Speaker 1: Good evening everybody, and welcome to another edition of The
Speaker 1: Cajun Night Live. I am your host, Jacob Mook the
Speaker 1: Cajun Night. We're gonna be talking about some news stories
Speaker 1: right now. We're gonna start off in America. Then we're
Speaker 1: gonna go into some kind of America kind of foreign
Speaker 1: policy things. Then we're gonna bring up a couple of
Speaker 1: foreign nations with some things going on. A lot of stuff,
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff going on. Uh yeah, I see
Speaker 1: it's Onny. You're traveling right now and didn't have anything prepped. Dope.
Speaker 1: That's fine, dude. I'm just glad that you're with us
Speaker 1: this evening again. If you anybody here has anything they
Speaker 1: would like to add into the conversation, please send it
Speaker 1: into the chat. Our homegirl, Claire, has already sent one
Speaker 1: article in that I am going to pull up here
Speaker 1: in a bit. But uh, all right, let's just go
Speaker 1: in and get right into it. Let's start off. So
Speaker 1: starting off here, the Senate has rejected funding for a
Speaker 1: bill with no end insight of government shutdown. This is
Speaker 1: from CNBC. Listen, I understand that some of the new
Speaker 1: sources that I pull up are very liberally based or
Speaker 1: very conservatively based. It doesn't matter. The reason why I
Speaker 1: pull these up and why I give the distinction of
Speaker 1: where this source is coming from is that everybody understands
Speaker 1: what kind of bias we're going into before we start reading.
Speaker 1: And I think it's worth noting that, yes, we must
Speaker 1: look at what CNN is saying about things, as well
Speaker 1: as what Fox is saying about things, as well as
Speaker 1: what Al Jazeera is saying, as well as what the
Speaker 1: BBC is saying it. We have to take in all
Speaker 1: of these things to try to attribute it all to
Speaker 1: get a better picture of the whole schematic here. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's get into it here. Senate rejects funding bill
Speaker 1: with no end insight of government shutdown. This was actually
Speaker 1: published today. The government shutdown entered its third week with
Speaker 1: no viable deal to resolve it. The Senate for the
Speaker 1: ninth time rejected duel stop and go funding stop gap
Speaker 1: rather stop gap funding bills, as Republicans and Democrats continue
Speaker 1: to argue for dueling measures. Democrats insist that funding deal
Speaker 1: in include extending in it's Affordable care AC subsidies, which
Speaker 1: are set to expire at the end of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: So all right. A lot of people know that the
Speaker 1: government is shut down right now. Not many people know
Speaker 1: the nuances as to why it is shut down right now.
Speaker 1: And I've said this joke before, but I do actually
Speaker 1: stand on this. At this point, we might as well
Speaker 1: just make it a federal holiday. Y up, here comes
Speaker 1: the yearly shutdown. Yeah, and it doesn't matter who's in office.
Speaker 1: This is a thing that has gone on multiple administrations.
Speaker 1: You know. Yes, right now it's being blamed on Trump
Speaker 1: because it's Trump, and before that it was being blamed
Speaker 1: on Biden because it's Biden, and like the president has
Speaker 1: a hand in it. Don't get me wrong, But this
Speaker 1: really and truly is a Senate thing. It's not an
Speaker 1: executive branch thing. But let's get into the article. Let's
Speaker 1: talk more about the votes and what is going on
Speaker 1: here as to the whys for the government shut down,
Speaker 1: and possibly can we get it over with? Can we
Speaker 1: move forward here? Yeah, let's just read in here. The
Speaker 1: government shut down stretch into its third week on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: as Republican and Democrat senators continued to dig in their
Speaker 1: heels on dueling stop gap funding proposals. The Senate on
Speaker 1: Wednesday for the ninth time rejected a gop led short
Speaker 1: term funding resolution in a fifty one to forty four vote.
Speaker 1: The Senate once again did not approve a stop gap bill,
Speaker 1: in which Republicans insist on a clean continuing resolution that
Speaker 1: would provide funding to reopen the government until at least
Speaker 1: November twenty first. Democrats want any funding bill to extend
Speaker 1: and Enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to
Speaker 1: run out at the end of this year. That and
Speaker 1: other provisions in the Democratic bill would cost an estimated
Speaker 1: one trillion dollars. Wednesday's vote occurred days after the Trump
Speaker 1: administration said in a court filing that more than four
Speaker 1: thousand federal employees received notifications that they were being laid off. Again,
Speaker 1: that's four thousand federal employees. And they don't really give
Speaker 1: a lot of distinctions as to, you know, the type
Speaker 1: of federal employees this is. But even still, four thousand
Speaker 1: jobs is not that massive of a hit. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's cutting off entire, you know,
Speaker 1: branches of the government here. Is he shutting down entire
Speaker 1: agencies with this or was it kind of trimming the
Speaker 1: fat on a couple of different places. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. But continuing on here, it says the
Speaker 1: White House Budget Director Russell Vaux said Wednesday that he
Speaker 1: could be more than ten thousand or there could be
Speaker 1: more than ten thousand job cuts. But shortly after Voue
Speaker 1: made that remark, a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily
Speaker 1: blocked the Trump administration from firing federal workers amid the shutdown. Okay,
Speaker 1: firing and being laid off for two different things. In essence,
Speaker 1: they have the same results, Like, yes, the person who
Speaker 1: has the job no longer can punch the clock anymore. However,
Speaker 1: a firing means that they're getting rid of this person
Speaker 1: and the position is now open and they're going to
Speaker 1: hire somebody else. Laid off means that they are shutting
Speaker 1: down the need for that position and they're not going
Speaker 1: to be hiring anybody new. Anybody's clear here. Firing and
Speaker 1: laying off, although they do have the same effect for
Speaker 1: the individual employee, there is different ramifications to that on
Speaker 1: the back end, So anyway, these are layoffs, not firings. Anyway, continuing,
Speaker 1: Trump administration officials blame the so called reductions in force
Speaker 1: on Senate Democrat's refusal to vote for the Republican funding proposal.
