Speaker 1: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another edition
Speaker 1: of The Cajun Night Live. I am your host, Jacob
Speaker 1: Mook the Cajun Night. We got a couple of things
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about tonight. Some things US related, something's
Speaker 1: international related. It's just kind of gonna be all over
Speaker 1: the place. I'm gonna go ahead and share the screen
Speaker 1: at this time. And if you would like to see
Speaker 1: the content and get the commercial free listening, then what
Speaker 1: you need to do is go to the link in
Speaker 1: the description below to the Cajun Night at Patreon. There's
Speaker 1: only one tier for entry. We're trying to grow this
Speaker 1: to be the open form discussion style that it has
Speaker 1: slowly but surely become, and we're trying to grow this
Speaker 1: for more and more people to join in. So if
Speaker 1: you would please go do so. Join in the conversations
Speaker 1: every Wednesday night at nine pm Central on the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night at Patreon. Now, let's get into it. Starting off here,
Speaker 1: the CDC, their new leader who has been in her
Speaker 1: position for less than a month, just got removed from
Speaker 1: her position. Interesting points. Let's listen in here we.
Speaker 2: Are learning the newly installed director of the CDC is
Speaker 2: leaving the agency. According to the Health Department, who posted
Speaker 2: on x Susan Monarez is no longer director of the
Speaker 2: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We thank her for
Speaker 2: her dedicated service to the American people. She has only
Speaker 2: led the agency for about a month. And remember, the
Speaker 2: agency is going through a lot of changes that we
Speaker 2: have been telling you about here under Health Secretary RFK Junior.
Speaker 1: We are learning, okay, so it's going through a lot
Speaker 1: of changes. Of course RFK is going to be implemented
Speaker 1: in this. But was he to blame for the removal?
Speaker 1: Was there more things about this individual, some scrupulous behavior
Speaker 1: that would lead to this. Let's talk about it here.
Speaker 1: This is from NBC News, And as we just heard,
Speaker 1: she's being removed, but CDC Director Suzanne Monarez will not resign,
Speaker 1: her lawyers say after Health Secretary moved to oust her.
Speaker 1: Matter of fact. Total, this is a two minute clip.
Speaker 1: It's actually I think a little bit further in depth
Speaker 1: from what we just heard about. And I do want
Speaker 1: to hear this and then we're going to read the
Speaker 1: article in detail.
Speaker 2: Let's listen in some breaking news just into us now.
Speaker 2: We are learning the newly installed director of the CDC
Speaker 2: is leaving the agency. According to the Health Department, who
Speaker 2: posted on x Susan Monarez is no longer director of
Speaker 2: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We thank her
Speaker 2: for her dedicated service to the American people. She has
Speaker 2: only led the agency for about a month. And remember
Speaker 2: the agency is going through a lot of changes that
Speaker 2: we have been telling you about here under Health Secretary
Speaker 2: RFK Junior, I want to bring in Berkeley Lovelace Junior,
Speaker 2: who's been following this for us, in joining us. Now
Speaker 2: do we know why Berkeley she is suddenly leaving the agency.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so we haven't been given a reason other than
Speaker 3: this tweet from HHS that she is no longer at
Speaker 3: the agency. And this just comes just weeks after gunman
Speaker 3: opened fire at the agency's headquarters in Atlanta, which left
Speaker 3: one police officer dead. We were told that she did
Speaker 3: plan a meeting, an agency wide meeting for Monday, but
Speaker 3: then that was abruptly canceled as well. And this also
Speaker 3: comes today when RFK Junior announced that there would be
Speaker 3: restrictions for the upcoming COVID shots for the fall as well.
Speaker 3: So we're not exactly sure why she was ousted. She
Speaker 3: did join that she was confirmed in late July, and
Speaker 3: she's been a long time government scientist.
Speaker 2: So walk us through how this kind of fits into
Speaker 2: all the changes that we have been seeing happening at
Speaker 2: the Health Department.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior has been
Speaker 3: criticized over his moves on vaccines, and also in June
Speaker 3: he replaced all members of the Sinners for Disease Control
Speaker 3: Prevention Vaccine Advisory Panel that's what makes recommendations for vaccines
Speaker 3: and insurance companies are forced to recover. So it's unclear
Speaker 3: whether or not monoas agreed with those decisions as well.
Speaker 3: Of course, there will be some upcoming decisions about the
Speaker 3: COVID shots in the next few weeks as well. There
Speaker 3: are also some research going on about potential links of autism.
Speaker 3: There are some rumblings that Kennedy will either could find
Speaker 3: potential leaks between vaccines which have been thoroughly debunked. So
Speaker 3: right now it's it's very unclear. Also, a source, Erica Edwards,
Speaker 3: our colleague, has also just discovered that three other CDC
Speaker 3: leaders have also just resigned as well following Moneris disaster.
Speaker 2: Berkeley, Lovelace, thank you appreciate it, Thanks for being on
Speaker 2: this Berkeley.
Speaker 1: All right, So a direct quote here. CDC Director Suzanne
Speaker 1: Monarez refuse to rubber stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire
Speaker 1: dedicated health experts. She chose protecting the public over serving
Speaker 1: a political agenda, said her lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abe
Speaker 1: David Lowell. Let's dive in a little deeper here. So
Speaker 1: just for the record here, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: this article is going to bring it up or not.
Speaker 1: I did a little more digging into her specifically. She
Speaker 1: has a PhD in microbiology and immunization. She has been
Speaker 1: in this field, not necessarily for the CDC, but she
Speaker 1: has been in this field for a very long time. She,
Speaker 1: as far as I can tell, has a very decent
Speaker 1: track record as a medical professional. Now that has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with political leanings, That has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with conspiracy theories or anything like that. I'm saying as
Speaker 1: a doctor, I could find no red flags initially to
Speaker 1: say that this woman was not about her business. That
Speaker 1: being said, let's read The Center for Disease Control and
Speaker 1: Prevention leadership is in a stunning disarray Wednesday, evening after
Speaker 1: the nation's top health official, RFK Junior, appeared to force
Speaker 1: out it the agency's director, only for her to refuse
Speaker 1: to resign. So he's forcing her out and then she's like,
Speaker 1: I will not resign. He's like, cool, don't worry about
Speaker 1: her resignation, just leave. The director, Suzanne Monarez, said she
Speaker 1: was being ousted after about a month in office, not
Speaker 1: even a full month, by the way, for political reasons
Speaker 1: by the Trump administration. Direct quote here when the CDC
Speaker 1: director Suzanne Monarez refused to rubber stamp. Oh, we already
Speaker 1: read that one. All right, cool, doctor Monares has neither
Speaker 1: resigned nor received notification from the White House that she
Speaker 1: has been and as a person of integrity and devoted society,
Speaker 1: she will not resign. The attorney, who did not return
Speaker 1: a request for comment, added, shocker. You would think that
Speaker 1: they would write for something so public and so out
Speaker 1: there in the public eye like this. You would think
Speaker 1: that the lawyers would give statements to reporters to try
Speaker 1: to make this as loud and messy as possible. But
Speaker 1: all right. Their statement came hours after the Department of
Speaker 1: Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC and which
Speaker 1: Kennedy leads said in a post on x that she
Speaker 1: is no longer director of the agency. Would think of
Speaker 1: her dedicated service to the American people that sparked a
Speaker 1: near immediate leadership exodus from the CDC, which is charged
Speaker 1: with the safekeeping the public health for excuse me, is
Speaker 1: charged with safe keeping the public health of more than
Speaker 1: three hundred million people in America. Three other leaders in
Speaker 1: the CDC. I wouldn't call that a leadership exodus. That's
Speaker 1: just me personally. I think there might be making a
Speaker 1: little bit more that, But then again, I don't know
Speaker 1: if that was just an initial three that says of shigo,
Speaker 1: we go, and they took off and more followed. You know,
Speaker 1: this is still breaking news as far as this goes.
Speaker 1: At least four top officials announced excuse me, not three.
Speaker 1: Four top officials announced their resignations, including doctor Deborah Oweri,
Speaker 1: the Chief Medical Officer, doctor Dimitri dosca Lakis, director of
Speaker 1: the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, doctor Daniel Jernigan,
Speaker 1: director of National Center for Emerging in Zoonautic Infectious Disease.
Speaker 1: That's a word I've never seen before, dope, and doctor
Speaker 1: Jen Leyden, Director of the Office of Public Health, Data, Surveillance,
Speaker 1: and Technology. Kennedy, a longtime anti vaccine activist, has been
Speaker 1: controversial of controversial figure to lead the country's health agencies.
Speaker 1: He has cut five hundred million in contracts focused on
Speaker 1: developing mRNA vaccines, drawing sharp criticism from the scientific community
Speaker 1: and former government officials, and under his guidance, HHS has
Speaker 1: made made a number of vaccine policy decisions that limit
Speaker 1: access to vaccines or call vaccine safety into question. In
Speaker 1: recent weeks, some of those sentiments were echoed by the
Speaker 1: officials who resigned. In his resignation letter, des Galakis, I
Speaker 1: hope I nailed that, wrote quote, I am not able
Speaker 1: to serve in this role any longer because of the
Speaker 1: ongoing weaponization of public health or weaponizing of public health,
Speaker 1: I should say, our easer, I hope that's how you
Speaker 1: pronounce that. One auri's resignation letter spoke about the continued
Speaker 1: spread of misinformation around vaccines. Another quote, Recently, the overstating
Speaker 1: of risks of vaccines and the rise of misinformation have
Speaker 1: cost lives, as demonstrated by the highest number of US
Speaker 1: measles cases in thirty years. In the violent attack on
Speaker 1: our agency, she wrote. The CDC staffers said they were
Speaker 1: shocked by the developments. This is a direct quote, again
Speaker 1: from the CDC staffer who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Speaker 1: These guys are the best in the business. They know
Speaker 1: their stuff. I'm stunned how fast this all happened. The
Speaker 1: departures came at a tumultuous time for the agency. On
Speaker 1: August eighth, a gunman shattered windows of six buildings in
Speaker 1: the CDC campus in Atlanta. A police officer died in
Speaker 1: the shooting. Several days after the shooting, Monarez sought to
Speaker 1: reassure staffers during a virtual meeting. Is a quote from
Speaker 1: her during the meeting. We know that misinformation can be dangerous,
Speaker 1: not only to health, but to those that trust us
Speaker 1: and those we want to trust. We need to rebuild
Speaker 1: this trust together. The CDC employees said that although Monarez
Speaker 1: hadn't been in leadership for long, it quote seemed like
Speaker 1: she was a fairly strong advocate for CDC employees and
Speaker 1: she was the only one to take the shooting seriously.
Speaker 1: She was the only one to take the shooting seriously.
Speaker 1: That's an interesting direct quote from an anonymous source. Okay.
Speaker 1: President Trump has not made any public statements about the shooting.
Speaker 1: In March, Trump picked Monerez as the nominee to head
Speaker 1: the CDC. Monrez's previous work involved using artificial intel legence
Speaker 1: to improve health, of course it did. Before joining the CDC,
Speaker 1: Monrez was deputy director of the Advanced Research Project's Agency
Speaker 1: for Health, a research funding agency focused on biomedical innovations.
Speaker 1: The Senate confirmed her nomination in late July. Last Friday,
Speaker 1: Monarez canceled a meeting with the CDC staff members that
Speaker 1: had been scheduled for Monday. The focus of the meeting
Speaker 1: was going to be safety concerns and security enhancements after
Speaker 1: the shooting, quoting here from her, Unfortunately, we need to
Speaker 1: postpone Monday's event for an HHS meeting that I have
Speaker 1: been asked to attend in person in DC, she wrote
Speaker 1: in an email to the CDC staff members. Doctor Mandy Cohen,
Speaker 1: a former CDC director under President Biden, said quote, we
Speaker 1: lost exceptional leaders who have served over many decades and
Speaker 1: many administrations. The weakening of the CDC leaves us less
Speaker 1: safe and more vulnerable as a country. Michael Osterholm, an
Speaker 1: infectious disease expert, and the director of the Center for
Speaker 1: Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the Universe of Minnesota
Speaker 1: said in a statement that the departures are a serious
Speaker 1: loss for America. The loss of experienced, world class infectious
Speaker 1: disease experts at the CDC is directly related to the
Speaker 1: failed leadership of extremists currently in charge of the Department
Speaker 1: of Health and Human Services. Ulster Home is launching the
Speaker 1: Vaccine Integrity Project cool that's a if that's not a
Speaker 1: loaded title as a potential alternative to the CDC's Advisory
Speaker 1: Committee on Immunization Practices. In June, Kennedy fired all seventeen
Speaker 1: ACIP members and replaced them with his own picks, including
Speaker 1: several COVID vaccine skeptics. Yep, we could talk for forever
Speaker 1: on that, all right. If Monterrez is pushed out, the
Speaker 1: agency will return to the leader list state it has
Speaker 1: been in for the majority of the new Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Trump's original pick for director, David doctor David Weldon, was
Speaker 1: pulled from consideration hours before his confirmation hearing in March. Weldon,
Speaker 1: a forming former congres from Florida, had a history of
Speaker 1: questioning vaccine safety. Manaas briefly served as the agency's acting
Speaker 1: director before she was nominated in Weldon's place. So all right,
Speaker 1: So again, I don't know, there's still more that's going
Speaker 1: to be coming out about this as time goes on,
Speaker 1: but this is kind of one of those hot off
Speaker 1: the presses. As of time of recording, we don't know
Speaker 1: if there was something that was said, some sort of
Speaker 1: an email chain that indicated that she would not be
Speaker 1: a quote unquote team player or whatever the case was.
Speaker 1: Like I said, as far as her career goes, she
Speaker 1: seems to be pretty much on her game. So for
Speaker 1: them to remove her in such a way, of course,
Speaker 1: it's gonna have to be connected to vaccines. And I
Speaker 1: didn't think AI was gonna get a plug on that one.
Speaker 1: But all right, cool, But yeah, COVID allegedly COVID is
Speaker 1: back on the menu. I personally know of one kid
Speaker 1: that had COVID here recently. Of course he's fine. It
Speaker 1: was about three days of him feeling like hell, and
Speaker 1: now he's back in action. No vaccines, I should add,
Speaker 1: and I know it's a shock or no shots or
Speaker 1: any of these things. He just you know, his body's
Speaker 1: immunity just kind of fought back because COVID is essentially
Speaker 1: another type of version of the flu by another name.
Speaker 1: It's not the exact same thing, and I understand that,
Speaker 1: but your body fights it about the same way. And yeah,
Speaker 1: so that's the thing that I'm hearing more and more about.
Speaker 1: Oh well, this COVID season is coming up, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: since when is COVID season in the fall, the summer
Speaker 1: to fall time. I always thought that what we were
Speaker 1: told for forever was that it was a springtime thing,
Speaker 1: the same as all other types of sicknesses and ailments
Speaker 1: that come winner to springtime, summer to fall. I was
Speaker 1: unaware that this was the new COVID season. But hey,
Speaker 1: here we are. Maybe it's some new variant. Maybe they've
Speaker 1: what are they on right now? Have they run out
Speaker 1: of the Greek alphabet and now they're on to something else?
