries from forty different countries, with
Speaker 1: two to three new foreign fighters discovered weekly. The I
Speaker 1: Want to Live Project also publish demographic data on captured personnel.
Speaker 1: Eighty three were rank and file soldiers, thirty three or
Speaker 1: thirteen percent rather sorry, eighty three percent were rank and
Speaker 1: file soldiers, thirteen percent were non commissioned officers, and three
Speaker 1: percent were officers, which, to be fair, that is a
Speaker 1: pretty good metric as far as the military as a whole,
Speaker 1: not just POWs, but just saying most were between the
Speaker 1: ages of eighteen and sixty five years old. Again, that
Speaker 1: also stands to reason. The majority seventy six percent were
Speaker 1: contract soldiers, including many recruited from Russia's prisons and private
Speaker 1: military companies. Mobilized individuals accounted for nineteen percent, while conscripts
Speaker 1: made up nearly five percent. Very interesting, roughly twenty four
Speaker 1: percent of POW reported being coerced or.
Speaker 2: Misled into military service.
Speaker 1: Forty percent have prior criminal records, most commonly for theft,
Speaker 1: drug offenses, assault, or homicide, which I'm also not really
Speaker 1: mad about. If you have a war going on, you're
Speaker 1: gonna want your your savages at the front.
Speaker 2: So like, all right, I mean, hell, America did that
Speaker 2: same thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, I know legitimately five people that in
Speaker 1: the early stages of operation name your thing, from like
Speaker 1: four to eight, they were basically given the choice of
Speaker 1: jail or the army. Like that was that was a
Speaker 1: thing that judges used to do in this country. So
Speaker 1: it's not like this is unprecedented. But honestly, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be for like serial rapists and shit. It would usually
Speaker 1: be for low level offenses. But still, you got your
Speaker 1: three strike rule and they're about to go spend some
Speaker 1: time or you can go serve some time service in
Speaker 1: one way or another. And a lot of these dudes
Speaker 1: actually ended up turning their life around because of it.
Speaker 1: So take that for what it is. Only seven percent
Speaker 1: held higher education degrees and thirty percent had not completed
Speaker 1: high school before the war. Thirty eight percent were unemployed,
Speaker 1: and almost half have children, eight percent of them with
Speaker 1: three or more.
Speaker 2: That I mean, okay.
Speaker 1: Ukrainian officials say hundreds of those captured also suffer from
Speaker 1: chronic health issues, including HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, diabetes, and
Speaker 1: mental illness. Yeah, the AIDS outbreak on the front with
Speaker 1: the Russians is crazy, and there's multiple reasons for that.
Speaker 1: Some are saying it's because they're sharing needles. Some are
Speaker 1: saying because it's like a lot of rape soldier to
Speaker 1: soldier rape on the Russian side. I honestly don't know
Speaker 1: how much of that is rhetoric, how much of that
Speaker 1: is true. Who's to say, But yeah, there is a
Speaker 1: crazy amount of HIV and AIDS that has been blowing
Speaker 1: up on the Russian side of the conflicts.
Speaker 2: But take that for what it's worth. Excuse me.
Speaker 1: Ukrainian officials say hundreds of those captures also suffer.
Speaker 2: Are you right that? I'm sorry?
Speaker 1: According to the coordinated coordination efforts, Excuse me. According to
Speaker 1: the Coordination Headquarters, over six thousand Russian POWs have been
Speaker 1: repatriated to Russia as part of prisoner exchanges. More than
Speaker 1: half of these exchanges occurred in twenty twenty five. However,
Speaker 1: not all returned soldiers survive long after release.
Speaker 2: Yeah you'll have that in Russia.
Speaker 1: Ukrainian officials say at least two hundred and thirty seven
Speaker 1: former POWs were either killed or went missing after being
Speaker 1: sent back to the front lines. At least four Russian
Speaker 1: soldiers have been captured a second time. They are really
Speaker 1: bad at their jobs with those four, not the whole thing,
Speaker 1: just those four, Like bro, you play you missed and
Speaker 1: sucked at hide and seek to this level twice, but
Speaker 1: all right. The data also suggests that Russia prioritizes the
Speaker 1: return of ethnic Russians with short captivity periods and no
Speaker 1: serious injuries. In contrast, foreign fighters have not been requested
Speaker 1: for exchange. The Ukrainian side emphasizes that thousands of Russian POWs,
Speaker 1: especially wounded, ill or conscripted soldiers, remain in captivity. According
Speaker 1: to Ukrainian authorities, Russia has consistently refused to participate in
Speaker 1: an all for all exchange format with the fourth for
Speaker 1: the fourth consecutive year. Okay, so a lot of things
Speaker 1: to break down there, Tony weigh in, Please, sir, what
Speaker 1: is your take on this? Is this propaganda? Is there
Speaker 1: a shred of truth to this? Because, I mean, prisoners
Speaker 1: are being taken on both sides. There have been documented
Speaker 1: prisoner exchanges on both sides, and I could see that.
Speaker 1: But as far as Russian's just surrendering and saying fuck this,
Speaker 1: I don't want to fight this, what's your take like.
Speaker 13: In terms of it happening more than usual? I think
Speaker 13: it's happened at consistent rate throughout the war. And I
Speaker 13: just went ahead and asked, ROC you know about this
Speaker 13: whole issue.
Speaker 1: Crock estimates, AI do be lying, A, I do be lying.
Speaker 13: It's a reasonable member. And before I even asked it
Speaker 13: about this particular article, it said, well, maybe five thousand
Speaker 13: to eight thousand Russians have been taken prisoner, and I'd
Speaker 13: say that's within this ballpark. That's very reasonable. And it
Speaker 13: even listed out a lot of the previous prisoner exchanges
Speaker 13: that have happened. There's been like twenty of them normally
Speaker 13: in the you know, Doubler triple digits. Uh, yeah, I
Speaker 13: think this is basically true. United twenty four Media though
Speaker 13: it's a very very pro Ukrainian news outlet. That's what
Speaker 13: practically all their articles are about. And I think I'd
Speaker 13: run into them like once before, but I skimmed their
Speaker 13: website again at the beginning of this episode just to
Speaker 13: because I was googling. I was trying to find the
Speaker 13: story because you mentioned that we were doing it, and
Speaker 13: at first I couldn't find it. I had to scroll
Speaker 13: down Google's first page I had.