Speaker 1: And here we go with the finger pointing, in the
Speaker 1: name calling, and the these said that, she said that,
Speaker 1: he said all the stuff Democrats are dug in. Fifteen
Speaker 1: days into a government shutdown, Democrats show no sign that
Speaker 1: they're ready for it to end. Senate Majority Leader John Thune,
Speaker 1: a Republican from South Dakota, said earlier on Wednesday on
Speaker 1: the chamber floor, not even the prospect of military families
Speaker 1: going without paychecks was enough for Democrats to reopen the government. Now,
Speaker 1: I should make a mention of this. It has been
Speaker 1: understood and declared that the military are not going to
Speaker 1: miss any paychecks. They're gonna get paid. They found things
Speaker 1: in the budget to make sure that they're gonna get paid.
Speaker 1: I remember seeing these news clips of these military members
Speaker 1: in line for like food stamps and WICK. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: just everybody's clear. When I was in the military, I
Speaker 1: was on WICK like that. That's the military doesn't like
Speaker 1: make money. You make way way less than minimum wage.
Speaker 1: And yeah, they make up for it, quote unquote because
Speaker 1: you have your housing paid for and your health and
Speaker 1: dental paid for, and oh you have a clothing allowance.
Speaker 1: It's like five hundred dollars a year. That's not even
Speaker 1: gonna replace them uniform items that you you tore up
Speaker 1: over the past year. Yeah, it's it's not. Nobody joins
Speaker 1: the military to get rich. I'm sorry. And if you
Speaker 1: if you think that that's like your plan, then I
Speaker 1: hate to break it to you. That's not how this
Speaker 1: is gonna go. This being said, Yeah, when me and
Speaker 1: my first wife were together and we had a baby, yeah,
Speaker 1: we had to apply for WICK because we were that broke.
Speaker 1: And it's not because we had horrible spending habits. Although
Speaker 1: calling us paid us paid on myself, it could have
Speaker 1: been better. I could have been a little wiser with
Speaker 1: my and wiser with my investments. Very true, but it's
Speaker 1: also very difficult to support a family when you're getting
Speaker 1: two checks a month equaling to a grand total of
Speaker 1: like seven to fifty for the month, and that's your
Speaker 1: entire income you get paid on the first and the fifteenth,
Speaker 1: That seven fifty is split over two checks. Like, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: that's just the way it is. And if you're trying
Speaker 1: to support a family, you're taking whatever help you can get.
Speaker 1: So when I saw the news clip of the family
Speaker 1: members and these these military members online to get food
Speaker 1: stamps and wick. I got to tell you, I wasn't
Speaker 1: really shaken by this. Our military should never have to
Speaker 1: live like this. First of all, I agree. Second off,
Speaker 1: this is not nuanced. This is not because of the
Speaker 1: government shutdown. This is the way it's been four years
Speaker 1: from this was twenty eleven when I was getting my
Speaker 1: wick shit. So it whatever. Anyway, continuing on send it.
Speaker 1: Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, everybody knows him, the Democrat from
Speaker 1: New York, counter thuns argument, saying that the government has
Speaker 1: been shut since October first because Republicans quote refused to
Speaker 1: work with Democrats in a serious way to fix the
Speaker 1: health care crisis looming over the American people. As we speak,
Speaker 1: families are receiving letters for their new health insurance rates
Speaker 1: and more states more states are opening their window shopping
Speaker 1: period for what health insurance will look like next year.
Speaker 1: Direct quote from Schumer. With open enrollment around the corner,
Speaker 1: Republicans cannot continue to kick this can down the road.
Speaker 1: It's happening now. The healthcare crisis is now, he continued.
Speaker 1: Thune and other Republicans have said that they are willing
Speaker 1: to discuss the questioning are the question of extending ACA
Speaker 1: enhanced tax credits after a short term funding is approved.