Speaker 1: I don't know, But anyway, Susan Monrez is out. There's
Speaker 1: some obvious issues that are to be said with this,
Speaker 1: and of course, because RFK is involved in the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: it's clearly going to get pointed at them that they
Speaker 1: are just taking out the good people and they don't
Speaker 1: care about your health and all of these things. I
Speaker 1: don't know where the truth and lies start and end
Speaker 1: with that. Again, this is very new, but I did
Speaker 1: think it was worth mentioning on our conversation tonight, Royce,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 4: I just love a question.
Speaker 5: So in the article you were reading and mentioned the
Speaker 5: spike and measle, please tell me what measles has to
Speaker 5: do with COVID.
Speaker 1: So the anti vaccine rhetoric, using their words not mine,
Speaker 1: is basically saying that you shouldn't be giving any of
Speaker 1: your children any vaccines, including the measles, the mumps, the smallpox,
Speaker 1: the name your shit, which most people don't even get
Speaker 1: small pox immunizations unless they're going somewhere where they need it.
Speaker 1: But my point is there is a school of thought
Speaker 1: that I don't necessarily disagree with for the record to
Speaker 1: say that that you don't need to give your children
Speaker 1: measles vaccines because when measles was killing people way way
Speaker 1: way back, our medical technology wasn't in the best position,
Speaker 1: and measles could be potentially deadly these days if your
Speaker 1: child was to contract measles, heaven forbid. We have a
Speaker 1: medical system now and medical technology to where you could
Speaker 1: just let it ride its course and your kid'll be
Speaker 1: fine more often than not, so they're bringing that up,
Speaker 1: and it's actually funny that you asked about this. I
Speaker 1: just learned this. There was a measles spike that happened
Speaker 1: in American Samoa not too terribly long ago, and anti
Speaker 1: vaxxers use this as like one of their big talking
Speaker 1: points in this conversation. They for lack of better words,
Speaker 1: there was two kids on the island that died as
Speaker 1: a result of measles vaccines. For the record, it wasn't
Speaker 1: the vaccine that killed them. The needles that they got
Speaker 1: injected with actually through a very chain freak accident chain
Speaker 1: of events was actually full of muscle relaxers instead of
Speaker 1: the vaccine, and nobody realized that until much later. So
Speaker 1: these kids contracted measles and they died. The muscle relaxers
Speaker 1: did not help that situation. So the island as a whole,
Speaker 1: because of the very tight knit community, decided they were
Speaker 1: no longer going to be vaccinating their children. There was
Speaker 1: a rise in deaths associated with the measles, and by
Speaker 1: a rise, I mean it was it was noticeable. The
Speaker 1: island went from I think it was like eighty five
Speaker 1: percent vaccinated to like children from like five to newborns
Speaker 1: to like fifty five percent, and there was some more
Speaker 1: kids that did end up contracting measles. There was a
Speaker 1: few more deaths, and it was not misinformation, but it
Speaker 1: was a chain of events and some mistakes that were made.
Speaker 1: And it's very hard to make people forget whenever they
Speaker 1: saw these kids got vaccinated and they died. Clearly it
Speaker 1: was the vaccines that did it, and it kind of
Speaker 1: got spun out of control. But you know, listen for
Speaker 1: any parents out there that are questioning if you should
Speaker 1: or should not vaccinate your children, do your own research
Speaker 1: and talk to people that have vaccine injured children, and
Speaker 1: then talk to those that have non vaccine injured children
Speaker 1: and make your own decision. I'm not going to tell
Speaker 1: you what is and is not the correct way to
Speaker 1: go about it. I have heard both sides of the argument,
Speaker 1: and I think there's valid points on both sides. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the thing, I don't even realize. I don't know
Speaker 1: if this had anything to do with COVID or is
Speaker 1: this because she was going to talk about real medical
Speaker 1: science and RFK talks about other real medical science. That
Speaker 1: just disagreed. But Trump is the one that appointed her.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't make sense to me out loud, but yeah,
Speaker 1: they bringing up measles to be like another buzzword in
Speaker 1: the conversation anything CDC and vaccine. We got to bring
Speaker 1: up the Spanish flui. You gotta bring up the measles
Speaker 1: and mumps and tuberculosis and all these other things that
Speaker 1: don't have anything to do with anything. But yeah, Raven,
Speaker 1: I see your hand raise, go ahead.
Speaker 6: A couple of things with this. So, like, I've talked
Speaker 6: about my stance on vaccines many times, but I think
Speaker 6: that it's interesting that the measles conversation keeps being brought
Speaker 6: up because now there's been several small pockets of quote
Speaker 6: unquote outbreaks of measles here in America where there's like
Speaker 6: one hundred and fifty people had measles in one community,
Speaker 6: and they're using that as Rederick of, well, look now
Speaker 6: this is because of all the anti vaxxers. This is
Speaker 6: gonna sweep it's coming back, it's gonna sweep the country.
Speaker 6: And I guess the big question, like the big thing
Speaker 6: that both sides of this stance should really be discussing
Speaker 6: is why can't we have vaccines that are safe, right, Like,
Speaker 6: that's a big push with a lot of the anti
Speaker 6: vaxxer like staunch in their no vaccines period, which I
Speaker 6: also am heavily against vaccines, but I also think that
Speaker 6: with them done correctly, they could be beneficial to war
Speaker 6: off a lot of you know, issues that have killed
Speaker 6: lots and lots of people. At the same time, the
Speaker 6: Black Death is you know, making its round right now,
Speaker 6: but if you actually read into it, it's now has
Speaker 6: a tally of twenty five people dead in the last
Speaker 6: I think it's like seventy five hang on seventy five
Speaker 6: years and it's there's three types of plague actually, But
Speaker 6: this big push with the plague is a conversation that
Speaker 6: a lot of people are having right now that like
Speaker 6: this is because of the anti vaxxers and because RFK
Speaker 6: has shed so much light on and a lot of
Speaker 6: the things and opening the door for at least having
Speaker 6: the conversations of like, hey, the way that vaccines are
Speaker 6: made are not safe, and us having seventy seven plus
Speaker 6: vaccines for children under the age of twelve is not okay.
Speaker 6: Look at our rates verse, look at the rates across
Speaker 6: the ocean of what at like, you know, just autoimmune.
Speaker 6: Let's take autism off off the table. Autoimmune diseases. We
Speaker 6: are substantially more susceptible to them than any other country
Speaker 6: in the world. Our children are skyrocketing with them. But
Speaker 6: no one wants to wonder, like maybe what it is.
Speaker 6: And I think this whole thing about this lady, like
Speaker 6: I don't doubt she has amazing credentials. It could be
Speaker 6: that they have a disagreement about what's being said. You know,
Speaker 6: a lot of a lot of the people in the
Speaker 6: community that are actually immunologists, they are paid through big
Speaker 6: pharma because like they get funded that all their projects
Speaker 6: are funded by a big pharma and if they don't
Speaker 6: report a certain way, then they get cut and you
Speaker 6: can always trace the money back and how the programs
Speaker 6: are done and what they're reporting on, and damn near
Speaker 6: most of the people that have actually come out and
Speaker 6: try to link vaccines with some type of injury have
Speaker 6: managed to end up dead in various ways. Like oh
Speaker 6: boy that shot himself in the back of the head
Speaker 6: and drove in a pond thirty miles down the road
Speaker 6: in the opposite direction on his fortieth anniversary, Like it's
Speaker 6: you know, like there's a lot to it, but I
Speaker 6: think that opening the door up to those conversations is important.
Speaker 6: But I think they're using measles as a big step now.
Speaker 6: The black plague quote unquote, but there's three types of
Speaker 6: the category of plague, and not one person has actually
Speaker 6: had the bubonic plague yet, but it still is around
Speaker 6: though globally it's been around. It's still happening like every year,
Speaker 6: there's like five hundred deaths. It's never gone away, it's
Speaker 6: just gone down significantly, not killing twenty five million of
Speaker 6: you know, people in Europe.
Speaker 1: So fair. But then even like the bubonic plague for instance,
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, they now know that if you
Speaker 1: just tend to the wounds and keep them hydrated like
Speaker 1: your body, is probably likely to fight off the infection.
Speaker 1: The reason why the bubonic plague was so bad back
Speaker 1: when it was terrorizing Europe is because the people pretty
Speaker 1: much just left them, like to their own devices and
Speaker 1: just let them die slowly for the most part. And
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, like a lot of the inoculation practices,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying got rid of it by any means,
Speaker 1: but especially with our medical technology today, yes, deaths do happen.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to deny that, but by and large,
Speaker 1: a outbreak of the bubonic plague would not be nearly
Speaker 1: as detrimental to our society today as it was to
Speaker 1: you know, medieval Europe.
Speaker 6: No, I mean, I think it was like eighty percent.
Speaker 6: And of the play cases have been from the Buon
Speaker 6: plague in the US like over the course of time,
Speaker 6: but like as right now, there's like a guy that
Speaker 6: contracted it in California and then another one that died
Speaker 6: in Arizona, but currently those aren't the black plague themselves.
Speaker 6: But it's the one thing that anyone should be worried
Speaker 6: about is tuberculosis because that's actually well that's been the silent,
Speaker 6: silent riser, and like that's actually technically it's an epidemic
Speaker 6: right now, and it has been for the last like
Speaker 6: almost two years, and it's been rising more and more,
Speaker 6: not just in America but all over the place, and
Speaker 6: people are just kind of like, eh, it's whatever. Ye wait,
Speaker 6: So we're not concerned about the thing that actually kills people,
Speaker 6: but we're concerned about COVID, which we know is manufactured
Speaker 6: and released and these statistics have been skewed, so vastly.
Speaker 6: I don't understand people's logic.
Speaker 1: I don't either. I remember talking about that back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, the early days of the cult conspiracy.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty or twenty nineteen, I forget the year.
Speaker 1: Tuberculos has killed one point five million people globally. That
Speaker 1: is an actual epidemic by any metrics and standards if
Speaker 1: you look at the numbers, But somehow COVID and wearing
Speaker 1: masks and all these jabs, and even if you look
Speaker 1: at the most generous towards COVID statistics that there are
Speaker 1: of how many actual deaths were associated. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: mean a car wreck that happened and this person might
Speaker 1: have been sick from COVID, so it's considered a COVID
Speaker 1: related to death. I don't mean that. I mean people
Speaker 1: that were actually dying, confirmed from the infection itself. And
Speaker 1: you compare that at its peak to anything from tuberculosis
Speaker 1: over the last decade, it's not even a comparison. We're
Speaker 1: not even we're talking about comparing a grape to a
Speaker 1: watermelon by all metrics. Somehow, no one cares about TV
Speaker 1: that's been around four forever. Hell, it killed doc holiday,
Speaker 1: nobody's really just talking about it. Those just one of
Speaker 1: those things. Go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 4: So two quick things. So one is a question can
Speaker 4: tb be given like COVID? So if COVID was planned, right,
Speaker 4: so can't.
Speaker 5: The first question is can can t be be given
Speaker 5: out like that?
Speaker 4: Because if it can't, maybe the reason why the narrative
Speaker 4: narrative might not be pushed is because that's not something
Speaker 4: they can control as opposed to COVID.
Speaker 5: Second of all, or it could be since that is
Speaker 5: an actual epidemic, it could be that all right, hey,
Speaker 5: don't look what we're doing over here while we have
Speaker 5: your eyes over here.
Speaker 1: I think it's a little bit of bo Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So to your first point, tuberculosis is contagious, it's transferable. However,
Speaker 1: it's I don't know off top. I'm sure there's a
Speaker 1: lab somewhere that's working on a mutated version of it,
Speaker 1: and it could become the next big pandemic slash plandemic.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: It absolutely is within the realm of possibility. But like
Speaker 1: we said, it's been around for so long and there's
Speaker 1: treatment options, but to my knowledge, none of them are
Speaker 1: necessarily good or necessarily bad. It kind of if it
Speaker 1: depends on to what level the TV is taken over
Speaker 1: your body by the time you get treatment, kind of
Speaker 1: determines your level of survivability on it. Again, I'm not
Speaker 1: an expert on this. That's just as of my understanding
Speaker 1: at this moment, and I absolutely agree with you. I
Speaker 1: think that it's not something that they can manufacture. They
Speaker 1: can't make money off of it, so they're not going
Speaker 1: to promote it. And here's the deal, even if you
Speaker 1: were to just raise awareness for it, even if the
Speaker 1: mainstream media and all these news sources were to start
Speaker 1: talking more about the tuberculosis epidemic that has been going
Speaker 1: on for years and years and years, not necessarily to
Speaker 1: blow the lid off of it, but if nothing else,
Speaker 1: how about we start really kickstarting some funding towards research
Speaker 1: into TV. I know there is some going on there
Speaker 1: always has been, but if we were to start putting
Speaker 1: even more resources and more experts in that field, perhaps
Speaker 1: we could see some really generally groundbreaking breakthroughs. But to
Speaker 1: your point, they can't profit off of it. It's not
Speaker 1: as big of a fear tactic because it's been around
Speaker 1: for so long, So I think it's a it's doubly,
Speaker 1: you know double entendre what you just said. Go ahead, Sam.
Speaker 7: Oh. The thing about toberculosis, it's it can be transphobole
Speaker 7: that it's might costs on you, or that blood gets
Speaker 7: into like a wound or something.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: The reason I know about tobaca closis I played Red Dead.
Speaker 7: I'm obsessed over it, and I want I went down
Speaker 7: the bab hole is no why the author died and everything. Actually, uh,
Speaker 7: the queer of tuberculosis is actually kind of simm You
Speaker 7: can cure them if you take penicillin, but it's that
Speaker 7: even then that's not always guaranteed.
Speaker 1: Like I said, it's an infection and if you catch
Speaker 1: it early enough, yeah, some antibiotics could cure it. But
Speaker 1: if you've been fighting it for a few years and
Speaker 1: it's gotten into your blood, it's difficult.
Speaker 7: At that point, it's terminal. But that's actually why I like,
Speaker 7: that's why Doc all of that got told to go
Speaker 7: out west, because he was originally from making Georgia. It
Speaker 7: is humid as a motherfucker down here. That's why he
Speaker 7: got told to go out go out to the desert
Speaker 7: where it's nice and dry. That dry heat ain't got
Speaker 7: nothing on this way heat down.
Speaker 1: Here, which that is true. The dryer climate does help
Speaker 1: you when it comes to respiratory things. But at that
Speaker 1: point it had already gotten so deep into him that
Speaker 1: it was only a matter of time. I think they
Speaker 1: called that consumption back in the day before it was
Speaker 1: like they need good to be tuberculosis.
Speaker 7: But anyway, they did that because you were literally coughing
Speaker 7: up your own lungs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 6: There is currently five medications on the market that you
Speaker 6: can take for TB, and some of them you have
Speaker 6: to take for several months to up to a year
Speaker 6: at least to try to get rid of the bacteria.
Speaker 6: Most of them can actually cure TB. Sometimes people have
Speaker 6: to stay like stints in the hospital. I actually my
Speaker 6: ex was actually exposed to TB and then I had
Speaker 6: to get tested literally probably I think it was like
Speaker 6: every month for two solid years to make sure that
Speaker 6: I didn't have TB because it can live in your
Speaker 6: body without you having an infection, kind of like how
Speaker 6: you can carry an STD around for years and years.