Speaker 1: I had heard about this somewhere I forget where. Probably
Speaker 1: one of the other podcasts I listened to was talking
Speaker 1: about how there's like record numbers of Russians surrendering, and
Speaker 1: there was a few cases where it was legitimately they
Speaker 1: were like surrounded and it was like a legitimate surrender.
Speaker 1: It wasn't they It wasn't like these conscripts that basically
Speaker 1: got to the front line, put down their weapon and
Speaker 1: put their hands up and said fuck it, I'll be
Speaker 1: a pow like. It was legitimate combatant surrendering type things
Speaker 1: which happens in conflict. I get that, but uh yeah,
Speaker 1: when they said these record numbers, it was suggested that
Speaker 1: it was way more of the dudes getting to the
Speaker 1: front and being like, never mind, I'm not doing this.
Speaker 2: So I don't know how much of this is true.
Speaker 1: Information on both sides of this is so skewed, So
Speaker 1: I mean, who's to say, right.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I've seen too much information from the pro Russian
Speaker 13: side that says, oh, look, we've got more captains, we've
Speaker 13: got more prisoners of war. Oh man, they're about to
Speaker 13: collapse any day now. And I just posted a stupid
Speaker 13: little meme looking photo here of NPC characters from both sides.
Speaker 13: In March twenty twenty two, Ukraine is about to win
Speaker 13: on one side, and then on the other side, it's
Speaker 13: an identical looking guy saying Russia is about to win,
Speaker 13: and then September twenty twenty four, exact same two guys
Speaker 13: saying the exact same thing again. In January twenty twenty six,
Speaker 13: the exact same two guys saying the exact same thing again. Yeah,
Speaker 13: and it just feels like this just keeps on going
Speaker 13: this way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's uh. They had their their successes in their
Speaker 1: first initial push. At the rate they're going right now,
Speaker 1: it would if this doesn't up, you're still holding true
Speaker 1: to the belief that this is all going to be
Speaker 1: wrapped up by March of this year.
Speaker 13: Uh yeah, I'll just I don't know how to put
Speaker 13: money on it or whatever. There's probably a polymarket, Oh yes,
Speaker 13: there is.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, okay, I mean, and I really have no
Speaker 1: reason to believe one way or another on this. I
Speaker 1: will say that if if this does not come to
Speaker 1: a conclusion relatively soon, and if Russia does decide to
Speaker 1: just dig their heels in and just fight it out
Speaker 1: until the entire western coast, I should say border rather
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. Dude. Going by the math of what they've
Speaker 1: been able to accomplish in the last couple of years,
Speaker 1: it would take them like two hundred years to get there.
Speaker 1: For the role of God, I hope that they, just
Speaker 1: like cooler heads, prevail on this one.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: We kept hearing things that de Lensky was ready to
Speaker 1: come to the negotiating table. We heard that the Russian
Speaker 1: ambassadors but some sort of Russian officials were going to
Speaker 1: Miami and they were ready to.
Speaker 2: Make a deal. Nothing happened. Nothing happened. I don't even
Speaker 2: know if any real talk was had.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I haven't heard of it. I don't keep as
Speaker 13: much tabs on this as I used to. But I
Speaker 13: predict Russia's still gonna just take small amounts of territory
Speaker 13: very slowly. They don't want to rule over a very
Speaker 13: hostile population, so they're mostly focused in the East, and
Speaker 13: they're just gonna keep going, and they're trying to let
Speaker 13: Ukraine just throw more and more men at the front line,
Speaker 13: kind of like Germany did with World War One in France,
Speaker 13: where they set up a large defensive line and didn't
Speaker 13: really move for years and just let the Western now
Speaker 13: I throw troops at that line because the defense was
Speaker 13: more advantageous at that time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a war of attrition, which is what
Speaker 1: this is now. Yeah, I don't know, We'll see how
Speaker 1: it goes.
Speaker 13: I don't have anything else to say.
Speaker 2: I feel you go ahead, Sam.
Speaker 19: I could see sorry, I could see this easily becoming
Speaker 19: a DMZ like.
Speaker 1: Uh that it is in Korea.
Speaker 19: Uh, just a the military as I could see it
Speaker 19: becoming a ceasefire, not really a fool on.
Speaker 8: Hey you want to quit? No, not really. I can
Speaker 8: see it like eventually they'll just like ease up.
Speaker 19: But I still figured anow that like twenty thousand is
Speaker 19: gonna die before that happens.
Speaker 1: No, I oh, twenty thousand for sure. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I've I've lost what the chore statistics are. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's that's for sure. But yeah, I agree, I've been saying.
Speaker 8: That otistic, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've a I've been saying it for a while that
Speaker 1: I could see a DMZ forming as a result of this.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: But again, there's so much that has to happen between
Speaker 1: now and whenever they finally decide that they've had enough.
Speaker 1: I don't Zelenski's not going to back down. He's he
Speaker 1: is digging as he was as much as he can
Speaker 1: because he's fighting for his home turf Russia. It really
Speaker 1: is dependent on Russia. Zelenski and Ukraine have been willing
Speaker 1: to come to the negotiating table multiple times. Putin has
Speaker 1: to decide that he's done. He has to decide that
Speaker 1: whatever arbitrary goal he was setting out to accomplish, he
Speaker 1: has met or at least gotten close enough to justify
Speaker 1: the amount of loss. So as soon as he decides
Speaker 1: he's good, I could see a DMZ being in stated,
Speaker 1: But who's to say what that actual goalpost will be
Speaker 1: or if he decides to move it or backtrack or
Speaker 1: whatever the case.
Speaker 2: I I don't know who's to say one way or another.