Speaker 1: We need five more Democrats to say enough is enough
Speaker 1: to put the American people ahead of the far left
Speaker 1: and support this clean, non partisan continuing resolution sitting right
Speaker 1: there at the Senate desk, ready to be picked up
Speaker 1: and passed today. That was Thune that said this. On Wednesday,
Speaker 1: President Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing Defense Secretary Pete
Speaker 1: Hexeth to use remaining congressional funds to keep paying active
Speaker 1: duty military personnel. Once again, they had the funding, They
Speaker 1: have the money. It's not an issue. And if I'm
Speaker 1: not mistaken, even when I was in there was government
Speaker 1: shutdowns and I was stationed in Washington, DC, we still
Speaker 1: got paid. There was never a risk of us not
Speaker 1: getting paid. Although we we found some obscure thing within
Speaker 1: our contracts to where if we were to go I
Speaker 1: think it was like more than thirty one days without
Speaker 1: receiving any compensation for our time. There was some way
Speaker 1: that you could file some paperwork and your contract could
Speaker 1: be null and void. That being said, it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: really worked out that way anyway. But we were a
Speaker 1: bunch of dumb nineteen year olds, and we thought we
Speaker 1: knew how the system worked, you know, you know the
Speaker 1: type that being said. Yes, the military is still getting paid,
Speaker 1: the government shutdown is still on, and uh yeah, there's
Speaker 1: no end in sight on this. We're gonna listen in now.
Speaker 1: This was dropped four hours ago, and this is a
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson speaking on the press briefing on day fifteen
Speaker 1: of the government shut down. This is a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago, but it just dropped a few hours ago,
Speaker 1: and let's just hear what he's got to say on it.
Speaker 2: Thanks a speaker.
Speaker 3: OMB put out memos saying that they're going to batten
Speaker 3: down the hatches.
Speaker 1: And ride out the shutdown.
Speaker 3: But as you pointed out, they're gonna pay the troops
Speaker 3: as well as they.
Speaker 1: Said pay law enforcement.
Speaker 3: Should law enforcement include Capitol police who protect you your family,
Speaker 3: you know, mister Scalise, the whip as well as the
Speaker 3: Capitol building in gentlemen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we've always stood with Capitol police and law enforcement,
Speaker 4: and we've shown that in word and deeds. And I
Speaker 4: can tell you that I was with the President for
Speaker 4: a couple of hours in the Oval Office last night.
Speaker 4: I spoke with the thrust vote in the Rose Garden
Speaker 4: before they Charlie hurt service.
Speaker 2: They are.
Speaker 4: What's the right word for la Warren about this, that
Speaker 4: no one on the Republican side is taking any pleasure
Speaker 4: in this scenario. Yes, we're always for reducing the size
Speaker 4: and spoke of the government and all of that, but
Speaker 4: this is not the way to go about it. We
Speaker 4: don't shut the gard now, turn out the funding streams
Speaker 4: and then require all these.
Speaker 1: Cuts like this.
Speaker 4: So what they're doing is they're having a triosh federal spending.
Speaker 4: As you know, is because anybody, as we've said, any
Speaker 4: person who's in the White House with regardless of party
Speaker 4: and their director of O and B is given this
Speaker 4: unfortunate reluctant task they have to figure out in trioge
Speaker 4: what are the most essential services, personnel policies and what
Speaker 4: or not. They're going to look at that through a
Speaker 4: partisan lens. But when they look through it through that lens,
Speaker 4: I mean we're looking at it right now as conservative
Speaker 4: Republicans that the White House. That's who serves in the
Speaker 4: White House right now. If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris
Speaker 4: are a Democrat with air, they would look at it
Speaker 4: with a totally different set of lenses. But I can
Speaker 4: tell you that when we look at that, we prioritize
Speaker 4: troops and law enforcement absolutely.
Speaker 2: So if there is.
Speaker 4: A mechanism to do that, they will find it and
Speaker 4: they will fund it. The reason the way they were
Speaker 4: able to get the troops paid for this paycheck, and
Speaker 4: as I said, this is not an enduring solution because
Speaker 4: we will run out of the funds, but there were
Speaker 4: some unspent funds and effectively R and D accounts defense
Speaker 4: they move that over to prioritize the payment of those
Speaker 4: who are putting their lives on the line today, and
Speaker 4: that families in serious situations, That money will be replaced,
Speaker 4: as it's been explained by the White House, after the
Speaker 4: funding gets going again. If we can find a similar
Speaker 4: mechanism to take care of Capital police, of course they'll
Speaker 4: do that, but that's in a separate branch.
Speaker 1: So Capital City police are going to also be getting
Speaker 1: their paychecks. I guarantee they're going to find a fund
Speaker 1: for it. That's how this goes. And I mean they're
Speaker 1: taking it from the R and D Department, from the
Speaker 1: Defense spending or I should say the second the Department
Speaker 1: of War spending. Okay, cool, I don't see an issue.