Speaker 6: You didn't know that, Sam, fun fact.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that you absolutely can.
Speaker 6: Fun fact, you can actually fun so you can actually
Speaker 6: carry like herpes in your body for decades and never
Speaker 6: have an actual symptom. And actually men are more likely
Speaker 6: to carry the herpes virus and have zero symptoms in
Speaker 6: their body for pretty much their whole life, or suddenly,
Speaker 6: out of nowhere, say thirty years down the road, you'll
Speaker 6: have a symptom. Also, like chlamydia gonorrhea, you can have
Speaker 6: those for years and have no symptoms, and then you
Speaker 6: can infect other people and you'll keep popping negative on tests,
Speaker 6: but you actually are asymptomatic and you're passing that along
Speaker 6: with TV.
Speaker 4: Right, say it again, Royce, I said same thing with HPV.
Speaker 6: Right, Yes, HPV is most likely carried is carried by men,
Speaker 6: and is it a lot of times men don't know
Speaker 6: it and then they unintentionally pass it to women. That's
Speaker 6: why like the population, I think the last like generous,
Speaker 6: this poll that they took was around like eighty five
Speaker 6: percent of people have herpes in some form, most likely
Speaker 6: both forms, and most people don't actually know they have it.
Speaker 7: It's the poll is actually the most time you get it.
Speaker 7: You actually get it when you're in kindergarten. And the
Speaker 7: most common symptom is type one, which is the fever blisters, right, right,
Speaker 7: but it has to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But to that point, for any of the good
Speaker 1: listeners out there that are out and about and uh
Speaker 1: being a little free and open with their extracurricular activities, listen,
Speaker 1: do yourself and the people of your future a favor.
Speaker 1: Go get a ten panel blood test done, just just
Speaker 1: in case, you know, if nothing else, especially if you
Speaker 1: have insurance. It's not gonna cost you much except for
Speaker 1: a little bit of your time and a few dollars,
Speaker 1: just a few, and it'll just let you know what
Speaker 1: you got going on, you know. Just so everybody's out there,
Speaker 1: I am not I am not promoting free and noncommittal
Speaker 1: sexual relations. Same time, I'm not gonna judge anybody who's
Speaker 1: out there living their life. I'm just saying, be safe
Speaker 1: about it, protect yourself and those that you may come
Speaker 1: in contact with. It's really not that big of a deal.
Speaker 1: But yes, to raven Lee's point, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: STDs you can carry laying dormant in your system for
Speaker 1: years and never know it until it's too late. And yeah,
Speaker 1: tuberculos is also one of those. It lays dormant for
Speaker 1: quite some time and the next thing you know, you've
Speaker 1: got it and like you said, there is medication that
Speaker 1: you could take. Again, I do not know for a fact,
Speaker 1: but I believe it depends on how long it's been
Speaker 1: in your system and to what level the infection has spread,
Speaker 1: depends on what treatment options are available to you, or
Speaker 1: even if the treatment options are willing to work at
Speaker 1: there are able to work, I should say go ahead, Raven.
Speaker 6: So most of the treatments can work, even in a
Speaker 6: late stage, because they actually have one that like pretty
Speaker 6: much coats and side of your lungs, but it takes
Speaker 6: like a very long time, so like months of instay
Speaker 6: treatment to be doing a respiratory breather, and like I
Speaker 6: got double pneumonia from a vaccine. I literally developed it
Speaker 6: within like three days of getting it, and they have
Speaker 6: me like on a respiratory breather and all this stuff.
Speaker 6: Well they've used that kind of technology now and they
Speaker 6: have it with TB and they also have it like
Speaker 6: they're doing intervenous treatments as well, so it's like it's
Speaker 6: a multi combo thing. But sometimes the bodies can't stand
Speaker 6: up to the amount of treatment, just kind of like
Speaker 6: how cancer and you're treating it with chemo and radiation,
Speaker 6: which a lot of us that actually read into it
Speaker 6: and know what that does to bodies. But you know,
Speaker 6: it's it's one of those things most of the time
Speaker 6: now that you can actually catch it, but it's people
Speaker 6: will still die from this because they just kind of
Speaker 6: think that it's just a simple cough and that's it.
Speaker 1: But that even furthers the point, right, why is there
Speaker 1: such a tuberculocus tuberculosis rather epidemic on Earth? If we
Speaker 1: have the medications, we have the technology, we have the
Speaker 1: treatment options. And granted, I understand that not everybody on
Speaker 1: Earth has access to decent medical or medicine in general, right,
Speaker 1: but there are things like doctors without borders, there are
Speaker 1: programs and initiatives to reach people all over the globe.
Speaker 1: So why is it still such an epidemic To the
Speaker 1: point that Royce was making, I'm just speaking on behalf
Speaker 1: of myself here, believe it is because it is not
Speaker 1: a hot button topic enough. There's not enough money to
Speaker 1: be made from this, so it's kind of one of
Speaker 1: those things where it just kind of gets pushed under
Speaker 1: the rug, even though statistically by the numbers, it kills
Speaker 1: vast amounts of people around the world every year, So Anyway,
Speaker 1: again back to the point of this article. I do
Speaker 1: not know as of this time what the overarching reason
Speaker 1: behind this new CDC director's dismissal was, but I am
Speaker 1: sure that more information on this is going to be
Speaker 1: coming out in the next few days. We may even
Speaker 1: be talking about it next week on the Cajun Night Live.
Speaker 1: Moving on to the next topic, this is a BBC article.
Speaker 1: I found a couple of articles talking about this that
Speaker 1: were American based, but I honestly thought that the BBC
Speaker 1: might have a different perspective on it, so it might
Speaker 1: be worth a read. The US tells Denmark to calm
Speaker 1: down over alleged to Greenland influence operation. Yeah, get ready
Speaker 1: for this one, y'all. The US has told Denmark to
Speaker 1: calm down after the top US diplomat in Copenhagen was
Speaker 1: summoned overclaims that Americans had been conducting covert operations in Greenland.
Speaker 1: Denmark's public broadcaster DR quoted sources saying that the aim
Speaker 1: was to infiltrate society and promote its secession from Denmark
Speaker 1: to the US, although it was unable to clarify who
Speaker 1: the men were working for. A White House official who
Speaker 1: could not confirm an influence campaign was underway, but said
Speaker 1: we think the Danes need to calm down right. Foreign
Speaker 1: Minister Lars Loke Rosmussen Yeah, said any attempt to interfere
Speaker 1: in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark will
Speaker 1: of course be unacceptable. Danish intelligence warrened Greenland was being
Speaker 1: targeted by various kinds of influence campaigns. A US State
Speaker 1: Department spokesperson said Chars d Affairs Mark Strow had met
Speaker 1: with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, adding that he had
Speaker 1: a productive conversation quote unquote that quote unquote reaffirmed the
Speaker 1: strong ties between Greenland, Denmark, and the United States. The
Speaker 1: spokesperson could not comment on the actions of private US
Speaker 1: citizens in Greenland, but said the US had always respected
Speaker 1: the right of the people of Greenland to determine their
Speaker 1: own future. President Trump said several times he wants to
Speaker 1: annex Greenland, a semi autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark,
Speaker 1: and Vice President J. D Vance has accused Copenhagen of
Speaker 1: undervesting or excuse me, under invent in the territory. I
Speaker 1: think that's a fair statement, not that I'm necessarily like
Speaker 1: a big jd Vance fan I'm not exactly anti hymn either,
Speaker 1: but I think that that's also a pretty fair statement,
Speaker 1: but okay. On a visit to Greenland a few months ago,
Speaker 1: Danish Prime Minister Met Fredrickson warned the US that you
Speaker 1: cannot annex another country. Denmark's foreign ministers said in a
Speaker 1: statement to the BBC that the government was aware that
Speaker 1: foreign actors continue to show an interest in Greenland and
Speaker 1: its position in the Kingdom of Denmark. It is therefore
Speaker 1: not surprising if we experience outside attempts to influence the
Speaker 1: future of the kingdom in the time ahead. Denmark is
Speaker 1: a member of NATO and the European Union, and has
Speaker 1: long seen the US as one of its closest allies.
Speaker 1: I'll bet the Danes have been shocked by Trump's determination
Speaker 1: to control its semi autonomous territory. The US President said
Speaker 1: this year he would not rule out seizing it by force.
Speaker 1: I don't exactly know if that's a true statement or not.
Speaker 1: Let's see what this clip is. The Danes, who fought
Speaker 1: alongside the US needs all right, Let's see. Let's see
Speaker 1: what it looks like here.
Speaker 8: I don't want to us to invade US.
Speaker 1: They can do their.
Speaker 5: Own business military business in truly.
Speaker 1: But they are not welcome here in nuke. The only
Speaker 1: country who can protect us is not that much.
Speaker 6: It's only US who can protect Ring, and that the
Speaker 6: actors can the northern hemisphere and western hemisphere is the US.
Speaker 6: It's very scary for me, so like he can do
Speaker 6: whatever he wants kind of. Yeah, so it's very scary.
Speaker 9: I'm a human.
Speaker 1: Human are not for sale. We are not for sale.
Speaker 1: You are not for sale in your country.
Speaker 10: You know that.
Speaker 7: That's why I am very angry about that.
Speaker 1: So overall, the people are not happy about it. Granted
Speaker 1: this is only like four or five different people they asked.
Speaker 1: One person was like, look, the US is the only
Speaker 1: one that can really offend us. Let's be real here.
Speaker 1: So I'm assuming you know it's not a majority in
Speaker 1: favor of a US annexation by any means, which you
Speaker 1: wouldn't expect. The Danes are very proud people, so are
Speaker 1: the people of Greenland. I will say that, yeah, Denmark
Speaker 1: has a decent military. They're not scrubs by any means.
Speaker 1: I've actually met and trained with some Danish marines at
Speaker 1: one point in time. Solid guys, I might add, they
Speaker 1: are just like American Marines, they just talk funny. Same
Speaker 1: with the British Royal Marines. They're literally us. They just
Speaker 1: talk funny. But overall, when you're looking at like real
Speaker 1: numbers and figures and statistics, as far as military might goes,
Speaker 1: that's not But comparing American military to pretty much any
Speaker 1: other military on earth is an unfair comparison. We are,
Speaker 1: by low estimations, twenty five years ahead of any competition,
Speaker 1: by best estimations, fifty or sixty years ahead in tech
Speaker 1: and all the other things. So it is what it is.
Speaker 1: But let's continue here. Denmark's PET Security and Intelligence Services
Speaker 1: said in an assessment that influence campaigns would aim to
Speaker 1: create discord in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland. This
Speaker 1: could be done exploiting existing or invented disagreements, either with
Speaker 1: traditional physical influence agents or via disinformation. It added. PET
Speaker 1: said it had strengthened its presence in Greenland and cooperation
Speaker 1: with its authorities. The US currently has no ambassador in Copenhagen,
Speaker 1: so Rams Rasmussen excuse me, has summoned Mark Strow, who
Speaker 1: was the charge of the affairs, is the most senior
Speaker 1: diplomat in the Danish capital, Lars Loke Rasmussen. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get that right here, has already some in the US.
Speaker 1: In Denmark, the US sharda Fashar affairs. I guess that's
Speaker 1: just like, you know, a title. For a second, I
Speaker 1: thought that was maybe like a noble rank or title
Speaker 1: or something like that, a lord or something. It's I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I think that's just a position, but anyway,
Speaker 1: summoned him in Denmark this year in response to a
Speaker 1: separate report in May suggesting US spy agencies have been
Speaker 1: told to focus their efforts on Greenland, Okay. DR's report
Speaker 1: on Wednesday gave detail of a visit by one American
Speaker 1: to Greenland's capital, Nuk, saying nuke. I think that's how
Speaker 1: you pronounced it, saying he was seeking to compile a
Speaker 1: list of Greenlanders who backed US attempts to take over
Speaker 1: the island. The aim would be to try to recruit
Speaker 1: them for a secession movement, the DR said. The earlier
Speaker 1: May report in the Wall Street Journal also referred to
Speaker 1: learning more about Greenland's independence movement, as well as attitudes
Speaker 1: to American mineral extraction. At the time, the US Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence Tulsea Gabbert did not deny the report,
Speaker 1: but accused the journal of quote breaking the law and
Speaker 1: undermining our nation security and democracy. Okay, Tulsi, I see you,
Speaker 1: Colonel Gabs. Greenland has a complex relationship with Denmark. Despite
Speaker 1: having broad self government since nineteen seventy nine, its foreign
Speaker 1: and defense policy is made in Copenhagen. Although most of
Speaker 1: its political parties favor independence, they disagree on how quickly
Speaker 1: they should push for it. While Greenlanders have had the
Speaker 1: right to call referendum since two thousand and nine, Pole
Speaker 1: suggests the vast majority of them have no wish to
Speaker 1: become a part of the US. I also could see
Speaker 1: that too. If anything, they would want to become their
Speaker 1: own independent nation, But for the land size that they have,
Speaker 1: the location of this land size in relation to global defense,
Speaker 1: and the fact that they have so few people living there.
Speaker 1: I don't know if independence is going to go as
Speaker 1: well for them like as they think. But I could
Speaker 1: be completely talking out of my ass here anyway. When
Speaker 1: the Vice President Jade Vance visited a military base on
Speaker 1: the island in March, he accused Denmark of not doing
Speaker 1: enough to keep US troops and Greenlanders safe from Russia.
Speaker 1: China and other countries that he said were interested in
Speaker 1: its buttential, mineral wealth and Arctic naval routes. That's kind
Speaker 1: of what I was getting at there, to be honest
Speaker 1: with you. However, Greenland leader Jens Frederick Nielsen, I don't
Speaker 1: know if they pronounced the jay like that or if
Speaker 1: it's like a soft jay. Is that YenS? YenS Frederick
Speaker 1: Nielsen maybe made clear in May that the US would
Speaker 1: not be taking over the territory. We do not belong
Speaker 1: to anyone else. We decide our own future. Very proud man,
Speaker 1: mister Nielsen. The Danish foreign Minister's latest decision to some
Speaker 1: of the US charged affairs amounts to the a diplomatic
Speaker 1: yellow card, unprecedented in Danish relations with the US. According
Speaker 1: to Yin's Latifadged Mortensen Jesus of the University of Copenhagen,
Speaker 1: this hostile attitude towards Denmark from the Trump administration is shocking,
Speaker 1: he told the BBC. As a pro American country, we're
Speaker 1: asking why are you doing this. One of Denmark's biggest
Speaker 1: companies had already been caught in the crosshairs of the
Speaker 1: US government in recent days following in order to stop
Speaker 1: the construction of a big wind farm off the co
Speaker 1: of Rhode Island because wind farms suck. That's like, we
Speaker 1: need to stop trying to make that a thing. That's
Speaker 1: a net negative. And I thought that was understood at
Speaker 1: this point. But yeah, moving on. The revolution Win project,
Speaker 1: already eighty percent complete, is being run by Danish multinational
Speaker 1: wind farm developer or STED, which is fifty point one
Speaker 1: percent owned by the Danish state. Why why do we
Speaker 1: have a wind farm in America being primarily owned by
Speaker 1: another country. I feel like, even if that's an allied
Speaker 1: nation like that, that seems weird. You know, when we
Speaker 1: set up a shop in another country, it has to
Speaker 1: be fifty point one percent owned by that nation. Yet
Speaker 1: somehow that's allowed here anyway. It is the latest wind
Speaker 1: power initiative to be targeted by President Trump, who said
Speaker 1: last week we're not doing the wind. Yeah. Good share.