Speaker 1: Honestly, anyway, while we are talking about foreign things, let's
Speaker 1: talk about this one. Iran or Iran or Iran, however
Speaker 1: the fuck you want to pronounce it briefly closes airspace
Speaker 1: as US tensions rise, flights rerouted across the regions, So
Speaker 1: let's just read straight into it here. Iran temporarily closed
Speaker 1: its airspace last Wednesday to most incoming and outgoing flights
Speaker 1: amid escalating tensions with the US. According to a notice
Speaker 1: posted by the Federal Aviation Administration the FAA, the restriction
Speaker 1: was scheduled to be in place from ten to fifteen
Speaker 1: pm UTC Wednesday to twelve thirty am UTC on Thursday.
Speaker 1: The notice said it was later extended to one fourteen
Speaker 1: am and then to one thirty or three thirty am UTC.
Speaker 1: Live data provided by flight Tracker and flight Radar showed
Speaker 1: aircraft skirting around Iran's airspace as of eight thirty am,
Speaker 1: and they have two pictures on screen where it shows
Speaker 1: them all just going.
Speaker 2: Around it at that point.
Speaker 1: The order exempted international flights to and from Tehran provided
Speaker 1: they received prior approval from Iran's Civil Aviation authority. The
Speaker 1: airspace closure comes ascensions escalated after the US President threatened
Speaker 1: intervention following a deadly crackdown on anti government protests in Iran.
Speaker 1: Trump later appeared to soften his tone. Speaking at the
Speaker 1: White House on Wednesday night, Trump said that he has
Speaker 1: been assured that the killing of protesters in Iran has stopped,
Speaker 1: and that he would watch it and see. Regarding potential
Speaker 1: US military action, the US has withdrawn some personnel from
Speaker 1: American military bases in the Middle East amid Iranian threats
Speaker 1: to strike those locations of Washington launches an attack. Several
Speaker 1: airlines have canceled their re routed flights to Tehran in
Speaker 1: recent days. India's largest airline, Indigo ah NICE, said Thursday
Speaker 1: that some of its international flights would be impacted by
Speaker 1: Iran's airspace closure. Well, yeah, I guess that would be
Speaker 1: earlier this week. Germany warned its airlines against entering Iran's airspace.
Speaker 1: The luft Hansa group said Wednesday that it would bypass
Speaker 1: Iranian and Iraqi airspace until further notice. With some flights canceled.
Speaker 1: The US has prohibited all American commercial flights from overflying
Speaker 1: Iran airlines include the Immirates, Katari Airways. Turkish airlines have
Speaker 1: also canceled multiple flights to Iran over the past week.
Speaker 2: That's also interesting.
Speaker 1: Katar, Turkey, and the UAE have all canceled flights going
Speaker 1: over Iran's That's pretty interesting to me, especially because that
Speaker 1: ties into well, well, we're gonna talk about the UAE
Speaker 1: and their lack of funding to their students in the UK.
Speaker 2: I think it's hilarious. But anyway, let's go here.
Speaker 1: So the next thing I wanted to talk about while
Speaker 1: we're still on the topic of Iran here, there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about the protests. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of talk about possible regime change in the country. Feel
Speaker 1: how you want to feel about that. Fine, However, there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of media that has come out of
Speaker 1: Iran that shows that the videos are actually AI and
Speaker 1: their dated photos to mislead about what the pro regime
Speaker 1: rallies are happening in Iran right now. So basically, if
Speaker 1: you have seen any type of pro Ayatola protests in
Speaker 1: Iran in the past three weeks, it was more than
Speaker 1: likely AI or dated things that were kind of retooled
Speaker 1: to look newer, to make it look like, oh, the
Speaker 1: country is split, the country doesn't want the Ietola to
Speaker 1: go anywhere.
Speaker 2: That's simply just not the case.
Speaker 1: Right here, we actually have a video that we're going
Speaker 1: to play to learn a little bit more about the
Speaker 1: propaganda on this one.
Speaker 2: Let's learn together.
Speaker 23: I've seen massive social unrest continue in Iran as protesters
Speaker 23: demonstrate against the theocratic government amidst an internet blackout and
Speaker 23: a wave of crackdowns. Now, amidst those protests, the government
Speaker 23: has also called on its supporters to take to the
Speaker 23: streets as well in a show of loyalty. But online
Speaker 23: false images by social media users are misleading those numbers.
Speaker 23: So let's take a first look at what the state
Speaker 23: media is sharing. Iran's government back to Press TV broadcasted
Speaker 23: this aerial footage on its online media presence, saying it
Speaker 23: captures monumental crowds rallying into Iran crowds that are powerfully
Speaker 23: united towards the regime. Now, this was also followed by
Speaker 23: its parent company, which also shared similar images, The Islamic
Speaker 23: Republic of Iran Broadcaster Broadcasting, saying that this is footage
Speaker 23: from INKILOB Square or Revolutionary Square in the capital Tehran,
Speaker 23: saying it shows loyalists gathering there carrying photos of the
Speaker 23: Supreme Leader Ayotola Ali Haamine as well as the official
Speaker 23: flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now, this is
Speaker 23: what the States authority media has been airing, but online
Speaker 23: pro government user accounts on social media have been also
Speaker 23: sharing out of context content to tork up these pro
Speaker 23: government demonstrations. We have been seeing a lot of AI
Speaker 23: generated and dated content being shared as if it is
Speaker 23: in fact currents ongoing protests. This user on social media
Speaker 23: was one of many to share this video showing the
Speaker 23: official flag of the Islamic Republic stretching out for miles,
Speaker 23: flanked by what we think is thousands of protesters alongside it. Now,
Speaker 23: what I can tell you is that this video is
Speaker 23: AI generated. Not only is there multiple distorted facial features.
Speaker 23: If we take a closer look at the video itself,
Speaker 23: there are multiple distorted facial features. At one point, the
Speaker 23: protester almost seems to be blending in with the flag itself.