Speaker 1: It sounds like they resolved at least that one portion
Speaker 1: of this issue. But again, the government shutdown is still happening,
Speaker 1: which you're gonna hear a lot about this episode, because
Speaker 1: every single news clip must bring up the fact that
Speaker 1: it is still going on. It is what it is.
Speaker 1: But as we were talking about this, we're going to
Speaker 1: take a quick little detour because as we're talking about
Speaker 1: the government shutdown and the troops not getting paid, and
Speaker 1: now they're talking about they will get paid and so
Speaker 1: will police officers. I feel like it's a really good
Speaker 1: time to bring up this guy. So local twelve father
Speaker 1: accused of killing daughter's alleged rapist is now running for sheriff. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: So this guy basically took justice into his own hands.
Speaker 1: Rightfully so rightfully so and I stand on that. But anyway,
Speaker 1: and now on the other side of it all, he's
Speaker 1: decided he's gonna run for local sheriff. This is Lenoke County, Arkansas.
Speaker 1: A father accused of killing his fourteen year old daughter's
Speaker 1: alleged rapist announce he is running for sheriff because the
Speaker 1: system failed. Agreed one hundred percent Aaron Spencer, thirty seven
Speaker 1: years old, announced his campaign for Lenote County Sheriff on
Speaker 1: a Facebook post last Friday, almost a year after the
Speaker 1: alleged murder of his daughter's rapist. Let's listen to his
Speaker 1: campaign video. I feel like he's just gonna be a banger.
Speaker 1: Let's check it out.
Speaker 5: Hello, Loano, my name is Spencer. Many of you know
Speaker 5: my story. I'm the father who acted to protect his
Speaker 5: daughter when the system failed. I'm also a husband, a
Speaker 5: combat veteran of the eighty second Airborne Division, a contractor,
Speaker 5: and a farmer. And through my own fight for justice,
Speaker 5: I have seen first hand the failures in law enforcement
Speaker 5: and in our circuit court, and I refuse to stand
Speaker 5: by while others face these same failures. That's why I'm
Speaker 5: announcing my candioncy to run for Lonoke County Sheriff. This
Speaker 5: campaign isn't about me. It's about every parent, every neighbor,
Speaker 5: every family who deserves to feel safe in their homes
Speaker 5: and safe in their community. It's about restoring trust where
Speaker 5: neighbors know law enforcement is on their side, and families
Speaker 5: know that they will not be left alone in a
Speaker 5: moment of need. Together, we can build a safer, stronger
Speaker 5: Loanoa County for every family. I'm Aaron Spencer and I'm
Speaker 5: running for sheriff of Lonoke County.
Speaker 1: Get this man elected. Let's go, dude, I love that,
Speaker 1: all right, Let's go. That just kind of goes over
Speaker 1: some of what he said and his thing. Let's go here.
Speaker 1: Spencer was arrested in October of last year, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: after he allegedly killed Michael Fossler, sixty seven, in Loanoke County.
Speaker 1: The day of the incident, Spencer reported to the police
Speaker 1: that his daughter was missing. As police were on their
Speaker 1: way to Spencer's home, Spencer found his daughter in a
Speaker 1: vehicle with Fossler. Falsler had a no contact order because
Speaker 1: he had stalked and raped the fourteen year old, so
Speaker 1: it was already understood. Spencer then allegedly allegedly shot and
Speaker 1: killed Fosler after a confrontation between the two men. A
Speaker 1: rows the child's mother had thought that Fosler might be
Speaker 1: trying to kill her daughter because he was wanted for
Speaker 1: possibly or if possible, six to nine felonies, and her
Speaker 1: daughter was the only witness. Wow Sheriff John Stally noted
Speaker 1: that Spencer's case would be up to the Loanoke, Lona,
Speaker 1: whatever County Prosecuting Attorney's office to decide whether or not
Speaker 1: to actually file charges against Spencer. Spencer is out on
Speaker 1: bond and his case remains ongoing. Yet he is finding
Speaker 1: the time and the motivation to run for county sheriff.
Speaker 1: I support this man. We need to get him in office,
Speaker 1: like now, get him there faster, Arkansas. Let's go man. Okay,
Speaker 1: So at least there's a little bit of good news
Speaker 1: in the articles in the goings and comings of the day.
Speaker 1: Now swapping over, let's talk more federal things again from
Speaker 1: NBC News. US will neither be commanded nor controlled by China,
Speaker 1: the sense said as trade standof deepens. So for anybody
Speaker 1: who has been paying attention, the tariff war has not
Speaker 1: exactly gone away. It subsided for a bit. People found
Speaker 1: a common ground for a little minute, and everybody seemed
Speaker 1: like they were gonna work together all Kumbai a style
Speaker 1: kind of Well. Well, then apparently China decided that they
Speaker 1: wanted to start some things again. Trump decided that he
Speaker 1: was about that smoke, and now we are back at it.