Speaker 1: There's an Orsted plummeted sixteen percent on Monday in response
Speaker 1: to the so called stop work order, although they have
Speaker 1: since clawed back some of the losses. The company said
Speaker 1: it has already installed forty five out of the sixty
Speaker 1: five turbans in the project, aimed at providing power to
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty thousand homes. Okay, so again, apparently
Speaker 1: the US is still allegedly. I haven't heard anything about
Speaker 1: US trying to annex Greenland in quite some time. I
Speaker 1: remember when Trump was going on about it and people
Speaker 1: were like, oh, well, we could really use a fifty
Speaker 1: first state and yeah, but I thought that was more
Speaker 1: of a joke, right, I thought that was more for
Speaker 1: the lulls and all. This Annexing another nation into US
Speaker 1: is extremely difficult, and now we even talked about that
Speaker 1: a couple weeks ago. There's three provinces of Canada that
Speaker 1: are starting to take the steps to annex themselves. Not
Speaker 1: America taking them over, but if they were to secede
Speaker 1: from Canada and pledge allegiance to the United States, what
Speaker 1: that would realistically look like. Would that be another territory
Speaker 1: situation like a Guam in Puerto Rico, an American Samoa
Speaker 1: and Virgin Islands kind of thing, or would it be
Speaker 1: more like an Alaska Hawaii situation. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: other levels to this, and a whole spectrum of red
Speaker 1: tape and bureaucracy and DC fuddy duties that would like
Speaker 1: to have their statements be heard on the matter. I
Speaker 1: don't know enough to speak intelligently on it. If Greenland
Speaker 1: wanted to secede, like most of Greenland is saying, they
Speaker 1: would probably want to become their own independent sovereign nation,
Speaker 1: how would that go for them in the case of
Speaker 1: some sort of a world war that would potentially break out.
Speaker 1: And no, I am not saying that the world war
Speaker 1: would be Russia and China. I'm not not saying that either,
Speaker 1: But just in the sense of World War III, name
Speaker 1: your belligerents, and it doesn't really matter in that scenario.
Speaker 1: Greenland is not a They're in a prime location on
Speaker 1: the globe. They are not primed to defend themselves as
Speaker 1: an independent sovereignation. I don't and that's I don't think
Speaker 1: they're actually gonna secceede from Denmark. If they did, I
Speaker 1: would hope that they would try to become a little
Speaker 1: more tighter with America in that sense. But who's to
Speaker 1: really say, you know, But anyway, Raven, I see your
Speaker 1: hand go ahead.
Speaker 6: Wasn't didn't Trump on his last term purchase like a
Speaker 6: whole bunch of land in Greenland, and also like airspace
Speaker 6: as well. And there's something else that happened in Greenland,
Speaker 6: but that like, Greenland is that one place that, like,
Speaker 6: if you've ever played any like apocalyptic kind of plague, whatever,
Speaker 6: Greenland is like the one place in the world that
Speaker 6: will always survive, like every scenario, everything that you can
Speaker 6: ever run, Greenland will survive. So, I mean, there's a
Speaker 6: lot of talk that there's like a whole bunch of
Speaker 6: bunkers in Greenland too, there is for the elite, and
Speaker 6: that that's where like you'd want to go if you
Speaker 6: could get to.
Speaker 1: So weird thought yes to everything that you said. Let's
Speaker 1: break this down starting with the reason why Greenland survives
Speaker 1: in every single scenario, even the war games that name
Speaker 1: your country's government and military industrial complex plays, is because
Speaker 1: it's such a large land mass. It is so freaking
Speaker 1: cold there that most bacteria doesn't really do well surviving
Speaker 1: in that environment, and there's such a low population that
Speaker 1: really and truly even if some sort of outbreak was
Speaker 1: to hit there, it would probably not go very far
Speaker 1: at all. Right to that point, Also, because it is
Speaker 1: a very large land mass with not a large population,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of uninhabited land to be had there.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of underground bunkers for the elites.
Speaker 1: But also Trump was trying to buy back military bases
Speaker 1: that used to be manned by American forces in Greenland
Speaker 1: during the Cold War. So let's break that down. Before
Speaker 1: we had satellite technology to level that we have now,
Speaker 1: we had a series of radars that were essentially set
Speaker 1: up surrounding any key points to where Russia could come in.
Speaker 1: Again I say Russia Soviet Union. Let's give that distinction
Speaker 1: that if they were going to try to send a
Speaker 1: submarine through one of these corridors, we needed to know
Speaker 1: about it, or if they were trying to fly a
Speaker 1: little close to an airspace of an ally of ours,
Speaker 1: we needed to know about it. So America had a
Speaker 1: legitimate line of radar system bases set up on Greenland,
Speaker 1: or in Greenland, I should say, I keep saying on
Speaker 1: as if it's like a it is an island, but
Speaker 1: it's a large island. And Trump bought back they were
Speaker 1: leased from Greenland, and then when the time came, we
Speaker 1: just didn't renew our lease because we had satellite technology
Speaker 1: that far surpassed the radars that were installed at that time,
Speaker 1: and installing new or better updated radar systems, especially in
Speaker 1: Greenland at that time was just seemed like a net
Speaker 1: a costly thing, a net loss overall. Now these bases
Speaker 1: are still there, and they are are still relatively functional,
Speaker 1: not with those old radar systems, of course. But yeah,
Speaker 1: so Trump was going through the process of releasing the land,
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, leasing I don't know if he
Speaker 1: outright bought the spaces or not, but leasing them to
Speaker 1: that point. So, yeah, Greenland has ties with America. We're
Speaker 1: not like, We're not as thick as thieves with them,
Speaker 1: as like America is with Israel by any means. But yes,
Speaker 1: Greenland and America have a very very good working relationship
Speaker 1: and we have for decades. So this is the thing
Speaker 1: when the Greenlanders are saying that they are worried about
Speaker 1: Trump taking it by force. I have no no beliefs
Speaker 1: as of this moment that Trump is going to actually
Speaker 1: launch some sort of a military campaign to take over Greenland.
Speaker 1: That sounds preposterous to me at this time. I could
Speaker 1: be wrong. I could absolutely be wrong, but I just
Speaker 1: don't see it as of this moment. But we shall see. Apparently,
Speaker 1: Denmark caught quote unquote spies that were trying to spread
Speaker 1: disinformation or information into the Greenlander culture to make the
Speaker 1: public want to become US citizens. Was that accurate or not?
Speaker 1: Everybody's kind of playing the deny game. So I do
Speaker 1: not know, but I think it is interesting. Go ahead, Sam,
Speaker 1: This just might be.
Speaker 7: The propaganda that's instilled me or whatever. But I would
Speaker 7: if like, Greenland is such a good place strategically and everything,
Speaker 7: but they are not quote unquote strong enough whatever. I
Speaker 7: might be getting them mixed up. But want they neutraled
Speaker 7: on World War Two?
Speaker 1: Yes? Which is I mean they were so they weren't
Speaker 1: owned by Denmark at that time. If I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 1: that happened after World War two, or maybe they were,
Speaker 1: but they were so far off the beaten path, like
Speaker 1: if to my knowledge, there was no Greenlander units being
Speaker 1: feed fielded in any field of battle during World War Two.
Speaker 1: I mean, again, they have a very low population as
Speaker 1: compared to the land mass that they have.
Speaker 7: Why would they not want I mean, I understand taxes
Speaker 7: is a motherfucker, but why wouldn't they want to join America?
Speaker 4: Tacos.
Speaker 1: They're a proud people with a proud culture. And you know,
Speaker 1: even though America is the only superpower on Earth, as
Speaker 1: of this moment. You know, maybe they just want to
Speaker 1: do their own thing. And I don't think it has
Speaker 1: to do necessarily with American corrupt politicians or taxes or
Speaker 1: anything like that. I think it's just they want to
Speaker 1: be owned by Greenland. The same could be said for
Speaker 1: Ireland with England, right, Northern Ireland is still a part
Speaker 1: of the United Kingdom, even though it's on the island
Speaker 1: of Ireland. Well, why wouldn't they want to be a
Speaker 1: part of England. England is doing far more successfully than
Speaker 1: they are on the world stage, even to this because
Speaker 1: the Irish are a very proud people and want an
Speaker 1: Irish owned Ireland. And I understand that point British right, right,
Speaker 1: But that's that's my point. So why wouldn't Greenland want
Speaker 1: to be a part of us? Like we just heard
Speaker 1: from the people on the ground there, the people that
Speaker 1: live there, some would be in favor of it. Most
Speaker 1: want Greenland to be if anything, they wanted to be
Speaker 1: autonomous and sovereign. So again I understand the points. Again
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think that we are at any
Speaker 1: risk of actually enveloping Greenland into the fold of the
Speaker 1: US States and territories. But I guess time will tell.
Speaker 1: But as we are talking about US politics and Trump
Speaker 1: and things, let's talk about ABC News here. Trump is
Speaker 1: very angry with Putin as russia strikes on Ukraine continue
Speaker 1: despite the peace push. As everybody knows, Trump just had
Speaker 1: this big meeting with Putin in Alaska and he felt
Speaker 1: very good about it. Afterwards, he was saying that I
Speaker 1: think Putin really wants peace. I think he really does. Then,
Speaker 1: of course the strikes continue. There's a quick little forty
Speaker 1: five second clip, and then we're going to read the article.
Speaker 1: Let's listen in.
Speaker 11: President Trump says he is very angry with Vladimir Putin
Speaker 11: as Russia keeps striking Ukraine despite a White House push
Speaker 11: for peace. Ukraine says a shot down forty seven Russian
Speaker 11: drones overnight and twelve others hit targets across the country. Meanwhile,
Speaker 11: Russia says it down to more than fifty Ukrainian drones overnight,
Speaker 11: including two headed for Moscow. Yesterday. President Trump voiced frustration
Speaker 11: with the Russian leader about the strikes. Every conversation I
Speaker 11: have with him is a good conversation. And then unfortunately
Speaker 11: Obama is loaded up into Kiev for someplace and then
Speaker 11: I get.
Speaker 1: Very angry about it.
Speaker 11: But President Trump says he's still hopeful for a peace deal,
Speaker 11: and President Zelenski says he's ready to meet with Putin,
Speaker 11: calling it the format needed to resolve key issues. Now,
Speaker 11: he says the same readiness is needed in Moscow.
Speaker 1: So how much of that is accurate? How much of
Speaker 1: that is Zelenski just trying to feed into whatever Trump
Speaker 1: is saying so he can get more weapons of money.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Let's read in here. This is from
Speaker 1: ABC News London. President Trump again on Monday express frustration
Speaker 1: with the Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as Russian strikes on
Speaker 1: Ukrainian or Ukraine continued despite White House efforts to broker
Speaker 1: a peace deal between the warring neighbors. There's a direct
Speaker 1: quote of what he literally just said, So I'm not
Speaker 1: going to read that. Trump has repeatedly admonished Putin for
Speaker 1: Russia's nightly strikes on Ukrainian cities. Nonetheless, the president'sal reporters
Speaker 1: he is still hopeful of progress towards a peace deal,
Speaker 1: he says. I think we're going to get the war done,
Speaker 1: he said, though added you never know what's gonna happen
Speaker 1: in a war. Strange things happen in a war. The
Speaker 1: fact that Putin went to Alaska, our country, I think
Speaker 1: is a big statement that he wants to get it done,
Speaker 1: you know again, actions and words on that one, my boy.
Speaker 1: Both Russia and Ukraine continued long range strikes through the
Speaker 1: weekend and into Monday. On Tuesday, Ukraine's Air Force said
Speaker 1: Russia launched fifty nine drones into the country overnight, of
Speaker 1: which forty seven and were shot down or suppressed. The
Speaker 1: air force reported impacts of twelve drones across nine locations.
Speaker 1: Russia's Defense ministry meanwhile said that it's forced down at
Speaker 1: least fifty one Ukrainian drones over night and Tuesday morning,
Speaker 1: to which two of which were en route to Moscow.
Speaker 1: Following in person meetings with Putin and Alaska and Ukrainian
Speaker 1: President Zelensky plus a host of European leaders in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: earlier this month, Trump raised the hope that excuse me
Speaker 1: raised the hope of an imminent bilateral meeting between Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukrainian presidents. Zelenski has repeatedly expressed willingness to attend
Speaker 1: such a meeting, but Putin and his officials have consistently
Speaker 1: dodged the proposal. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. The
Speaker 1: president's old ABC News Monday of the potential of the
Speaker 1: two men to meet, Trump said he had spoken to
Speaker 1: Putin sin Zelenski's visit to Washington, but declined to discuss
Speaker 1: the specifics of the call, as if you wanted to
Speaker 1: act if of the bilateral meeting does not materialize. Trump
Speaker 1: refused to detail possible consequences, but said he may act
Speaker 1: over the next week or two, as that's typically the rhetoric, right,
Speaker 1: give me a little more time, a little more time,
Speaker 1: little more time. It's very possible that Trump won't be
Speaker 1: able to broker this deal, you know it honestly might
Speaker 1: just come down to an all out, knockdown, drag out
Speaker 1: slug vest until both sides decide that they're done. I
Speaker 1: hope that a deal could be reached, but I just
Speaker 1: I don't see it as of this moment. Uspe's efforts
Speaker 1: continued on Monday, with Secretary of State Mark or Rubio
Speaker 1: speaking with European counterparts and Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg
Speaker 1: traveling to Kiev to meet with Zelensky. For both US officials,
Speaker 1: the question of future security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent
Speaker 1: future Russian aggression was a key topic of discussion. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Ukrainian Foreign Minister Adril Sibyha Sibiha sib Yah Sure took
Speaker 1: part in the call with Rubio I reiterated Ukraine's position
Speaker 1: that security guarantees must be concrete, legally binding and effective.
Speaker 1: He wrote on x after they should be multi dimensional,
Speaker 1: including military, diplomatic, legal, and other levels. Zelenski said his
Speaker 1: meeting with Kellogg was productive, quote unquote, again expressing his
Speaker 1: thanks to Trump's effort to broker a deal and his
Speaker 1: willingness to lend US backing to security guarantees. Kellogg meanwhile
Speaker 1: said the US side is working very very hard to
Speaker 1: get to a position where in the near term we have,
Speaker 1: with a lack of better terms, security guarantees. That's a
Speaker 1: work in progress. So just keeping everybody in the loop
Speaker 1: on this one. To the surprise of literally no one,
Speaker 1: Trump's still trying to brok her a peace deal. Zelensky
Speaker 1: is saying that he's about that life putin to the
Speaker 1: face to face says that he or he releases indicating
Speaker 1: that he wants a peace deal. Neither side is willing
Speaker 1: to stop firing at each other long enough to make
Speaker 1: a meeting happen. Will that meeting happen soon, Let's hope.