Speaker 23: But apart from that, if we take a look at
Speaker 23: the watermark embedded on the video, we can actually find
Speaker 23: the source of it. Which was this TikTok account in
Speaker 23: which on the video there was a clear disclaimer that
Speaker 23: this is AI generated content. Now moreover, the account behind
Speaker 23: it actually is a prolific account that shares a series
Speaker 23: of AI generated content falsely depicting ongoing protests in Iran,
Speaker 23: and as of now this account has been suspended. Now
Speaker 23: other accounts are actually sharing dated, out of context footage,
Speaker 23: misrepresenting it as currents ongoing pro government protests. This user
Speaker 23: on x shared this image saying that it shows a
Speaker 23: massive Ranian human wave in the streets of Tehran in
Speaker 23: support of the Supreme Leader and in support of the government. However,
Speaker 23: this image is in fact six years old. We can
Speaker 23: see that same image here dated in an article from
Speaker 23: twenty twenty, and the image itself is from January sixth
Speaker 23: of twenty twenty, depicting the funeral of Iranian military leader
Speaker 23: Cassim Solimani. In fact, images from Cassam Solamani's funeral are
Speaker 23: circulating quite a lot, being misrepresented as current as current images.
Speaker 23: Here's another example.
Speaker 9: This user on x.
Speaker 23: Shared another photo saying that it shows the size and
Speaker 23: scale of pro government support. Again, a reverse image search
Speaker 23: shows us that this is also from Cassam Solimani's funeral
Speaker 23: dated back to twenty twenty, so we can see here
Speaker 23: how images are being distorted out of context in order
Speaker 23: to talk up pro government support and rallies in support
Speaker 23: of the Iranian government. Of course, this is at a
Speaker 23: time where the government itself is trying to downplay descent
Speaker 23: and downplay the extent of the anti government demonstrations. Of course,
Speaker 23: considering the communications blackout in Iran, it makes it more
Speaker 23: difficult than ever to receive and verify images coming out
Speaker 23: of the country. And the trickle down effect of that
Speaker 23: is that users on social media are more readily sharing
Speaker 23: things AI images, dated footage. They're sharing it more readily
Speaker 23: than ever, believing that it is in fact real.
Speaker 2: There we have it.
Speaker 1: So the article is very short, no real reason to
Speaker 1: read it because she kind of did a great job
Speaker 1: of explaining it all herself. So with that being said,
Speaker 1: what does this regime change look like hypothetically if it
Speaker 1: is successful, if the Ayatola is ousted and they bring
Speaker 1: back Reza Pahlavi probably mispronouncing his name, my apologies. The
Speaker 1: exiled prints urging Iranians to seize cities. Now, this is
Speaker 1: an article from al Jazeero, which is a Katari publication,
Speaker 1: and we know that. So now this dude, he's living
Speaker 1: in Bethesda, Maryland as of right now as a political refugee.
Speaker 2: But I want to learn more about the guy.
Speaker 1: So for decades, Raza Polavi was the polite face of
Speaker 1: the Iranian opposition in exile, a former fighter pilot who
Speaker 1: spoke of nonviolent resistance and secular democracy from his home
Speaker 1: in the United States. But this weekend, the tone of
Speaker 1: the sixty five year old heir to the Peacock throne
Speaker 1: and son of the Iran's last shaw changed dramatically. In
Speaker 1: a direct challenge to the Iranian government, Polavi challenge or
Speaker 1: called on Iranians to seize the city centers and prepare
Speaker 1: for his imminent return, prompting that Iranian state media describes
Speaker 1: as armed terrorist attacks across the country. I bet they
Speaker 1: would that they of course, the Iotola would call that that.
Speaker 1: Our goal is no longer merely to come into the streets,
Speaker 1: Polavi declared in a statement released on his ex account.
Speaker 1: The goal was to prepare to seize city centers and
Speaker 1: hold them so from air to exile. Polavi was born
Speaker 1: in t Iran on October thirty first, nineteen sixty Oh,
Speaker 1: a Halloween baby, just like my dad. Seven years after,
Speaker 1: the US and the UK engineered a coup against Iran's
Speaker 1: then elected Prime Minister, Mohammad mosadig Mosadeg. Yeah, who has
Speaker 1: nationalized the assets of the Anglo Persian Oil Company known
Speaker 1: now as BP. In nineteen fifty one, Polavi was officially
Speaker 1: named Crown Prince at the age of seven. His path
Speaker 1: seemed destined for the throne until the nineteen seventy nine
Speaker 1: revolution up ended the region. At seventeen, he left Iran
Speaker 1: for fighter pilot training in the US at Reese Air
Speaker 1: Force Base in Texas. While he was away, the representative
Speaker 1: monarchy collapsed and the current political system was established. Barring
Speaker 1: his return, Polavi completed his training and later earned a
Speaker 1: degree in political science from the University of Southern California.
Speaker 1: During the Iran Iraq War in the nineteen eighties, he
Speaker 1: famously volunteered to serve as a fighter pilot for his country,
Speaker 1: but was rejected by the authorities of Tehran, which, yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense. He has lived in exile ever since,
Speaker 1: residing in the US with his wife, Yasmin, and their
Speaker 1: three daughters. So for now, talking about preparing to return.
Speaker 1: For more than forty years, Polavi advocated for a referendum
Speaker 1: and nonviolent change. However, his rhetoric has sharpened significantly in
Speaker 1: recent days. On Saturday, he urged workers in key sectors
Speaker 1: transport oil and gas to launch nationwide strikes to cut
Speaker 1: off the financial lifelines to the state. He specifically called
Speaker 1: on the quote youth of the immortal guard, end quote
Speaker 1: the erstwhile imperial forces and security forces to defect. I too,
Speaker 1: am preparing to return to the homeland, so that at
Speaker 1: the time of our national revolutions victories, I can be
Speaker 1: beside you, he stated. His call to action comes amid
Speaker 1: reports of the largest anti government protests in years. Pallavi
Speaker 1: asked supporters to hoist the pre nineteen seventy nine Lion
Speaker 1: and Sun flag, a symbol of his father's rule, and
Speaker 1: to occupy public spaces starting from six pm local time.
Speaker 1: So I have seen that flag be raised in place
Speaker 1: of the current Iranian flag all over the country. So
Speaker 1: there's terrorist accusations. Of course, the response from Tehran has
Speaker 1: been furious. On Sunday, state affiliated media outlets labeled the
Speaker 1: protests as a new phase of insecurity and an internal
Speaker 1: armed war. I find it funny that the Ayatola and
Speaker 1: the Iranian government, who fund multiple terrorist organizations, are calling
Speaker 1: this terrorism.