Speaker 1: Trump just they currently have a I want to say,
Speaker 1: a thirty percent tariff on China as of this moment,
Speaker 1: and basically Beijing is trying to flex and saying we're
Speaker 1: not going to let any precious minerals leave our nation anymore.
Speaker 1: And you know they run the reins as far as
Speaker 1: that goes, right, the h what was the world? I'm
Speaker 1: looking for the things for semiconductors and things like this,
Speaker 1: and uh Trump said, fine, if you don't, then we'll
Speaker 1: put one hundred percent tariff on top of what's already
Speaker 1: been enacted. So Beijing is already on this thing. And
Speaker 1: of course the TikTok sale gets brought into it as well,
Speaker 1: which people think has already been bought and paid for it.
Speaker 1: It's not exactly true. It's not exactly true. Let's read
Speaker 1: in here. Beijing has yet to approve the sale of
Speaker 1: TikTok us, increased soybean purchased, or ease export controls despite
Speaker 1: several rounds of US trade talks. Let's get into it here.
Speaker 1: US trade representative Genie Amison Jamieson, Well, all right, Jamieson
Speaker 1: Greer said on Wednesday that China's recent restrictions on rare
Speaker 1: earth mineral exports are a global supply chain power grab,
Speaker 1: and it absolutely is China was very strategic in that
Speaker 1: as far as trying to make sure that you had
Speaker 1: to go through them to get this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: But moving on, Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Perscent spoke
Speaker 1: to reporters at the Treasury Department in Washington, where Pacent
Speaker 1: said Beijing's actions amounted to a provocation. The remarks were
Speaker 1: the latest sign that the US China trade relationship continues
Speaker 1: to deteriorate after Beijing's surprise announcement Thursday of new limits
Speaker 1: on rare earth minerals and reg related technologies. In response,
Speaker 1: President Trump threatened to impose all hundred percent tariffs on China,
Speaker 1: as well as export controls on any and all critical software.
Speaker 1: This is a picture as a matter of fact of
Speaker 1: Scott Descent and Chinese Vice Premier he Lafang Lifing. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Before the meeting of the first Meeting in
Speaker 1: China US Economic Trade Consultation Mechanism in London on June ninth,
Speaker 1: the only way China can avoid these new tariffs, Greer
Speaker 1: told the NBC News is to drop the proposed export controls.
Speaker 1: But since in Grear were cautiously optimistic, that Beijing would
Speaker 1: back down and return to the negotiating table direct quote
Speaker 1: here from Greer. Our expectation is that they won't implement
Speaker 1: the controls and that we'll be able to back We
Speaker 1: will be able to be back where we were a
Speaker 1: week ago, where we had their tariff levels we've agreed to,
Speaker 1: and we have the flow of rare earth magnets we
Speaker 1: agreed to in the meantime. But since that Washington is
Speaker 1: conferring with its allied trade partners about a Jesus, I
Speaker 1: can't speak with their trade partners about a unified response
Speaker 1: to the restrictions. This is China versus the world, he said,
Speaker 1: We and our allies will neither be commanded nor controlled.
Speaker 1: Rare earth minerals are critical to manufacturing a wide variety
Speaker 1: of products such as bad electric vehicles, household goods, TVs,
Speaker 1: and smartphones, solar panels. After three rounds of what the
Speaker 1: officials called successful trade talks, China also has yet to
Speaker 1: officially approve the sale of TikTok us and has not
Speaker 1: bought any soybeans from American farmers since May. Nonetheless, Graham
Speaker 1: Bricint said the current ninety day pause on tariffs with
Speaker 1: China renewed at least three times so far, could be
Speaker 1: re upped again for a longer interval if China lifts
Speaker 1: the rare earth restrictions. So let's get into this now,
Speaker 1: talking about the soybean growth and all these things. The
Speaker 1: farmers are the ones that are actually getting the brunt
Speaker 1: of that trade dilemma. We're gonna listen in for WKYC
Speaker 1: Channel three. Government shut down latest and the farmers express frustrations,
Speaker 1: and of course the healthcare debate continues. Let's listen in. Well.
Speaker 6: Today marks day fifteen of the government shut down, as
Speaker 6: the Senate again failed to pass a short term spending
Speaker 6: bill to end the ongoing closure for the ninth time.
Speaker 2: Now, oh my gosh.
Speaker 7: And this is all coming, of course, as trade talks
Speaker 7: are heating up between the US and China and v
Speaker 7: SES Julie's certain reports from Washington.
Speaker 8: The already tense trade relationship between the US and China
Speaker 8: appears to be getting worse.
Speaker 1: Made no mistake.
Speaker 2: This is China versus the world.
Speaker 8: Those words from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessend come after China's
Speaker 8: surprise announcement that it's putting export limits on rare earth minerals.
Speaker 8: Those materials produced largely by China are used in everything
Speaker 8: from electronics to cars and even military equipment. Trade Representative
Speaker 8: Jamison Greer taking a tough stance.