Speaker 1: As we are still in the summer months, there is
Speaker 1: still massive surges and pushes going on on the warfront,
Speaker 1: we are about to get into the winter months where
Speaker 1: not much movements go to happen. If the last three
Speaker 1: years of this two week military operation is to be believed,
Speaker 1: the wintertime is not going to see much substantial gains,
Speaker 1: but pretty substantial losses overall. So just wanted to keep
Speaker 1: everybody in the loop on that one. With that being said,
Speaker 1: the UK has offered troops to defend Ukraine's skies and
Speaker 1: ports in Pentagon talks. As from the Guardian, officials say
Speaker 1: the UK is prepared to deploy troops to the front
Speaker 1: line with Russia as head of Armed Forces prepares to
Speaker 1: meet US counterparts in Russia in Washington. I'm a little
Speaker 1: skeptic of some of the claims that this article is
Speaker 1: gonna make, and you'll understand why as we go through it.
Speaker 1: The UK has said for a while that they are
Speaker 1: very willing to send their forces there for consultative conversations,
Speaker 1: AID kind of you know, missions and things like that.
Speaker 1: There hasn't been any talks of u UK soldiers and
Speaker 1: marines being sent to the front lines. That's a new
Speaker 1: one for me. But at the same time, maybe there
Speaker 1: is a kernel of truth to this. Let's read and
Speaker 1: y'all make your own decision on that. The head of
Speaker 1: the British Armed Forces will tell his American counterparts the
Speaker 1: UK is prepared to send troops to defend Ukraine's skies
Speaker 1: and seas, but not to the front lines with Russia.
Speaker 1: As planning intensifies for a post war settlement exactly, Tony Radikin,
Speaker 1: the Chief of Defense Staff, will on Wednesday attend meetings
Speaker 1: at the Pentagon designed to finalize what thirty different countries
Speaker 1: are willing to commit to Ukraine's national security. I will
Speaker 1: say this though, before we continue any deeper. If the
Speaker 1: UK was to send any type of manpower and one
Speaker 1: of these UK soldiers happened to get hit in some
Speaker 1: crossfire or something like that, I could envision a world
Speaker 1: where that is the catalyst for a very deep UK
Speaker 1: to the frontline kind of thing. I'm not saying that's
Speaker 1: a guarantee. I am saying that it is at least
Speaker 1: a greater than zero percent chance that that could be
Speaker 1: the kickstart, if you will. Radikin is expected to confirm
Speaker 1: the UK will provide soldiers to help with logistical support
Speaker 1: and training, but not deploy them close to Russia. Officials
Speaker 1: have been talking about deploying as many as thirty thousand
Speaker 1: troops to protect Ukrainian sites, but that has been scaled
Speaker 1: back amid opposition from some European countries. One British official
Speaker 1: said Wednesday is a really important moment. Nothing happens in
Speaker 1: Washington without the President giving the green light. So Trump
Speaker 1: giving his support to security guarantees on Monday kickstarted a
Speaker 1: lot of activity. Another said Radikin would echo the pledges
Speaker 1: made last week by John Healey, the Defense Secretary, who
Speaker 1: said Britain was willing to deploy troops to Ukraine quote
Speaker 1: to secure the sky's safeties and to build the strength
Speaker 1: of the Ukrainian forces end quote. They said ministry or
Speaker 1: ministers envisioned, envisaged. I think that's supposed to be envisioned.
Speaker 1: They said. Ministers envisioned this as a meeting, logistical and
Speaker 1: training support, rather than sending battalions of frontline troops who
Speaker 1: could end up in combat. Let's hope that that stays
Speaker 1: that way. Wednesday's meetings are being seen in Europe as
Speaker 1: a major step towards securing a peace deal between Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukraine, which Keir Starmer has said will only be
Speaker 1: possible if the US is willing to provide security guarantees.
Speaker 1: They keep going on about security guarantees, y'all. Even if
Speaker 1: security guarantees are laid down, what's to say that either
Speaker 1: side will actually abide by them? Like realistically here be
Speaker 1: We even talked about that whenever Trump tried to get
Speaker 1: a mineral deal with the eastern section of Ukraine that
Speaker 1: had a lot of these precious rare earths and things
Speaker 1: like that. Right, even if an American company was to
Speaker 1: set up shop a mining operation of some type, do
Speaker 1: we know for ef fact now we can believe things.
Speaker 1: Do we know for a fact that that would stop
Speaker 1: the Russian war machine, that just because there's an American
Speaker 1: company doing business here, that Russia would not still try
Speaker 1: to push and take those precious rare earths for themselves.
Speaker 1: I can't say with one hundred percent certainty that I
Speaker 1: can believe that. I think that would be a massive misstep.
Speaker 1: But so is this entire military operation two weeks has
Speaker 1: turned into coming up on year four. It's been one
Speaker 1: misstep after another. So I don't know where the line
Speaker 1: is actually going to get drawn in the sand. And
Speaker 1: even if it does get drawn in the sand, do
Speaker 1: we know that Ukraine will stop firing things? Do we
Speaker 1: know that Russia will stop firing things? I have a
Speaker 1: hard time believing it as of this moment. But anyway,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, the US President, told Starmer and other world
Speaker 1: leaders on Monday he would be willing to provide those guarantees.
Speaker 1: His Ukraine envoy, Steve Whitkoff, has suggested they could be
Speaker 1: Article five like reassurances, referring to the NATO clause that
Speaker 1: says that an attack on one member should be interpreted
Speaker 1: as an attack on all, even though Ukraine is not
Speaker 1: a NATO member. Starmer hosted a virtual call on Tuesday
Speaker 1: morning to brief more than thirty other world leaders on
Speaker 1: what had been discussed at the White House on Monday.
Speaker 1: Downing Street said afterwards quote the Prime Minister outlined that
Speaker 1: coalition of the Willing planning teams would meet with their
Speaker 1: US counterparts in the coming days to further strengthen plans
Speaker 1: to deliver robust security guarantees and prepare for the deployment
Speaker 1: of a reassurance force if the hostilities ended. I guess
Speaker 1: we'll see. Wednesday's planning session at the Pentagon are being
Speaker 1: closely watched for any signs of what the US would
Speaker 1: be willing to commit. The USS committed quite a lot already.
Speaker 1: I think that goes without saying, more so than any
Speaker 1: combination of countries. But all right. Trump insisted on Tuesday
Speaker 1: they would not involve American troops on the ground, telling
Speaker 1: Fox News you have my assurance on that, and I'm President,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you told us. We didn't know beforehand, homie.
Speaker 1: But Britain is also planning to use the meetings to
Speaker 1: spell out to the Trump administration what it is willing
Speaker 1: to do to protect the Ukraine should a piece deal
Speaker 1: be signed. Official say British forces could be deployed to
Speaker 1: help with the logistics and protecting Ukrainian airspace imports, but
Speaker 1: not into situations that could risk combat with Russia airspace imports.
Speaker 1: These are very important for logistic purposes, but are these
Speaker 1: not very you know, hotspots as far as targeting goes.
Speaker 1: So let's say that you have a bunch of British liaisons,
Speaker 1: for lack of better words, operating a Ukrainian port and
Speaker 1: that port starts getting lit up by a drone attack
Speaker 1: or whatever that mould makes sense, or an airstrip because
Speaker 1: we're trying to secure Ukrainian airspace. That's yeah, it might
Speaker 1: not be front line, but the damage, in the possibility
Speaker 1: of danger is still very present. So I don't Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't exactly understand what they're trying to get at here.
Speaker 1: Either go there and help or stay back. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just looking at this too narrow mindedly. Who knows. Zelenski,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian President, said on Tuesday that he expected the
Speaker 1: security guarantees to be finalized in the week or in
Speaker 1: the next week or ten days. Some experts say that
Speaker 1: European leaders do not expect Vladimir Putin to accept even
Speaker 1: such a limited deployment of NATO troops into Ukraine, and
Speaker 1: that European leaders are floating the idea to isolate the
Speaker 1: Russian president, that it's kind of been the jam this
Speaker 1: whole time. British officials insist this is not the case, however,
Speaker 1: and that the UK and its partners are making serious
Speaker 1: preparations to send forces into the country should they be needed.
Speaker 1: You don't get thirty chiefs of staff coming to the
Speaker 1: Pentagon if they are not serious about this, said one. Okay,
Speaker 1: fair enough, all right, Uh, just gonna throw it out here.
Speaker 1: I know, Tony, you have to have an opinion on
Speaker 1: this conversation. Please let it be heard at this time, sir.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I just still think this isn't making any difference,
Speaker 9: and Russia's still gonna slowly grind forward and take more territory.
Speaker 9: They're taking a place called mir Negrod and Pakrovsk right now.
Speaker 9: Those are kind of the two medium sized cities that
Speaker 9: are being fought over, and Russia's gonna win this. I
Speaker 9: get kind of tired of seeing the same things over
Speaker 9: and over, Like we're going to isolate putin more. It's
Speaker 9: like you've already tried as hard as you can. We're
Speaker 9: going to sanction him more. You've already tried pretty much
Speaker 9: everything as hard as you can. It's just a little
Speaker 9: bit marginal more and more more, but there's not much
Speaker 9: more to do. Yeah, the Ukraine is the West's crash
Speaker 9: test dummy against Russia. It's sad, and this thing's got
Speaker 9: to end. But it's gonna keep going for a while,
Speaker 9: so I'm still holding out hope maybe March of twenty
Speaker 9: twenty six it'll be over. I think Russia's hoping that
Speaker 9: someday the Ukrainian lions will just collapse. That kind of
Speaker 9: thing did happen in World War One. That's kind of
Speaker 9: what happened to Russia and the Central Powers moved in quickly.
Speaker 9: That almost happened in France. A lot of people don't remember.
Speaker 9: But this trench warfare sometimes can lead to a collapse
Speaker 9: on one side, and that's what Russia's hoping for, and
Speaker 9: they may get it, they may not. We don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not agreeing with every single thing you said,
Speaker 1: but I will agree with what Russia is hoping for,
Speaker 1: just an overall collapse and then the fighting would stop
Speaker 1: in that sense. But that's it. I don't see this
Speaker 1: ending in some sort of at least as of this moment.
Speaker 1: Maybe you're right about March of next year, but as
Speaker 1: of right now, I don't think they're going to offer
Speaker 1: terms that Putin would even entertain. I don't think that
Speaker 1: they have the means to offer him what he actually
Speaker 1: wants the same way that Zelenski is not going to
Speaker 1: accept anything. He has said so many times that he's
Speaker 1: not going to accept anything without Crimea being Ukrainian at
Speaker 1: the end of it. So all of this is a
Speaker 1: lot of posturing and a lot of talking. It's this
Speaker 1: is not going to these these security guarantees are not
Speaker 1: going to do anything in the grand scope of shit.
Speaker 1: I know that Trump is the deal maker. Say what
Speaker 1: you want about him. Is he an asshole? Is he
Speaker 1: a good guy? All yet? Fine? Whatever? And he is
Speaker 1: a businessman who literally wrote the book on the art
Speaker 1: of the deal. I don't think that this is a
Speaker 1: deal that he'll be able to broke her, at least
Speaker 1: not with the current standings.
Speaker 9: Yes, for ze Leski want to keep or get back Crimea,
Speaker 9: that's impossible. That would be like Mexico losing the Mexican
Speaker 9: American War and saying, well, we don't agree to lose
Speaker 9: any territory. Well, guess what, You're gonna lose a bunch
Speaker 9: whether you want to or not. Or Germany losing World
Speaker 9: War Two and saying, well, we don't agree to lose
Speaker 9: any territory, or like, guess what you're.
Speaker 1: Saying, We're still here. Israel took US over like, well,
Speaker 1: it looks like you're losing.
Speaker 9: Uh huh, yeah, Palestine's lost a lot too. That's just
Speaker 9: de facto, and you know everyone's got to live with that,
Speaker 9: whether they want to or not. So yeah, I bet right.
Speaker 9: I think Russia has a more realistic position, and they
Speaker 9: don't do this art of the deal idea where they
Speaker 9: make an exaggerated demand and then try to bargain down
Speaker 9: from that. They just say pretty much exactly what they
Speaker 9: want and they don't back down. They just go, hey,
Speaker 9: take it or leave it. Let's draw a new border
Speaker 9: pretty much where the lines are now. We can argue
Speaker 9: about you know, we'll give back some assumeing in Kharkoff
Speaker 9: and maybe some of the other areas we got in
Speaker 9: exchange for Nikola Iver or so. I don't know, I'm
Speaker 9: just making something up, but you know, they want it
Speaker 9: pretty much where it is now, and they want zero
Speaker 9: NATO membership for Ukraine. Uh, you know, it's got to
Speaker 9: be independent of the West. And uh that's they're not
Speaker 9: demanding Kiev. They're not demanding you know, half of Ukraine.
Speaker 9: They're just demanding like the twenty percent they've already taken
Speaker 9: or stolen or whatever. You want to characterize it, which
Speaker 9: is pretty much. I think that's a pretty reasonable demand
Speaker 9: and Ukraine should equit back in twenty twenty three when
Speaker 9: they took his ZM back and Kharkoff back, because that
Speaker 9: was as good at bargaining position as they were going
Speaker 9: to have. And General Millie from the US he said
Speaker 9: as much at the time. A lot of people don't
Speaker 9: like him because he also told China this is an
Speaker 9: unrelated thing, He told China that the US military isn't
Speaker 9: going to obey Trump if Trump tries to go to
Speaker 9: war with China, and a lot of people got mad
Speaker 9: at him for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that was him completely talking out of
Speaker 1: his ass. The military will do what they're ordered to do.
Speaker 1: That's a thing.
Speaker 9: This was at the moment that Trump was losing the
Speaker 9: twenty twenty election. This was at the moment that it
Speaker 9: was like between November and January sixth, So it was
Speaker 9: his grasp pump power was a little tenuous at that
Speaker 9: moment anyway, and Milly was trying to reassure China about that.
Speaker 9: But yeah, that was two years before this Ukraine thing
Speaker 9: even happened. So when he said to Ukraine, and I
Speaker 9: think it was September twenty twenty two, not even twenty
Speaker 9: three yet that look, you should bargain now. I thought
Speaker 9: you're one hundred percent right about that, General Milly. They
Speaker 9: should bargain then make a peace agreement now. But Boris
Speaker 9: Johnson didn't want it. Uncle Amercle didn't want it. And
Speaker 9: I think, I know this is a conspiracy theory. But
Speaker 9: there's oh good, good good night Royce. But too bad.
Speaker 9: I was about to talk about this. I think that
Speaker 9: Israel doesn't just exercise a lot of influence over the
Speaker 9: US government, they also exercised a lot of influence over
Speaker 9: the British government and the government. I think Russia is
Speaker 9: a historical and modern day strategic enemy of Israel. Syria
Speaker 9: was still a country at the time, and Russia supports Iran,
Speaker 9: so Israel has a huge interest in damaging Russia too,
Speaker 9: And that's another big reason that the Ukraine conflict is
Speaker 9: going on right now. Israel does feel like it's in
Speaker 9: their interests to punish Russia.