Speaker 2: But all right.
Speaker 1: A report by the conservative Vatan e m rouse Yeah newspaper,
Speaker 1: cited by Taznin news agency describe Pavlov's call at pa
Speaker 1: Lavi's call as cover for terrorism Nuclei Wow to attack
Speaker 1: police and besiege forces.
Speaker 2: Not to be mistaken, this is not merely a riot.
Speaker 1: These were all armed terrorist attacks, or reports stated, claiming
Speaker 1: that dozens of security personnel have been killed. Officials have
Speaker 1: linked Pallavi's escalation to foreign interference, specifically accusing the US
Speaker 1: and Israel. Well, of course, they claimed the unrest is
Speaker 1: a plan b by President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Netanyahu following the conclusion of the twelve day war between
Speaker 1: Israel and Iran in May of last year. So opposition
Speaker 1: against the opposition, let's continue. While Polavi has found new
Speaker 1: or renewed popularity in the streets, he faces sharp criticism
Speaker 1: from within the fractured Iranian opposition. I'm not gonna try
Speaker 1: to pronounce the name. Nader and around expert argued in
Speaker 1: a recent article that Polavi's political activities have become divisive.
Speaker 1: Critics accused his circle of attacking other prominent descendants, such
Speaker 1: as Nobel Peace Prize winner Nargis Mohammadi, labeling them leftists
Speaker 1: or terrorists. Could be interchangeable dialogue. Polavi has doubled down
Speaker 1: for his advisors, despite others unease about them. Nata wrote
Speaker 1: questioning whether the Prince has become the opposition against the opposition? Okay,
Speaker 1: other there are also concerns about manipulation. Nator not that
Speaker 1: Pelavi's online support is partially driven by cyber armies linked
Speaker 1: to the Iranian government designed to sow discord, raising questions
Speaker 1: about who is co opting whom.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Despite these internal riffs, Polavi remains the most visible figurehead
Speaker 1: for the current wave of unrest, with the Trump administration
Speaker 1: maintaining a hands off approach, asserting it is up to
Speaker 1: Iranians to choose their own leaders. In the streets of
Speaker 1: Tehran burning, the exiled prince appears to be making his
Speaker 1: final gamble for the throne he lost forty seven years ago. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean again, I'm not necessarily against the regime change.
Speaker 2: I know a lot of people are.
Speaker 1: If it's done truly and purely by the Iranian people
Speaker 1: and this is what they want.
Speaker 2: I'm here for it.
Speaker 1: If this is being influenced by foreign actors or something
Speaker 1: like that, then yeah, I think we need to mind
Speaker 1: our own business. But that's also how regime changes go worldwide.
Speaker 1: You know, it's never really clean anyway. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 5: I don't think that.
Speaker 13: I don't think Rezapalavi Junior is going to end up
Speaker 13: in charge of Iran if they have a regime change.
Speaker 13: It's just going to be somebody else already there. Kind
Speaker 13: of like everyone thought Maria Karina Machado was going to
Speaker 13: be in charge of Venezuela because she was the US
Speaker 13: favorite and she was making the media circuit all around
Speaker 13: the Western world. And she's not going to be in
Speaker 13: charge of Venezuela.
Speaker 2: No, they don't know who she is.
Speaker 1: She was the one that just won the Nobel Peace Prize,
Speaker 1: if not mistaken, but it was for humanitarian efforts, and
Speaker 1: no one in Venezuela knows that she just was the
Speaker 1: award of the Nobel Peace Prize because the state media
Speaker 1: suppressed at all.
Speaker 13: I think they know, but they still regard it as
Speaker 13: the Maduro and Chavista people regarded as a complete like
Speaker 13: fraudulent or a publicity stunt more than anything. That's how
Speaker 13: they regard it.
Speaker 1: They don't I read into her, dude. That priest prize
Speaker 1: was well deserved from what I read anyway.
Speaker 13: But even still they give it to Obama and stuff
Speaker 13: before he even did anything. So a lot of that's
Speaker 13: a fair point. Prize is just political.
Speaker 1: Depends on what it's for.
Speaker 2: I'll give you that.
Speaker 1: I actually know someone who was nominated for humanitarian efforts
Speaker 1: and it was a legitimate like this woman deserved in
Speaker 1: my opinion, But it depends on what it's for. Evidences
Speaker 1: in the way of science or technology or something. You
Speaker 1: have to have something behind it. But then they gave
Speaker 1: it to al Gore to lie to us about global warming,
Speaker 1: and you're right, they gave it to Obama two weeks
Speaker 1: after he was elected for nothing, So I see what
Speaker 1: you're going here.
Speaker 13: Yeah, we're getting lots of numbers out of how many
Speaker 13: people have died any run and they cut off their
Speaker 13: their internet obviously, right, But I've seen anything from like
Speaker 13: one to twenty thousand. Nothing's really backed up yet, and
Speaker 13: I'm curious to know what the final number is actually
Speaker 13: going to be. And I don't know how much of
Speaker 13: this is AI. I don't think I saw that one
Speaker 13: particular AI video of the flag outstretched, but there's there's
Speaker 13: been outdated video shown on both sides too. And did
Speaker 13: you see x Elon Musk changed the flag Iran to
Speaker 13: the one with the lion holding the sword. Crazy crazy
Speaker 13: about that, because it's like the regime change isn't even
Speaker 13: done yet, but this is a kind of mind war
Speaker 13: where the zone just gets flooded by as much material
Speaker 13: as possible to make everyone think it's a fad of klumple,
Speaker 13: and both sides are trying to do that. Right, Let's
Speaker 13: see what I think Trump personally, I get the sense
Speaker 13: he's trying to back away from this a little bit,
Speaker 13: because at first he was saying, we are going to
Speaker 13: drop you know, missiles on Iran if they're too hard
Speaker 13: on the protesters, and now just within the past day
Speaker 13: he's saying, you know, this is up to them, this
Speaker 13: isn't for America to decide. And I think, Okay, he's
Speaker 13: trying to back away a little bit. I support him
Speaker 13: backing away. I don't see anyone waiting in the wings
Speaker 13: to take over Iran. It might just fragment maybe Israel
Speaker 13: in the US would prefer chaos over there over the
Speaker 13: current regime over there, even if we can't get Rezipalabi
Speaker 13: in power.