Speaker 9: China's announcement is nothing more than a global supply chain
Speaker 9: power grab. It is an exercise and economic coersion on
Speaker 9: every country in the world.
Speaker 8: In response to China's move, President Trump threatened massive tariffs
Speaker 8: on Chinese imports unless that country changes course. But it's
Speaker 8: not just rare earths that has the two nations at odds.
Speaker 8: It's also soybeans. China buys more soybeans than any other
Speaker 8: country in the world from the United States not anymore,
Speaker 8: Trump calling that a quote economically hostile act and threatening
Speaker 8: to end cooking oil exports to China. American farmers are
Speaker 8: caught in the middle.
Speaker 1: We gotta feel like we're a scapegoat here. We're you know,
Speaker 1: we are hanging absolutely.
Speaker 8: This trade tug of war coming at a difficult time
Speaker 8: for the US, the government heading into week three of
Speaker 8: a shutdown with no end in sight, both sides pointing
Speaker 8: fingers at each other, and.
Speaker 10: All those Americans living in uncertainty, Well, there's going to
Speaker 10: have to wait until Democrats far left base is satisfied.
Speaker 11: With open enrollment around the corner, Republicans cannot continue to
Speaker 11: kick this can down the road. It's happening now. The
Speaker 11: healthcare crisis is now in Washington.
Speaker 8: Julie Serkin, NBC News.
Speaker 1: All right, so that was kind of a good recap
Speaker 1: on all the things we've discussed thus far. Now let's
Speaker 1: move into another thing that Trump is getting involved with. Venezuela. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're going there. Venezuela allegedly broke up an extremist false
Speaker 1: flag attempt that was about to go down on the
Speaker 1: US embassy there. Now, everybody knows that I am a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist. I love a good conspiracy. There have been
Speaker 1: tons of false flag attacks that have happened in our lifetime.
Speaker 1: It's not hard to find them. This being said, I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is an actual false flag that
Speaker 1: they foiled and they're just bringing it up now to
Speaker 1: try to save face, or if this is completely fabricated.
Speaker 1: I don't know, But let's read into it now because
Speaker 1: this ties into Trump getting ready. He just gave the
Speaker 1: CIA authorization to send agents into Venezuela. Let's get into it,
Speaker 1: shall we. Let's start off here. Venezuela denounces alleged extremists
Speaker 1: plan to attack shuttered US embassy complex. The embassy, which
Speaker 1: is closed, maintains a staff responsible for security and maintenance,
Speaker 1: despite the rupture of diplomatic relations with Venezuelan President Nicholas
Speaker 1: Maduro's government in twenty nineteen. Let's get into it here.
Speaker 1: This is from Caracas, Venezuela. Venezuela warned Monday of an
Speaker 1: alleged plan by extremists to attack the shuttered US embassy
Speaker 1: complex in Caracas with explosives, coming as bilateral tension simmer
Speaker 1: over Washington's military deployment in the Caribbean. Jorge Rodriguez Yeah,
Speaker 1: I said that right. Jorge Rodriguez, head of the National
Speaker 1: Assembly and of Venezuela's delegation for dialogue with the US SEDNA,
Speaker 1: statement that though through three different channels, the United States
Speaker 1: has been warned of a serious threat from far right
Speaker 1: wing groups posing as followers of Maduro through a false
Speaker 1: flag operation prepared Yeah, through a false flag operation prepared
Speaker 1: by extremist sectors of the local rights. There are attempts
Speaker 1: to plant lethal explosives at the US embassy in Caracas.
Speaker 1: The US State Department did not immediately respond to a
Speaker 1: request for comment. Shocker, I know the embassy, which is
Speaker 1: currently closed, maintains a staff responsible for security and maintenance
Speaker 1: of the premises. Despite the rupture of diplomatic relations in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, At the same time, we have reinforced security
Speaker 1: measures at that diplomatic site, which our government respects and protects,
Speaker 1: said Rodriguez, a close ally of Maduro who serves as
Speaker 1: President of the National Assembly. He said that a European
Speaker 1: embassy had been informed in order to act as a
Speaker 1: liaison to communicate the situation. The large embassy compound has
Speaker 1: been guarded since its closure by patrols conducted by Venezuelan
Speaker 1: police in the surrounding area. During the first term, President
Speaker 1: Trump broke ties with Maduro and recognize an opposition leader
Speaker 1: as Venezuela's a legitimate ruler in a failed attempt to
Speaker 1: oust the leftist leader. As part of the diplomatic break,
Speaker 1: the State Department suspended operations in its Caracas embassy this
Speaker 1: is in March of twenty nineteen, and evacuated all diplomats,
Speaker 1: fearing a takeover of the Hilltop complex in the southeast
Speaker 1: of the capitol. The alert came as Venezuela had repeatedly
Speaker 1: denounced what it calls a US threat over the deployment
Speaker 1: of warships in the Caribbean, which Washington says is aimed
Speaker 1: at combating Latin American drug cartels. Trump accused of Maduro
Speaker 1: of being one of the world's most major drug traffickers,
Speaker 1: and announced in early August that the reward for his
Speaker 1: capture would be doubled to fifty million dollars US. Maduro
Speaker 1: in turn accused of the United States of fabricating that
Speaker 1: narrative to try to force him from office. On Friday,
Speaker 1: US State Secretary, I'm sorry, US Defense Secretary. They keep
Speaker 1: calling him that it's the US War secretary. People. The
Speaker 1: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced what would be the
Speaker 1: fourth strike on a small vessel in the Caribbean since
Speaker 1: the arrival of the US ships. The United States claimed
Speaker 1: the vessels traffic drugs and that their crews are Narco terrorists,
Speaker 1: as was the case with the four people killed Friday.