Speaker 1: Either punish Russia keep them occupied in another area to
Speaker 1: where they're not as invested in Iranian advancements, therefore anti
Speaker 1: Israel advancements. So I'm with you on that. It's enemy
Speaker 1: of my enemy kind of situation for sure. Is Royce
Speaker 1: about the head out? Though I didn't look in the comments?
Speaker 1: Is he about to dip?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I am about I am about the dip.
Speaker 1: Ah. All right, Royce, Well, we love you to death
Speaker 1: and thank you for joining us on this evening.
Speaker 4: For sure, have a good n I guess I may too.
Speaker 9: Well, are you going to talk about the flag stuff?
Speaker 1: Flag stuff?
Speaker 9: White House executive order prohibiting burning of the American flag?
Speaker 1: I'm not mad at this. Is it like in protests
Speaker 1: they can't burn the American flag? Or is it like
Speaker 1: because that's the proper way to dispose of a flag
Speaker 1: when it's no longer serviceable.
Speaker 9: Correct, Let's get spirit animal in on this, because this
Speaker 9: is a great topic he brought up.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's dive in.
Speaker 7: From what I understand is, I've watched his hit the
Speaker 7: bitten of his speech and everything while I was at
Speaker 7: work and everything. But as of right now, he's an
Speaker 7: executive order that if you burn or deface the American
Speaker 7: flag in a knowing a bier or to incite violence,
Speaker 7: then you will be charged up to it and in
Speaker 7: prison up to a year. And I feel like that that, yes, you,
Speaker 7: but the populay to dispose of a flag is by
Speaker 7: burning it, and that's to pay respects and everything. That's okay.
Speaker 7: I think it has a lot to do with the intent,
Speaker 7: Like I feel like it should be actually considered a
Speaker 7: hate come honestly, So I got.
Speaker 1: The executive order pulled up here as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: let's hear it straight from the Trump administration prosecuting the
Speaker 1: burning of the American flag. Okay, by the authority vested
Speaker 1: me as President of the by the Constitution and the
Speaker 1: laws of the United States of America. It is hereby
Speaker 1: ordered Section one purpose. Our great American Flag is the
Speaker 1: most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of
Speaker 1: America and our American freedom, identity, and strength. Over nearly
Speaker 1: two and a half centuries, many thousands of American patriots
Speaker 1: have fought, bled and died to keep the stars and
Speaker 1: stripes waving proudly. The American flag is a special symbol
Speaker 1: in our national life that should unite and represent all
Speaker 1: Americans of every background and walk of life. By secreting
Speaker 1: it is uniquely offensive and provocative. It is a statement
Speaker 1: of contempt, hostility, and violence against our nation. The clearest
Speaker 1: possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves
Speaker 1: our rights, liberty, and security. Burning this representation of America
Speaker 1: might incite violence and riot. American flag burning is also
Speaker 1: used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act
Speaker 1: to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their
Speaker 1: nationality and place of birth. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings
Speaker 1: on the First Amendment protections, glad they gave that distinction.
Speaker 1: The Court has never hailed that American flag desecration conducted
Speaker 1: in a manner that is likely to incite in imminent
Speaker 1: lawless action, or that is an action amounting to quote
Speaker 1: unquote fighting words, is constitutionally protected. Mine Administration will act
Speaker 1: to restore respect and sanctity to the American flag and
Speaker 1: prosecute those who incite violence and otherwise violate our laws
Speaker 1: while desecrating the symbol of our country to the fullest
Speaker 1: extent permissible under any available authority. Let's see number two.
Speaker 1: Measures to combat desecration of the American Flag. The Attorney
Speaker 1: General shall prioritize the enforcement, to the fullest extent possible
Speaker 1: of our national, criminal and civil laws against acts of
Speaker 1: the American flag desecration that violate applicable content neutral laws
Speaker 1: while causing harm unrelated to expression consent with the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: This may include, but is not limited to, violent crimes,
Speaker 1: hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens or other violations
Speaker 1: of American civil rights, and crimes against property and the peace,
Speaker 1: as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate and aiding
Speaker 1: and abetting others to violate such laws. In cases where
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice or other executive departments or agencies
Speaker 1: determines that an instance of American flag desecration may violate
Speaker 1: an applicable state or local law, such as open burning restrictions,
Speaker 1: disorderly conduct, or destructive destruction of property laws, the agencies
Speaker 1: shall refer the matter to the appropriate state or local
Speaker 1: authority for potential action to the maximum extent permitted by
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate
Speaker 1: our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag,
Speaker 1: and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the
Speaker 1: First Amendment exceptions in this area. The Dendum d the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: acting within their respective authorities shall deny, prohibit, terminate, and
Speaker 1: revoke visas, residents, permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits,
Speaker 1: or seek removal from the United States pursuing to federal law,
Speaker 1: whenever there is been an appropriate determination that foreign nationals
Speaker 1: have engaged in American flag desecration activity under circumstances that
Speaker 1: permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to federal law.
Speaker 1: You know, before I continue this, yeah, there's only a
Speaker 1: little bit left. But I'm just gonna say if I
Speaker 1: was going to try to take up residency in Germany,
Speaker 1: legal or illegal, and then I would go to a
Speaker 1: protest and burn the German flag, you know, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure that that would be like an extra slap in
Speaker 1: the face, like, Yo, you don't have to be here
Speaker 1: if you're not a citizen. But I understand this goes
Speaker 1: a little bit further than just foreign nationals and things
Speaker 1: like that, So let's keep going here. Severability if any
Speaker 1: provisions of this Order or the application of any provisions
Speaker 1: to any person or circumstances held to be invalid, the
Speaker 1: remainder of this Order and the application of its provisions
Speaker 1: to any other person's or circumstances shall not be affected
Speaker 1: thereby no Section four. Nothing in this Order shall be
Speaker 1: construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by
Speaker 1: law to an executive department or agency or head thereof,
Speaker 1: or the functions of the Director of the Office Management
Speaker 1: and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposal. This
Speaker 1: Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject
Speaker 1: to available availability of appropriations. This Order is not intended to,
Speaker 1: and does not create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
Speaker 1: enforceable at law or in equity by any party against
Speaker 1: the United States, It's departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,
Speaker 1: or agents, or any other person. The cost for publication
Speaker 1: of this Order shall be borne by the Department of Justice. Okay,
Speaker 1: So essentially they're saying that if you're at a protest
Speaker 1: and you're going to desecrate the flag, you may be
Speaker 1: convicted for this. This might be an arrestable offense, it says,
Speaker 1: to the fullest extent of the law. It brought up
Speaker 1: personal property. So like, if you're at a protest, regardless
Speaker 1: of what the reason for the protest is or your
Speaker 1: political leanings, because it didn't specify that. If you're at
Speaker 1: a political protest and you see that there's a business
Speaker 1: with a storefront who has an American flag waving outside
Speaker 1: their door, if you take that flag down and then
Speaker 1: publicly burn it, you just stole someone's private property and
Speaker 1: then desecrate the flags. That's gonna be like a double whammy.
Speaker 1: But then what would be like the indictment would be
Speaker 1: for the cost of the flag and some I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know to what extent of the law they're
Speaker 1: trying to turn this, but I gotta say, and I
Speaker 1: know that I'm very biased on this. I'm not necessarily
Speaker 1: against this. I understand First Amendment, right, I understand freedom
Speaker 1: of self expression. I'm all in favor of this too.
Speaker 1: Even if I disagree with somebody's point, I will fight
Speaker 1: to the death for them to have the ability to
Speaker 1: say that point.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: I'm with this same time, I care a little too
Speaker 1: much about the flag. You know, I understand it's just
Speaker 1: a cloth. I get that it's just a symbol, and
Speaker 1: symbols only have as much power as you give them.
Speaker 1: I understand that. But there's a reason why I've flown
Speaker 1: an American flag outside of my house for the past
Speaker 1: ten years, and there's a reason why. Whenever it becomes
Speaker 1: unserviceable and all torn up and tattered, I actually go
Speaker 1: through the process of cutting it in the specific order
Speaker 1: to which you're supposed to do it. I've actually done
Speaker 1: flag burnings in my backyard with my children in the appropriate,
Speaker 1: respectful way and how you're supposed to do this right,
Speaker 1: to teach them to respect this flag and what it represents.
Speaker 1: So I don't know. Maybe I'm too much of a
Speaker 1: patriot for the conversation, but I'm not necessarily against this.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody should be burning the American flag
Speaker 1: if you're an American citizen, for sure, if you hate
Speaker 1: America that much and you're burning the flag because you
Speaker 1: don't like it here like, no one is stopping you
Speaker 1: from leaving. We have gates to keep people out, we
Speaker 1: have you know, or we have fences to keep people out.
Speaker 1: We have gates to you know, let people go there.
Speaker 1: You can get a passport and fly wherever you want
Speaker 1: and start a new life somewhere. Best of luck to you,
Speaker 1: and no hard feelings, I don't know, and especially if
Speaker 1: you are a foreign national and you come to America
Speaker 1: and you are in the middle of a protest and
Speaker 1: you're burning an American flag to protest, like you can leave,
Speaker 1: like you really don't have to be here. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent behind this, but I mean,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 9: To my thought was observing the right wing reaction on Twitter.
Speaker 9: Matt Walsh is like the only guy I saw who
Speaker 9: really supported this. And I know I'm missing a lot
Speaker 9: of people, but most of the political right that I
Speaker 9: saw said this is stupid and we really want to
Speaker 9: see the Epstein files released more than we want to
Speaker 9: see this. When are you going to do that? There
Speaker 9: was a lot of commentary along those lines.
Speaker 1: I agree with that statement for sure, Like this is
Speaker 1: not like the biggest pressing matter in American culture. This
Speaker 1: is I didn't even realize this was a thing. It's
Speaker 1: very much a curveball on a left field, honestly, But yeah, huh.
Speaker 9: Another thing is he's Trump said in his verbal verbal
Speaker 9: comments that we're gonna to anyone who burns a flag
Speaker 9: with one year in prison, but he can't do that,
Speaker 9: and the executive order was not even worded along those
Speaker 9: lines at all. Because the people who actually wrote it
Speaker 9: know that it can't do that.
Speaker 1: It just said to the fullest extent of the law.
Speaker 1: So it's like, to what level did you offend? Did
Speaker 1: you personally go buy this flag to burn it? And
Speaker 1: then at that point it's what like a disturbing the piece.
Speaker 1: That's a slaps and a misdemeanor in most cases. Yeah.
Speaker 9: A big reason I think this is largely nonsense is
Speaker 9: that the Supreme Court and our judicial system has already
Speaker 9: ruled that criminal threats, imminent lawless action, or fighting words.
Speaker 9: These have been already talked to death and there's good
Speaker 9: definitions for this. And if you're burning a flag that's
Speaker 9: your own piece of property, the court system already has
Speaker 9: a pretty good definition of whether you're engaged in imminent
Speaker 9: lawless action or inciting lawless action or not. So I
Speaker 9: really don't see this execut the order is having the
Speaker 9: ability to make any difference for an American citizen if
Speaker 9: it comes to somebody who's not a citizen, somebody who
Speaker 9: especially doesn't have a green card, like these Arab students
Speaker 9: who were writing anti Israel articles a while ago and
Speaker 9: then getting kicked out of the country. Yeah, you already
Speaker 9: aren't very protected if you have that status, right, And
Speaker 9: they probably would be kicked out for doing this too,
Speaker 9: But they would have been kicked out even without this
Speaker 9: executive order. I just don't say this executive order is
Speaker 9: making any difference except just grabbing a bunch of attention.
Speaker 9: So you know, I had a third thought and I
Speaker 9: just don't remember it right now. But spirit animal, what
Speaker 9: do you think?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what do you think? Sam? I agree with you,
Speaker 1: by the way, Tony, I think this is very much
Speaker 1: to look over here not over there kind of thing.
Speaker 7: But who knows, Sam Iglait I had to probably a
Speaker 7: look at this and think about the other thing. But
Speaker 7: I can't help but to feel happy that this happened
Speaker 7: because I have family that has been in that has
Speaker 7: fought over seas and everything. And I'm I myself am
Speaker 7: a vet JQ Burevet and uh ravens of it. We
Speaker 7: all means that's the fact that I want to be
Speaker 7: over my body. I want to be I want to
Speaker 7: be wrapped up in a shroud with and burned like
Speaker 7: and that's what I want. And I have friends who
Speaker 7: have already been buried under that flag. And when I
Speaker 7: see people Stone bought it spit on it and burn it.
Speaker 7: I'm not gonna lie. Violent thoughts go run through my mind.
Speaker 1: No, I'm with you. Where I was stationed in DC,
Speaker 1: I marched somewhere close to, if not over a thousand
Speaker 1: funerals at Arlington. Right. So, as far as the flags
Speaker 1: being draped over coffins, the twenty one gun salute, the folding,
Speaker 1: the whole nine, I was a part of that for
Speaker 1: the entire of my Marine Corps career. Maybe that has
Speaker 1: something to do to do with my bias towards it,
Speaker 1: And fine, that's fine, And again I understand freedom of
Speaker 1: self expression. I am with that one hundred percent. I
Speaker 1: am all in favor of freedom of speech. But there's
Speaker 1: you know, there's a level of respect that I also
Speaker 1: think that we should be using that most people, regardless
Speaker 1: again of race or political background or socioeconomic status, whatever,
Speaker 1: there's a level of decorum and respect that our culture
Speaker 1: has lost, like absolutely thrown out the window in the
Speaker 1: last twenty years. I think another twa.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Another thought I have on this is that in
Speaker 9: the ancient times, there were idols that people worshiped, and
Speaker 9: there was a revolt against that. That's largely where Judaism
Speaker 9: and Islam get their anticonic beliefs from. But everyone's got
Speaker 9: symbols that they really love that they attached to ideas
Speaker 9: of everything they think is holy and good. So I'm
Speaker 9: sure that in the Middle Ages, if you desecraated a crucifix,
Speaker 9: you would be severely punished and maybe killed. And some
Speaker 9: Protestant Reformers actually they they took on this more an
Speaker 9: iconic view of the way things ought to be, and
Speaker 9: they would destroy statues, and you know, the American flag
Speaker 9: and the Israeli flag and the Pride flag. They're all
Speaker 9: very powerful symbols that people love so much they want
Speaker 9: to punish anyone who desecrates them these days.
Speaker 1: But that being said, and I'm not disagreeing with your point,
Speaker 1: but even in the Middle Ages they were tearing down
Speaker 1: these icons and statues. If you were to throw actual
Speaker 1: shit on your king's banner, I have a hard time
Speaker 1: believing that you wouldn't also probably lose your life over that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I agree, I agree, And in a sense, the
Speaker 9: king's banner was also kind of an idol. I think effectively,
Speaker 9: if something is held as being so sacred, whether you
Speaker 9: you know, call it religious or call it civic, nationalist
Speaker 9: and somebody desecrating it prompts other people of violence. It
Speaker 9: is pretty similar to idolatry in my opinion. And this
Speaker 9: is very this is very iconoclastic kind of thing to
Speaker 9: do to burn a flag, but I mean.
Speaker 1: Throwing Let's say you're even trying to desecrate your nobleman's banner,
Speaker 1: not necessarily the king, it could be even your local
Speaker 1: lord or duke or earl or whatever. That's essentially their name, right,
Speaker 1: that is the crest of this clan, this family, these things.