Speaker 1: Maybe yes, Maybe no, though, because if Iran goes into
Speaker 1: full on chaos, that's going to be a breeding ground
Speaker 1: for the exact thing that they're trying to get rid of,
Speaker 1: because now all you're going to have is some local
Speaker 1: warlord or some terrorist group take over, and that's the
Speaker 1: opposite of what anybody, including the other Muslim countries, and
Speaker 1: they at least want, I don't see to your point.
Speaker 13: I think Israel would want that. I think that would
Speaker 13: be less of a threat to Israel than the Iranian
Speaker 13: government currently is.
Speaker 1: Break this down for me because, like, for instance, Syria
Speaker 1: is a fragmented nation that is currently being led by
Speaker 1: an al Qaeda leader, right I don't think Israel's like
Speaker 1: super stoked about that. I don't think they're also super
Speaker 1: worried about that right now. But I think that they
Speaker 1: had a pretty good working relationship with Ala Sad at
Speaker 1: least for a good bit. Now he was sucking up
Speaker 1: his own people, that's fair, but they didn't have to
Speaker 1: worry about much out of a Syria for a good
Speaker 1: bit there.
Speaker 13: I didn't get that impression. I thought Asad was allowing
Speaker 13: arms traffic to go from Iran to Lebanon and that's
Speaker 13: been cut off. Now, I think that was Israel's main goal,
Speaker 13: and they won. Okay, that's fair time, and that's for
Speaker 13: the straight of horror moves. I think that. You know,
Speaker 13: it's very Arab territory. Yeah, and even inside Iran, both
Speaker 13: sides of the Gulf are Arab, not Persian. So I
Speaker 13: think Israel and the US would find a way to
Speaker 13: keep the straits of horror moves open if the Iranian
Speaker 13: government were to collapse and it were to fragment into
Speaker 13: different territories, so that problem would not be a problem either.
Speaker 13: I think that might actually be the anticipated outcome. I
Speaker 13: would say that outcome is way more likely than Rezapalavi
Speaker 13: Junior becoming the Shah again. Now, actually, I still bet
Speaker 13: that the Aotola holds power. That's my final beat to
Speaker 13: your point.
Speaker 1: I could see the potential of the prince to not
Speaker 1: regain power, right, but maybe a regime change in some
Speaker 1: by a local, maybe more of a democratically elected individual.
Speaker 1: Maybe the Ayahtola loses a bit of his power and
Speaker 1: becomes more of a religious figurehead than the combination of
Speaker 1: religious and political.
Speaker 2: I could see something like that shaking out too.
Speaker 1: But you also keep in mind your boy, the prince,
Speaker 1: he's hadn't been back to that country since he was seventeen,
Speaker 1: Like he's nobody in that country really remembers the good
Speaker 1: old days of his dad. Like that's a far that's
Speaker 1: a far gone, antiquated look at things. So don't I
Speaker 1: don't know. I could be so wrong here, and the
Speaker 1: Iranian people are begging to bring back the monarchy.
Speaker 13: I could be I could be wrong. I'd say it's
Speaker 13: like a one percent chance I would give it. Fragmentation
Speaker 13: is more like a twenty thirty percent chance, and seventy
Speaker 13: percent chance I toold is going to keep power. I'm
Speaker 13: more concerned, I think, with what's going to happen in
Speaker 13: the next week. I think the US might launch some
Speaker 13: missiles against Iran, a small number, and then Iran's going
Speaker 13: to have a proportionate response like they did after Sole Money,
Speaker 13: or like they did kind of to Israel this past June.
Speaker 13: I think it's going to be kind of limited both ways,
Speaker 13: and I hope Iran doesn't start it. I think if
Speaker 13: Iran were to start it, they would get a disproportionate
Speaker 13: response in return, they were you know, more at risk
Speaker 13: if they started it. Then if they just sit there
Speaker 13: and wait for the US to do what the US
Speaker 13: is going to do, maybe another bunk or buster on
Speaker 13: four to doh or something.
Speaker 1: Now, I also am of the belief at this time
Speaker 1: that this although yes, Israel has you know, their their
Speaker 1: they want Iran to go through a regime change for sure,
Speaker 1: America does too, but again so does all the other
Speaker 1: Muslim countries. Could this be a Muslim on Muslim situation hypothetically.
Speaker 13: Like the Saudis probably do?
Speaker 1: I think, I know, the Qataris, the UAE, Saudi's, Jordanians,
Speaker 1: none of them get down with the current way Iran.
Speaker 2: Is being ran.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 13: I think the Sunnis have the biggest opposition to Iran,
Speaker 13: but Qatar historically has been sort of more favorable to
Speaker 13: Iran than the Saudis. For sure, the Saudis really hate Iran.
Speaker 13: I think the Hasher Mights hate Iran. The Iraqis, I think,
Speaker 13: are more cool with Iran. The Iraqis are mostly Shia.
Speaker 13: Saddam Hussein was a Sunni. The Kuwaitis are Shia, but
Speaker 13: I think they hate Iran too.
Speaker 1: It's not even about the religious From what I can tell,
Speaker 1: it's not has to do with the religious affiliations.
Speaker 2: It has to do with the fact that they are
Speaker 2: bad for business.
Speaker 13: Iran could shut down the straight or horror moves, so
Speaker 13: the Kuwaitis don't like him.
Speaker 2: No, how could I put this?
Speaker 1: So you remember when you were in school, when you
Speaker 1: were a kid in class and you had that one
Speaker 1: kid in that class that was always an asshole, And
Speaker 1: when he wasn't there that day, you were stoked because
Speaker 1: you knew the day was just gonna go smoothly. But
Speaker 1: every time that he was there, he would just cause
Speaker 1: trouble and make the day go on longer, and he
Speaker 1: and the teacher would just get into it, and then
Speaker 1: he'd have to go to the office. And now you're
Speaker 1: just sitting there for an hour while they have this
Speaker 1: bickering match and all this dumb shit because this kid
Speaker 1: can't just shut up and get along like the rest
Speaker 1: of you. From what I can tell, that's Iran, it's not.
Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with the fact that they
Speaker 1: worship a lot. It has nothing to do with their
Speaker 1: brand of Islam. It has to do with the fact
Speaker 1: that they continuously do what they can to stir the
Speaker 1: pot and kick the hornet's nest, and to a point,
Speaker 1: everybody can deal with that. But it's gotten to a
Speaker 1: point now to where it's getting in the way of
Speaker 1: business right and now, especially with the Saudi's, the Kataris,
Speaker 1: and the Immirates all wanting to get more in bed
Speaker 1: with not just America but the wider Western world as
Speaker 1: a whole. They see Iran in the current regime as
Speaker 1: a liability rather than as an asset. What is your
Speaker 1: take on.
Speaker 13: This, Well, Yeah, Iran's support for Hezbla is probably the
Speaker 13: one thing that all the other countries that hate Iran
Speaker 13: hate most about them, and it's the thing that the
Speaker 13: most anti Israeli people love the most about Iran. It's
Speaker 13: their support for Hezbalah and that's probably what it all
Speaker 13: revolves around. As for the whole Saudi Iranian I guess
Speaker 13: Saudi Arabia is pretty far south a Lebanon. Maybe they
Speaker 13: don't care about it quite as much, but they've been
Speaker 13: rivals since before Israel existed. There must be other reasons.
Speaker 13: And I'm not super famili you're with it. I would
Speaker 13: just chalk it up in large part to Sunny versus
Speaker 13: Shia and.
Speaker 2: Try versus tribe, clan versus clan.
Speaker 13: Who knows, dude, Yeah, I can't really speak authoritatively on that,
Speaker 13: but everybody knows. They just don't like each other. And
Speaker 13: the Saudis also tend not to like the Shia Arabs.
Speaker 13: Within Saudi Arabia, there's a few Shia Arabs next to Kuwait,
Speaker 13: and Saudi government doesn't really like them very much either,
Speaker 13: And I also chalk that up to general sectarian division.
Speaker 13: As for deeper history, I don't know, So that's the end.
Speaker 13: That's a limit of my knowledge.
Speaker 1: Dude, to look into the deeper history of the Middle
Speaker 1: East as a whole, to figure out who hates who
Speaker 1: and why takeaway Israel just just for the sake of
Speaker 1: this conversation, put Israel off to the side. There is
Speaker 1: no clear cut way to decide why this group hates
Speaker 1: this group, why this group is boys with this group,
Speaker 1: why this one is enemy and my enemy he is
Speaker 1: my friend. It's it's messy. The deeper you look into it,
Speaker 1: the messier it gets. Honestly, I've tried for years, and
Speaker 1: there are some things that make sense to me. Some
Speaker 1: things that are just. It is what it is there,
Speaker 1: It's the Middle East is just, it's its own animal.
Speaker 13: Honestly, well, I just asked Grock. It said pretty much
Speaker 13: everything we already said, Sunni versus Shia. It also mentions
Speaker 13: the Hohoth East who I forgot who sure Yemen. Other
Speaker 13: proxy wars Syria, Yemen, Iraq, other flash points nineteen eighty
Speaker 13: to eighty eight Iran Iraq war Saudi back to Iraq,
Speaker 13: twenty sixteen execution of Shia cleric Nimmer. I'll Nimmer Iran
Speaker 13: protested the heck out of that he was a Saudi
Speaker 13: Shia Muslim, and Saudi Arabia executed him for some reason.
Speaker 13: I don't remember. Oh yes, attacks by by Yemen on
Speaker 13: Saudi Aramco.
Speaker 5: Mm let's see.
Speaker 13: There's a few other things. That's That's pretty much it.
Speaker 1: Actually, who knows, But yeah, I don't know what the
Speaker 1: regime change will look like if it is successful. I
Speaker 1: am hoping that it would make Aron a better ballplayer,
Speaker 1: so to speak. But I mean, who's to really say
Speaker 1: it won't just get replaced by somebody who is equal
Speaker 1: to what they currently have. I you know, who knows.
Speaker 1: We'll have to just wait and see now. I did
Speaker 1: want to kind of finish up with this article because
Speaker 1: we talked about it on the Live yesterday and I
Speaker 1: feel like people may not have the full context on
Speaker 1: this one.
Speaker 2: So let's get into it here. Radicalization alarm.
Speaker 1: Why the UAE is losing faith in UK universities For
Speaker 1: everybody who hasn't heard the UAE, who very well to
Speaker 1: do nation and they send people from their country all
Speaker 1: over the world to go to higher levels of education
Speaker 1: all over the world. But the way that the UK
Speaker 1: has done business for the past few years and let
Speaker 1: so many I don't want to just use the word terrorists,
Speaker 1: but people into their country that are dismantling the UK
Speaker 1: as a whole. It has gotten so bad, and the
Speaker 1: UK has said, no, it's not that bad. It's being
Speaker 1: blasted is more than it is online whatever. The rape
Speaker 1: gains aren't a thing. The women getting asked to throw
Speaker 1: it in their face is not a thing. This is
Speaker 1: just a culture thing. Y'all have to be more tolerant
Speaker 1: all of this shit. The UK government has said that
Speaker 1: for a while it has gotten so bad that even
Speaker 1: other Muslim nations are now not allowing their population to
Speaker 1: go to school in the UK. And if they do,
Speaker 1: they're not paying for it like they used to, because
Speaker 1: they're people who happen to be Islamic will go to
Speaker 1: the UK and become radicalized by whatever kind of Islam
Speaker 1: they currently have in the UK, And it's gotten so
Speaker 1: bad that now it's being recognized on a wider scale,
Speaker 1: to the tune of pulling funding. Let's get into it here.
Speaker 1: The UAE has taken a decisive step to limit government
Speaker 1: funding for Immoradi students who want to study at British universities,
Speaker 1: reflecting rising tensions over the UK stance on the Islamist
Speaker 1: Muslim brotherhood. The move signals deeper strains in a historically
Speaker 1: closed relationship and raises questions about the future of the
Speaker 1: UK UAE educational ties. So according to the Financial Times report,
Speaker 1: the UAE's Ministry of Higher Education published a revised list
Speaker 1: of international universities eligible for state scholarship in June of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. While institutions in the United States, Australia,
Speaker 1: France and Israel were included, British universities were notably absent.