Speaker 1: According to heg Seth, Maduro has described the US naval
Speaker 1: deployment as a threat to the sovereignty of the South
Speaker 1: American country. The US government has given no indication that
Speaker 1: it plans to ground incursions with the more than four
Speaker 1: thousand troops stationed in the area. All right, so that
Speaker 1: was from the Associated Press, And yes, of course they're
Speaker 1: going to have a narrative spin it one way or another.
Speaker 1: But apparently they're saying that there was a false flag thing.
Speaker 1: We got to talk about this. Cool, cool, cool. Now,
Speaker 1: in response to all of this, Trump is authorizing the
Speaker 1: CIA to go into Venezuela. Let's listen in straight from the.
Speaker 12: Horse's mouth, but we do begin with the Trump administration's
Speaker 12: move to give the CIA authority to conduct operations in Venezuela.
Speaker 12: For more on, let's let's bring in CBS News White
Speaker 12: House reporter Olivia Ronaldi. Olivia, thanks for joining us. During
Speaker 12: today's press conference, President Trump was asked about why he
Speaker 12: authorized the CIA to go into Venezuela. What did he
Speaker 12: say in response to that?
Speaker 13: Well, Nancy, he was asked that by our own ed Keith,
Speaker 13: this was breaking news heading into the Oival office, that
Speaker 13: Ed was able to ask the President why he gave
Speaker 13: that authorization to have the CIA go into Venezuela. Take
Speaker 13: a listen to what the President said here, Why did.
Speaker 7: You authorize the CIA to go into Venezuela, and is
Speaker 7: there more information you can share about these strikes on
Speaker 7: the alleged well, I can't.
Speaker 14: I authorized speak for two reasons really. Number one, they
Speaker 14: have emptied their prisons into the United States of America.
Speaker 14: They came in through the well, they came in through
Speaker 14: the border. They came in because we had an open
Speaker 14: border policy. The other thing of drugs, We have a
Speaker 14: lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot
Speaker 14: of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea, so
Speaker 14: you get to see that, but we're going to stop
Speaker 14: them by land.
Speaker 13: Also, now, Nancy, this is in addition to those strikes
Speaker 13: that you mentioned earlier that the US is conducting off
Speaker 13: of the coast of Venezuela targeting five votes that they
Speaker 13: say are carrying drugs into the US and have killed
Speaker 13: about twenty seven people through those strikes. The President also
Speaker 13: said he's looking to do strikes on Venezuela's territory. Now
Speaker 13: that would be a significant, significant escalation.
Speaker 12: Absolutely, Olivia and ed our colleague. They're also asked to
Speaker 12: us about some concerns among Republican and Democratic lawmakers on
Speaker 12: information they've received about those strikes. What did they say
Speaker 12: and what was the president's response there?
Speaker 13: Well, they say they're not getting enough justification for why
Speaker 13: these strikes are necessary and who they are targeting. Last month,
Speaker 13: the Trump administration sent a letter to Congress saying they're
Speaker 13: an armed conflict with combatants armed combatants, which is the
Speaker 13: same justification they used for attacking al Qaeda in the
Speaker 13: early two thousands. Now they're saying that's the justification they're
Speaker 13: using for these strikes in Venezuela. But we've heard from
Speaker 13: lawmakers who say there's just not enough information that they're
Speaker 13: being given as to these strikes, who's being targeted, if
Speaker 13: they're successful at all, and why this needs further escalation,
Speaker 13: if there are plans to have a covert CIA operation
Speaker 13: in Venezuelan territory and strikes on their.
Speaker 12: Land, Olivia Ronaldi joining us there from.