Speaker 1: You're basically shitting on their family at that point. So, yes,
Speaker 1: although it is an icon and it is an image
Speaker 1: that is, you know, within the human mind it signifies this,
Speaker 1: that and the other, it's a little more personal than that.
Speaker 1: And that's how I've always seen flagged. I don't take
Speaker 1: that to be a icon of America. I believe that
Speaker 1: to be the symbol, like the family name, almost of
Speaker 1: the America as a whole. And I know that I
Speaker 1: might be crazy for that assertion. I know there's tons
Speaker 1: of people that say, you know, when everybody was like
Speaker 1: make America great, there was tons of people that were
Speaker 1: saying America is never great, and they are disgusted by
Speaker 1: the side of the American flag, and they have the
Speaker 1: rights of that opinion.
Speaker 9: But well, yeah, this is also the difference between honor
Speaker 9: culture and dignity culture. And honor culture, if someone insults
Speaker 9: your name, you have to lash out at them, and
Speaker 9: in dignity culture, it's more like you're better off ignoring it.
Speaker 1: M Yeah, that's fair, that's very fair. Okay. Well, as
Speaker 1: we were talking about America and symbols and things like that,
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit about what's going on in
Speaker 1: Venezuela right now. This is this is getting interesting, y'all.
Speaker 1: I remember talking about this on the Culture Conspiracy a
Speaker 1: few years ago, and I tried finding the article and
Speaker 1: I couldn't because everything involving Venezuela in US right now
Speaker 1: is talking about what's currently going on a few years ago.
Speaker 1: And by a few, I don't mean like ten, I
Speaker 1: mean like maybe two out of nowhere Venezuelan. I don't
Speaker 1: even think it was the President, although it might have
Speaker 1: been Maduro himself who basically said that if America wants
Speaker 1: to try to invade Venezuela, they better be ready for
Speaker 1: a fight. And it was like, who is talking about
Speaker 1: invading Venezuela. Like, no one in America was even suggesting
Speaker 1: such a thing, even the deepest realms of military you know,
Speaker 1: movements and all these things, Like we were worried about
Speaker 1: other shit around the world. No one was concerned with
Speaker 1: some sort of a military action in Venezuela. Then Venezuela
Speaker 1: started gearing up like they were about to invade Guyana,
Speaker 1: right their neighbor to the east, to the southeast technically,
Speaker 1: and America decided to let it be known that they
Speaker 1: sided with Guyana on this one. And that was after
Speaker 1: the fact, that was after Maduau had already made these
Speaker 1: crazy statements. But now America has deployed a couple of
Speaker 1: warships and about four thousand marines off the coast of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Why are they doing this, I don't really know, but
Speaker 1: the article might give us a little bit of an
Speaker 1: indication on this one. And in response, Venezuela has deployed
Speaker 1: their own warships quote unquote, I'm using the term warship
Speaker 1: in reference to Venezuela very loosely and very liberally. But
Speaker 1: let's continue warships drones to the coast. As US naval
Speaker 1: squadron nears Venezuelan Defense ministry orders naval patrols as US
Speaker 1: warships sent to waters off country's coast tackle Latin American
Speaker 1: drug cartels. So the going narrative as of this moment
Speaker 1: is that the US military, with a couple battalions of
Speaker 1: Marines on board, are being deployed to this air of
Speaker 1: the world to battle the cartels because our president has
Speaker 1: listed all cartels to be terrorist organizations. Therefore you can
Speaker 1: use military might to fight them now, not just border
Speaker 1: patrol and homeland security things. That being said, the Venezuelan
Speaker 1: president is not happy about it and is trying to
Speaker 1: like posture in response. But let's read in here. Venezuela's
Speaker 1: defense minister says military vessels and drones will be sent
Speaker 1: to patrol the country's coastline amid simmering tension with the
Speaker 1: United States after Washington deployed warships to waters off Venezuela
Speaker 1: to fight drug trafficking. In a video on social media
Speaker 1: on Tuesday, Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino announced a significant
Speaker 1: drone deployment, as well as naval patrols along the country's
Speaker 1: Caribbean coast, including larger vessels. Further North in our territorial waters.
Speaker 1: The move comes after Washington last week deployed an amphibious
Speaker 1: squadron of three warships towards Venezuela's coast in what it
Speaker 1: said was an operation against latinum American drug cartels. New
Speaker 1: Agencies reported on Monday that two more US ships, a
Speaker 1: guided missile cruiser and a nuclear powered fast attack submarine,
Speaker 1: had also been dispatched to the Caribbean, and that some
Speaker 1: forty five hundred US service members, including twenty two hundred Marines,
Speaker 1: were part of the deployment. Okay, I said, four thousand marines,
Speaker 1: my bad, forty five hundred service members including twenty two
Speaker 1: hundred marines. The other ones would probably be the naval,
Speaker 1: you know, the navy guys that are and women that are,
Speaker 1: you know, piloting the ships to bring them there. But anyway,
Speaker 1: the US naval build up comes after the administration of
Speaker 1: President Trump last week accused Venezuela's left wing president Nicholas
Speaker 1: Maduro of being involved in cocaine trafficking and working with
Speaker 1: drug cartels. Okay. Washington also announced that it had doubled
Speaker 1: a reward for the capture of prosecution or capture or
Speaker 1: prosecution of Maduro on drug charges from twenty five million
Speaker 1: to fifty million US. The US is also offering a
Speaker 1: reward of twenty five million for the arrest or prosecution
Speaker 1: of Venezuelan Minister of the Popular Power for Interior, Diastado Cabello,
Speaker 1: the Popular Power for Interior. Okay, so right now, there's
Speaker 1: bounties on two of these people's heads, the president and
Speaker 1: one of his top ministers. That's interesting. US officials have
Speaker 1: accused me Dureau and members of his government of heading
Speaker 1: the Venezuelan cocaine trafficking cartel Cartel de los Soles Solas,
Speaker 1: which Washington has designated a terrorist organization. Okay, now we're
Speaker 1: cook him. Merdureau has dismissed the accusations and accused the
Speaker 1: US of attempting to instigate regime change in his country.
Speaker 1: For the record, every person in Venezuela wants a regime change.
Speaker 1: We could look at their living conditions in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four or two thousand and five. I want to
Speaker 1: say they had the world's fourth best economy because they
Speaker 1: have oil there and cost of living is relatively cheap.
Speaker 1: They were killing it. Then Maduro and people like him
Speaker 1: turn the country socialist, and they plummeted. They have been
Speaker 1: in starvation mode, full on survival mode for the better
Speaker 1: part of two decades now, with no sign of that
Speaker 1: getting better. So, for the record, most people in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: most regular people, would love a regime change. But okay, now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the military build up. On Monday, Maduro
Speaker 1: insisted during a weekly television show that his country, unlike
Speaker 1: neighboring Colombia, is free of coca leaf crops and free
Speaker 1: of cocaine production. Mardua, who was also criticized the US
Speaker 1: government for not addressing the drug consumption within its borders,
Speaker 1: has mobilized hundreds of thousands of local militia members to
Speaker 1: strengthen the national security amid the threat from Washington. Fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand Venezuelan troops have also been dispatched to the country's
Speaker 1: border with Colombia to crack down on criminal groups, including
Speaker 1: those involved in drug trafficking. I find that very, very,
Speaker 1: very funny because trend de Arawa, which is one of
Speaker 1: the most brutal groups currently operating, is a Venezuelan group.
Speaker 1: If you've seen any of these things about the apartments
Speaker 1: in Texas being taken over by these Venezuelan thugs. That's
Speaker 1: trend de Arawa, that's a Venezuelan cartel group. So for
Speaker 1: them to say that they are cracking down on all
Speaker 1: these things and that they don't have this in their
Speaker 1: country all evidence to the contrary. They are currently the
Speaker 1: most dangerous criminal element in the United States as of
Speaker 1: time of recording. So anyway, Bold claims there Maduro. In
Speaker 1: a separate announcement on Tuesday, Defense Minister Petrino said an
Speaker 1: ongoing operation in Venezuela's northeastern corner had resulted in the
Speaker 1: dismantling of shipyards where criminals intended to manufacture semi submersibles
Speaker 1: and boats to transport drugs by sea to the markets
Speaker 1: in Europe and North America. Yeah, the semi submersibles are
Speaker 1: basically submarines that only go a few feet below the water.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the move to deploy US warships and personnel
Speaker 1: off Venezuela comes as Trump pushes for using the military
Speaker 1: to thwart cartels he blames for the flow of fentanyl
Speaker 1: and other illicit drugs into US communities and for perpetuating
Speaker 1: violence in some US cities. I can't disagree Venezuela's mission
Speaker 1: to the United Nations denounced the US's escalation of hostile
Speaker 1: actions and threats in a letter. Local media outlet YEP
Speaker 1: Noticias Venice Vision I don't speak, I don't speak Spanish
Speaker 1: reported on Tuesday, referring to the imminent arrival of US
Speaker 1: ships off the coast. Venezuela told the UN that Washington's
Speaker 1: actions were quote a serious threat to regional peace and security,
Speaker 1: while the presence of a nuclear powered attack submarine was
Speaker 1: quote a clear act of intimidation. I believe that would
Speaker 1: be the point, right. And again, they're only supposed to
Speaker 1: be attacking the cartel and the movement of drugs. If
Speaker 1: the government has nothing to hide, and they are so
Speaker 1: loud and proud about the fact that they have no
Speaker 1: cartel operations in their country, and they have no cocaine
Speaker 1: industry and all these things, they should have nothing to
Speaker 1: worry about. Gonna leave that little food for thought referring
Speaker 1: to the imminent sorry, excuse me. The letter also demanded
Speaker 1: guarantees that the US would not deploy or threaten to
Speaker 1: use nuclear weapons in the region. Bro No one is
Speaker 1: using nukes. That is not being talked about. A nuclear attack.
Speaker 1: Sub isn't carrying nukes. It's powered by nuclear reactors. That's yes, yep.
Speaker 1: That is one of the most things that has ever
Speaker 1: been said, one of the most things that has ever
Speaker 1: been said. Despite the military build up, analysis have downplayed
Speaker 1: the possibility of a US invasion or US strikes on Venezuela,
Speaker 1: while many Venezuelan people have shrugged off the US threat
Speaker 1: as posturing. Yeah, no doubt, and Venezuela's posturing back is
Speaker 1: about as big. Maduro, who claimed a third term in
Speaker 1: office following an election in July of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: which was described as deeply flawed, has been in Trump's
Speaker 1: sites ever since the US president's first term from twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen to twenty twenty one. But the US policy of
Speaker 1: maximum pressure on Venezuela, including an ongoing oil embargo, failed
Speaker 1: to dislodge Mondureau from power. That is because they're subsidizing
Speaker 1: that through bricks right now and funding Russia. But anyone
Speaker 1: and China, I should mention this is a quote here.
Speaker 1: I think what we're seeing represents an attempt to create
Speaker 1: anxiety in government circles and force Madureau to negotiate. We
Speaker 1: ate something that was from International Crisis Group analyst Phil Gunson.
Speaker 1: He told AFP regarding the building tension. Okay, so that's
Speaker 1: currently the standings. There's nothing popping off off the Venezuelan coast.
Speaker 1: But it is worth mentioning that Venezuela is not happy
Speaker 1: about seeing the US military off its shores, and I
Speaker 1: understand that, but it's also worth mentioning that if they
Speaker 1: have nothing to worry about, then they should have nothing
Speaker 1: to worry about. They claim they have no cartels, even
Speaker 1: though Trende Orrawa would disagree with that statement. And if
Speaker 1: they're only there to look for submersibles or semi submersibles
Speaker 1: and to stop the flow of drugs through the Caribbean,
Speaker 1: that all intelligence would show does come out of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: There's other countries that comes out of as well, but
Speaker 1: Venezuela is absolutely a launching platform for this.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I can understand why the military would be
Speaker 1: deployed there as of this moment. And we'll see what
Speaker 1: happens with Maduro. He might get froggy and decide to
Speaker 1: try to do something crazy, and that again would not
Speaker 1: bode well for him or his country.
Speaker 10: Go ahead, Sam, Yeah, you talked about how du came
Speaker 10: that we had nuclear.
Speaker 7: Power, the nukes nuclear submarine double that like he thought
Speaker 7: we would drop nukes on them from it. I'm pretty
Speaker 7: sure we do have that. We probably do have that capability.
Speaker 7: I'm not that sure. I'm not wanting in the Navy.
Speaker 7: I didn't fuck with nukes, right. I think that it
Speaker 7: would not be smart for anybody to use nukes because
Speaker 7: if once country expires, in the country, I was gonna
Speaker 7: find an X and all it's moved to sure destruction
Speaker 7: on Graden stage.
Speaker 1: Right, And that's why I'm saying that nobody's gonna drop
Speaker 1: nukes like that is beyond a zero percent chance of that, right.
Speaker 1: But they yes, we do have nuclear war heads that
Speaker 1: can be deployed from submarines AE hundred percent right that
Speaker 1: we have that technology. We've had it for quite some time.
Speaker 1: But a nuclear attacks sub does not necessarily mean that
Speaker 1: there are nuclear warheads on board the submarine. It's like
Speaker 1: saying the nuclear aircraft carriers that we have. The aircraft
Speaker 1: carriers are not carrying nuclear warheads. They're aircraft carriers. They
Speaker 1: are being powered by nuclear reactors.
Speaker 7: I thought we were still running off of like diesel
Speaker 7: on a coal.
Speaker 1: Most ships are still running off of diesel. However, we
Speaker 1: are making more and more transitions into nuclear power because
Speaker 1: it is so efficient and so safe. Basically, these nuclear
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 7: So what happens is God forbid, we lose a ship
Speaker 7: in a in a like of a ship to ship attack.
Speaker 7: I know it hadn't happened since World War Two, but
Speaker 7: steel that that nuclear action going underwater, a whole lot
Speaker 7: of shit's gonna die.
Speaker 1: Yes, But also they for somebody to try to attack
Speaker 1: an American ship like realistically, a ship to ship fight
Speaker 1: on the open sea like that, that might be one
Speaker 1: of the worst ideas to ever be tried. Like you said,
Speaker 1: it hadn't happened since World War Two, there's a reason.
Speaker 1: And even if that was attempted, most of our ships
Speaker 1: have deterrence in place to where that's I'm not saying impossible,
Speaker 1: I'm saying that would have to be one hell of
Speaker 1: a lucky shot, and so many different redundancy systems would
Speaker 1: have had to have failed. But even in that case,
Speaker 1: if the ship was hit and was going to be
Speaker 1: going down, they have procedures in place to try to
Speaker 1: either cool the nuclear reactor before it goes into a
Speaker 1: cataclysmic state or something like this, or you know, seal
Speaker 1: it in some way to where it wouldn't affect the
Speaker 1: sea life and stuff like that. But yeah, so the
Speaker 1: nuclear powered aircraft carriers and stuff, they stay out. The
Speaker 1: only thing that goes bad on them quote unquote is
Speaker 1: the people operating it. Like that ship could stay out
Speaker 1: at sea pretty much indefinitely. They only have to make
Speaker 1: ports so that they could resupply the people running the ship.