Speaker 1: Officials told the UK representatives that the exclusion was intentional,
Speaker 1: not an oversight. Sources familiar with the discussions explained that
Speaker 1: Abu Dhabi's primary concern was preventing Imoradi students from exposure
Speaker 1: to what it views as potential is longist radicalization on
Speaker 1: UK campuses. A person with direct knowledge said they don't
Speaker 1: want their kids to be radicalized on campus. UK officials
Speaker 1: responded by emphasizing the importance of academic freedom.
Speaker 2: That's their response.
Speaker 1: They're losing funding for a certain demographic of students because
Speaker 1: of the other demographic of students they have, and they're
Speaker 1: just telling people that, well, we just.
Speaker 2: Need economic we just need educational freedom.
Speaker 1: BRAH officials with knowledge of the policy also told The
Speaker 1: Times UK that federal funding was being limited for citizens
Speaker 1: hoping to study in the UK, but that the government
Speaker 1: was not imposing a blanket ban on enrollments. Wealthier families
Speaker 1: can still send their children to British universities if they
Speaker 1: cover the costs themselves, while state funding continues to be
Speaker 1: available for students studying in other countries. The decision comes
Speaker 1: after federal funding for emmorties pursuing UK studies had already
Speaker 1: declined prior to June. Students who had already enrolled in
Speaker 1: British universities continue to receive support, but the new rules
Speaker 1: mean that Imoradi students starting courses in the UK will
Speaker 1: face limited or no government funding.
Speaker 2: Wow, this is from David Collier on X.
Speaker 1: The UAE has cut funding for students who want to
Speaker 1: study in the UK. It is worried they will be
Speaker 1: radicalized on campus.
Speaker 2: Let me say that again.
Speaker 1: An Arab state will not send its kids to the
Speaker 1: UK because it's worried we will turn them into Islamic terrorists.
Speaker 2: Let that sink in. I couldn't have said that better myself, honestly.
Speaker 1: So yeah, the radicalization concerns in the Muslim Brotherhood. The
Speaker 1: UAE's move is closely tied to its long standing concerns
Speaker 1: about Islamist movements, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the Arab
Speaker 1: uprising in twenty eleven, Abu Dhabi has imposed strict controls
Speaker 1: on domestic Islamist activities and sought to limit political Islam regionally.
Speaker 1: Under President Shikh Muhammad bin Zaid al Nayan.
Speaker 2: I may have gotten that right.
Speaker 1: The UAE has repeated question the UK's decision not to
Speaker 1: proscribe the Brotherhood. Official UK data shows that during the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three twenty twenty four academic year, seventy students
Speaker 1: in UK universities were referred for possible participation in government's
Speaker 1: Prevent Deradicalization program for signs of Islamist radical radicalization.
Speaker 2: Good Lord nearly double the.
Speaker 1: Previous year out of a total higher education population of
Speaker 1: almost three million students. While one UK academic downplayed the
Speaker 1: scale of the Islamist activity on campus, they noted that
Speaker 1: events such as the Israel Gaza conflict have contributed to
Speaker 1: heightened tensions and protests on campus. The UK government's twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen review concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood had not been
Speaker 1: linked to terrorist activities in or against Britain. Of Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Keir Starmer's administration stated last year that the matter
Speaker 1: remained under close review. Separately, Nigel Farage, leader of the
Speaker 1: Reform UK Party, has pledged to ban the Muslim Brotherhood
Speaker 1: if he becomes Prime minister. The UAE government funded Farage's
Speaker 1: visit to the country in twenty twenty five. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I thought this was interesting to bring up. This was
Speaker 1: actually updated January of this year, actually just a few
Speaker 1: days ago, and you know, just grand total of things
Speaker 1: that is something that really does need to sink in.
Speaker 2: Muslims don't want their kids going.
Speaker 1: To school with those Muslims, and whatever you thought whenever
Speaker 1: I just said those Muslims, it's probably right, and that's
Speaker 1: something that really needs to sink in. Britain has been
Speaker 1: They're basically a country in free fall from what I
Speaker 1: can tell.
Speaker 2: And it's not just because of that, it's because of
Speaker 2: so many things.
Speaker 1: But this might be the final catalyst to really bring
Speaker 1: down the last bit of whatever might remain of the
Speaker 1: British Empire.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: I hope Britain gets there, puts their testicles back on,
Speaker 1: and like reasserts their dominance and their own country.
Speaker 2: I hope.
Speaker 1: I just don't see it happening anyway. Oh good, members
Speaker 1: of the retinue. As we wrap this episode up, I
Speaker 1: want to thank you all for joining me this evening
Speaker 1: and talking with me about all the things and all
Speaker 1: the stuff going on around the world. Oh go ahead, Sam.
Speaker 19: I was just I was just gonna say that.
Speaker 10: Everything, because you always do a good job and whatever.
Speaker 1: You're cutting out a good bit. But I think I
Speaker 1: got what you were trying to say, and I appreciate you. Sam.
Speaker 1: You are the spirit animal. Not only have the cult
Speaker 1: of Conspiracy, you are the spirit animal of the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night as well. Clearly obviously so anyway, all good members
Speaker 1: of the retinue, I want to thank you all for
Speaker 1: coming out here this evening. Again. For anybody who would
Speaker 1: like to join the conversation next week, you go to
Speaker 1: link in the description below to patreon dot com slash
Speaker 1: Cajun Night.
Speaker 2: There's only one tier for entry.
Speaker 1: We get together every Wednesday night at nine him Centro
Speaker 1: and we discuss all the things around the world. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it's history, sometimes it's science, sometimes it's tech, sometimes it's geopolitics.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's just whatever comes up in conversation, and we
Speaker 1: thoroughly enjoy our Wednesday night talks. I want to thank
Speaker 1: everybody again for coming out here. I am the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night and as always, God bless