Speaker 1: Like it's the nuclear powered conversation is beyond the direction
Speaker 1: that I think we should go to for all power,
Speaker 1: not just military, but even electricity here. But I know
Speaker 1: so many people are scared of it because there have
Speaker 1: been a few instances of things going wrong in countries
Speaker 1: that do not have the same standards that America has.
Speaker 7: But you know, case the point is Chernobyl, But that
Speaker 7: was because they did what they were trying to do
Speaker 7: a mock tail. You well, they they didn't put enough
Speaker 7: concrete or whatever all quote unquote mud on top. They
Speaker 7: just dump fuck tons of water and it didn't have
Speaker 7: enough mass to hold it down, so it just boiled
Speaker 7: over in it.
Speaker 1: Also, we got to keep in mind was during the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union time frame, they didn't have like an osha.
Speaker 1: They had their version of it, but it was not
Speaker 1: very efficient or at least right after.
Speaker 7: The Sorry it was communism.
Speaker 1: Well that's right exactly. Then you have like the Fukushima
Speaker 1: nuclear reactor situation. There was a crack and they think
Speaker 1: there was a crack, and they decided to keep running
Speaker 1: it anyway. And that's what I'm saying. Japan has a
Speaker 1: very very decent QA and QC mindset. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, what we have as far as quality control
Speaker 1: and quality assurance comes from Japanese experts in the field.
Speaker 1: America took those plans and those ethos and applied them here.
Speaker 1: That being said, the way that that reactor was built
Speaker 1: and the chain of events that let it go to
Speaker 1: the level it did, that wouldn't happen in America for
Speaker 1: a list of reasons.
Speaker 7: Not to be a dick or anything, but you would
Speaker 7: think they would. They would know firsthand how nuclear it
Speaker 7: tends to react when it sucks up, and they still
Speaker 7: let that shit ride. They were asking for some bad situation.
Speaker 1: That is true. But the Fukushima crack in the nuclear
Speaker 1: leak was decades after the sun was opened up on them,
Speaker 1: So it's a different Japan.
Speaker 7: Yes, they that's what I'm saying. They had the knowledge,
Speaker 7: but yet they said nah, fuck it, the no and
Speaker 7: well Clyde didn't ride very long.
Speaker 1: No, that's true, that's true. But anyway, so yeah, the
Speaker 1: nuclear power conversation, especially with nuclear subs and nuclear ships
Speaker 1: is brilliant. Uh, you know, groundbreaking technology that our military
Speaker 1: is using at our disposal. I wish that we would
Speaker 1: go more nuclear powered on mainland US, but big oil
Speaker 1: has something to say about that. But anyway, anyway, talks
Speaker 1: for another day. I did have another article brought up
Speaker 1: to talk about the destroyers in Venezuela deploying its militia,
Speaker 1: but we kind of already covered all that. Also, I
Speaker 1: thought this was interesting. The Republicans are pushing to split
Speaker 1: California into amid redistricting feud. So we were talking about
Speaker 1: this over the past few weeks, the Texas redistricting conversation
Speaker 1: that took place and all of this. Apparently there is
Speaker 1: now a push to split California for the same purpose.
Speaker 1: Listen to this.
Speaker 12: A Republican lawmaker wants to turn California into two separate states.
Speaker 12: Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher introduced legislation to get the
Speaker 12: process started, maybe sends back a hotbeker spoke with him
Speaker 12: just today and joins us alive in studio alex.
Speaker 13: This is in response to Democrats' effort to redraw California's
Speaker 13: congressional maps in favor of Democrats. State Republicans have been
Speaker 13: vocal in their opposition to the plan over the last
Speaker 13: several weeks. Leader Gallagher says throughout the state, Republicans feel
Speaker 13: unheard and underrepresented, so he wants to split the state
Speaker 13: in two.
Speaker 14: You know what we want our own state.
Speaker 13: This is the state's split Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher
Speaker 13: is proposing. At a news conference Wednesday morning, he said
Speaker 13: Republican voters are fed up with the state's Democratic supermajority.
Speaker 14: And those forgotten people, mostly in the inland counties of
Speaker 14: this state, they had no voice.
Speaker 13: Republicans representation is further threatened, he said, by the prospect
Speaker 13: of redrawn congressional districts, which voters will approve or reject
Speaker 13: in a special election. On November fourth, California Democrats redrew
Speaker 13: the proposed maps with the goal of flipping five Republican
Speaker 13: held seats. Democratic to counter Texas's planned to do the
Speaker 13: exact opposite.
Speaker 14: Their representation could be completely stripped by the Gavinmander proposal
Speaker 14: Prop fifty that's been put on the ballot in.
Speaker 13: Response to Gallagher's two state proposal. A spokesperson for Governor
Speaker 13: Gavin Newsom's office told ABC ten in a statement, a
Speaker 13: person who seeks to split California does not deserve to
Speaker 13: hold office in the Golden State. This is a stunt
Speaker 13: that will go nowhere. And Nick Miller, spokesperson for Democratic
Speaker 13: Assembly Speaker Robert Reeves, told ABC ten in a statement,
Speaker 13: Assembly Republicans say they opposed jerrymandering, but just drew this
Speaker 13: joke of a map a true James Galamander I asked
Speaker 13: Chris mckayley, adjunct professor with the University of the Pacific's
Speaker 13: McGeorge School of Law, what it would take to split
Speaker 13: the state in two like this.
Speaker 15: That proposal would require first the consent of the California legislature,
Speaker 15: both houses passing a joint resolution, and then ultimately an
Speaker 15: Act of the Congress. Both the US House and Senate
Speaker 15: would have to approve that before it could take effect.
Speaker 13: That process is laid out in the US Constitution, he said,
Speaker 13: but with a Democratic supermajority elected in California, is Gallagher's
Speaker 13: plan even feasible.
Speaker 15: It's unlikely that the legislature, controlled clearly by Democrats in
Speaker 15: both houses, are likely to hear such a measure, let
Speaker 15: alone actually pass it and pass it on to the Congress.
Speaker 13: But something like this isn't necessarily new. According to the
Speaker 13: California State Library, over the course of the state's history,
Speaker 13: there have been more than two hundred attempts to split
Speaker 13: up the state in some way, shape or form. You
Speaker 13: might be familiar with one called the State of Jefferson,
Speaker 13: where parts of northern California and southern Oregon worked to
Speaker 13: form a new state. Periodic efforts spanned the mid eighteen
Speaker 13: hundreds and got serious in the fall of nineteen forty one.
Speaker 14: But for the outbreak of World War Two, that movement
Speaker 14: was actually all on its way to come into fruition.
Speaker 13: Asked if he has a name for the second state,
Speaker 13: Gallagher said no, the name and exact boundaries are up
Speaker 13: for discussion at this point. If the phrase Gallagher is
Speaker 13: using to describe his proposal to state solution stands out
Speaker 13: to you and Gallagher was asked about it, that phrase
Speaker 13: is commonly used to describe a possible solution to the
Speaker 13: long standing conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Gallagher said he's
Speaker 13: not intending to make a connection. That just describes what
Speaker 13: he's aiming to do here in California.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough. So this is all in response to
Speaker 1: Texas redistricting their state, which did in fact get approved.
Speaker 1: So the other side of this is that this does
Speaker 1: have to pass through DC to actually get approved. Texas
Speaker 1: went through the process and they were at the final
Speaker 1: point it had been approved by all the appropriate bodies
Speaker 1: and then the local state legislatures were able to vote
Speaker 1: on it. In the final vote, this is when the
Speaker 1: Democrats took off and started going to other cities rather
Speaker 1: than showing enough to work to vote. Is this something
Speaker 1: that could actually take place? I don't really see it
Speaker 1: happening right And I'm not saying because the Republicans run
Speaker 1: DC right now or anything like that. What I could
Speaker 1: see is they might start the process now, but not
Speaker 1: push it to DC until the Democrats hold the positions
Speaker 1: where they can finally pass the legislation and then make
Speaker 1: this happen. I could see it as far as like
Speaker 1: securing this for good, but I as of this moment.
Speaker 1: Don't think that California is at any risk of actually
Speaker 1: breaking off into two separate states. That would be phenomenal
Speaker 1: because the vast majority of people that I know that
Speaker 1: live in California are staunch Republicans and staunchly conservative. It
Speaker 1: is only the big cities in the big hubs of
Speaker 1: mass populations, which is systemic across any anywhere you live,
Speaker 1: a big city is going to be full of liberally
Speaker 1: minded people. And so yeah, the vast majority of the
Speaker 1: state does not feel represented. I would have to personally
Speaker 1: agree with that. But anyway, last item on the docket
Speaker 1: odd that this is a BBC article to talk about this,
Speaker 1: but I'm happy about it, and I figure we should
Speaker 1: end this one on a light note. We covered a
Speaker 1: bevy of more serious topics on this episode. US restaurant
Speaker 1: chain Cracker Barrel scraps new logo after backlash. For anybody
Speaker 1: that missed it, Cracker Barrel changed their logo. They took
Speaker 1: away the old man and the barrel and tried to
Speaker 1: go for this new modern look for some reason, and
Speaker 1: they got so much backlash they decided to uh, go
Speaker 1: ahead and change it back. So let's read about it here.
Speaker 1: US restaurant chained Cracker Barrel has abandoned plans to adopt
Speaker 1: a new logo following fears backlash direct quote here. We
Speaker 1: thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for
Speaker 1: Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have.
Speaker 1: Our new logo is going away and our old Timer
Speaker 1: will remain, the company said in a social media posts.
Speaker 1: Cracker Barrel received criticism after it unveiled a modern version
Speaker 1: of its logo which scrapped the old Timer figure. President Trump,
Speaker 1: who was among those slamming the rebrand, applauded the reversal
Speaker 1: by saying, congratulations Cracker Barrel on changing your logo back
Speaker 1: to what it was. All of your fans very much appreciated.
Speaker 1: I have a hard time believing Trump's even eating at
Speaker 1: one of these establishments. That could be wrong. The new
Speaker 1: version of the logo, which was unveiled along with a
Speaker 1: new menu on the nineteenth of August, removed the image
Speaker 1: of a man sitting in a chair and leaning against
Speaker 1: the barrel known as the old Timer, and replaced with
Speaker 1: an emblem featuring only the chain's name. That sparked accusations
Speaker 1: that the company, known for its Southern style comfort food
Speaker 1: and nostalgic atmosphere was abandoning its roots. Trump urged the
Speaker 1: brand to return to its old logo and quote, admit
Speaker 1: a mistake based on customer response the Ultimate Poll, and
Speaker 1: manage the company better than ever before. End quote. He
Speaker 1: said that the chain has got a billion dollars worth
Speaker 1: of free publicity if they play their cards right, make
Speaker 1: Cracker Barrel a winner again. That's a direct quote from
Speaker 1: old Donnie T. David Johnson's CEO of branding agency Strategic
Speaker 1: Vision PR Group, told the BBC US partner CBS that
Speaker 1: the rebrand was a flop direct quote on that word.
Speaker 1: What they did wrong is they went against their brand story,
Speaker 1: which was the old logo that reflected the southern whimsical
Speaker 1: atmosphere of the stores. Shares in the company nosedived by
Speaker 1: about seven percent following the announce wow. In its statement
Speaker 1: on X announcing the reversal on Thursday evening, the company said,
Speaker 1: at Cracker Barrel, It's always been and always will be,
Speaker 1: about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind
Speaker 1: of country hospitality that feels like family. As a proud
Speaker 1: American institution, our seventy thousand hardworking employees look forward to
Speaker 1: welcoming you to our table soon. Found in nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: nine in Lebanon, Tennessee, there are now more than six
Speaker 1: hundred Cracker Barrel restaurants across the US. Stores typically have
Speaker 1: a front porch with rocking chairs and a gift shop. Restaurants. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we talked about the Southern style food such as mass potatoes,
Speaker 1: hash brown casserole, and macaroni and cheese. So whoever was
Speaker 1: in charge of this rebrand instantly regretted this decision. Their
Speaker 1: stock prices plummeted. And I'm also curious what the difference
Speaker 1: was in the old menu versus the new menu. I
Speaker 1: don't know what they took off or added. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I for one, am happy that they're going back
Speaker 1: to their original logo. I personally love Cracker Barrel. But anyway, Yes, Sam.
Speaker 7: The old timer, his name is Uncle Herschel.
Speaker 8: He's actually based on the guy, the founder's actual uncle.
Speaker 7: And it's funny.
Speaker 8: Oh, they took away Aunt Jemiah, who's based off of
Speaker 8: the actual woman. And then you got Uncle Ben they
Speaker 8: took away from and they took the Indian out. They
Speaker 8: kept the larmb but threw the Indian off of the
Speaker 8: damn butter Box, and then they try to take Uncle
Speaker 8: Hershel from his act, from the family business.
Speaker 1: I am much more in favor of them keeping the
Speaker 1: old brand. I don't think that it should have gotten
Speaker 1: the amount of publicity that it got. Companies changed their
Speaker 1: logos all the time. But also I'm glad that enough
Speaker 1: of the public was so pissed off about it that
Speaker 1: they decided to go back to what was working. If
Speaker 1: it ain't broke, don't fix it. And for some reason,
Speaker 1: these companies keep trying to fix what is not broken,
Speaker 1: and they wonder why their stocks plummet afterwards. It's it's
Speaker 1: maddening to me.
Speaker 8: But look at McDonald's. Like McDonald's I grew up. It
Speaker 8: was a colorable, playful place. Now I'm a depressed dot
Speaker 8: and McDonald's like a depressed adult, and I don't like it.
Speaker 7: I need an adult. You adult.
Speaker 1: Rebranded McDonald's rebranded, Pizza Hut rebranded. All of these big
Speaker 1: chain food restaurants have rebranded in one way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: And then they noticed that not as many people still
Speaker 1: come there, and they just can't figure out why. And
Speaker 1: it's like, because you did the cardinal sin of business.
Speaker 1: If it's not broken, don't fix it. If business is booming,
Speaker 1: continue doing exactly what you're doing. Don't change a thing.
Speaker 1: Why why would you change anything? But they just they
Speaker 1: for some reason, when they go to the open market,
Speaker 1: they get this new border directors, a new CEO, whatever
Speaker 1: the case is. They get all these quote unquote business
Speaker 1: experts who are probably fresh out of college and have
Speaker 1: never actually accomplished anything on their own to come in
Speaker 1: and tell them all the things that they're doing wrong,
Speaker 1: even though they got to their level of success by
Speaker 1: doing exactly what they know how to do right. And
Speaker 1: it never works out, It always is a net negative.
Speaker 1: But for some reason they keep trying. So perhaps Cracker
Speaker 1: Barrel saw the error of their ways and will not
Speaker 1: make such a ridiculous mistake again. We can only hope, yes.
Speaker 1: See anyway, all right, like I said, I wanted to
Speaker 1: end this episode on a lighter note once again, for
Speaker 1: anybody who would like to join in the conversation next week,
Speaker 1: the link is in the description below. Go to the
Speaker 1: Cajun Night on Patreon. As always, thank you everybody for
Speaker 1: joining me this evening. I am the Cajun Knight, and
Speaker 1: as always, God bless