Speaker 1: D okay, So the CIA will now be having a
Speaker 1: little bit of presidence in Venezuela, which, to the shock
Speaker 1: of no one, is not the first time that the
Speaker 1: CIA has been operating inside of Venezuela. But you know, hey,
Speaker 1: here we are. Now, let's talk about this authorization a
Speaker 1: little bit further. Trump's this is from the Guardian. Trump
Speaker 1: says he authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela. Move marks
Speaker 1: escalation in maduro pressure campaign. As president says us mulling
Speaker 1: strikes on Venezuelan territory, and I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: Striking a boat and open water, there is a little
Speaker 1: bit of lit bill leeway given right to say, well,
Speaker 1: if this boat is confirmed to be trafficking drugs, and
Speaker 1: the president of Venezuela saying that they are not trafficking
Speaker 1: drugs from Venezuela, there is a little bit of some
Speaker 1: some leniency as far as the whole benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt goes here. Even though it's understood that these boats
Speaker 1: are leaving Venezuela and satellites are tracking them in the
Speaker 1: whole nine Maduro can at least claim a little bit
Speaker 1: of an immininity on that. Right now, we were to
Speaker 1: start striking the Venezuelan land itself, we now enter into
Speaker 1: a whole different kind of conversation. But let's dive in here.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he had authorized the
Speaker 1: CIA to carry out covert operations in Venezuela, marking a
Speaker 1: sharp escalation in his administration's pressure campaign against Maduro's regime.
Speaker 1: Trump further suggested that he was considering strikes on Venezuelan territory,
Speaker 1: a dramatic step that could go beyond a series of
Speaker 1: recent lethal attacks on boats in the Caribbean, which Democrats
Speaker 1: and United Nations experts have FORCI forcibly condemned as unlawful.
Speaker 1: The president remarks about the CIA confirmed an earlier story
Speaker 1: from The New York Times, which they reported on a
Speaker 1: classified directive about a secretive operation in Venezuela. Trump said
Speaker 1: his administration was looking at land as it considers striking
Speaker 1: continued strikes on the region, but declined to answer when
Speaker 1: pressed on whether the CIA had authority to execute Maduro. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna I'm gonna throw this out. I don't
Speaker 1: know this for a fact. I've got no source to
Speaker 1: back the claim that I'm about to make. But I
Speaker 1: just I have a weird, sneaking suspicion. Call it a
Speaker 1: conspiratorial hunch if you will, that Maduro will be found
Speaker 1: dead sometime in the next six months to a year.
Speaker 1: I don't know that for a fact. But if we
Speaker 1: know for sure that the CIA is gonna start sending
Speaker 1: operatives to Venezuela proper and there is already a fifty
Speaker 1: million dollar bounty on this dude's head. I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: not saying, but I'm just saying, Okay, to quote Canas Owens,
Speaker 1: there you go. I think the Venezuelan is the Venezuelans
Speaker 1: is feeling the heat, the president added. Trump justified the
Speaker 1: CIA's intervention by repeating his claims that Venezuela had been
Speaker 1: releasing prisoners into the United States. We just heard all
Speaker 1: of that, echoing baseless assertions that became one of his
Speaker 1: common refrains on the Capitol trail last year or the
Speaker 1: campaign trail last year. Rather, he also claimed that Venezuela
Speaker 1: was bringing large volumes of drugs into the US by sea. Again,
Speaker 1: that's not even a source to debate about. That's kind
Speaker 1: of understood fact at this time. But I'm not saying
Speaker 1: before I even say that the drug cartels that are
Speaker 1: operating and flooding America with drugs are not all Venezuelan
Speaker 1: based at all. There are some trend De Raua, for instance,
Speaker 1: is a Venezuelan based drug cartel. That is a fact,
Speaker 1: and from the prisoners that they have taken from trende Arawa.
Speaker 1: They all say that they they are answering to Maduro.
Speaker 1: Whenever they ask who's their leader, who's the head of
Speaker 1: this cartel, all of them say that it is Maduro. Now,
Speaker 1: could that be just your you know, your local street
Speaker 1: punk drug pusher that's just throwing out a name. Is
Speaker 1: there anything to back that claim? I get it, I
Speaker 1: understand this. That being said, no one from the Mexican
Speaker 1: drug cartels are claiming that the Mexican president is the
Speaker 1: leader of their organization. That's actually kind of like a
Speaker 1: crazy thing. Most cartel leaders would say they'll either play silence,
Speaker 1: or they'll give some name of one of their higher
Speaker 1: ups that's already a known about figure that's already on
Speaker 1: the CIA watch list. Kind of thing. For them to
Speaker 1: name the president of the country that they came from
Speaker 1: as the head of their drug operation is pretty wild.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that should be a justification for an
Speaker 1: all out war against Venezuela. I'm just throwing it out
Speaker 1: as a weird thing. But moving on here. Experts have
Speaker 1: repeatedly cast doubts on some of the President's claims about
Speaker 1: the threats Venezuelan's pose in the US. Earlier this month,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration declared drug cartels to be an unlawful
Speaker 1: or unlawful combatants, saying the US is now an armed
Speaker 1: conflict with them, justifying the military action as a necessary
Speaker 1: escalation to stem the flow of drugs. The move has
Speaker 1: spurred anger in Congress from members of both major political
Speaker 1: parties that Trump was effectively committing an active war without
Speaker 1: seeking congressional authorization. I mean, okay, yeah, he declared war
Speaker 1: on the drug cartels. You don't how are you gonna
Speaker 1: go through the Congress to get approval to declare war
Speaker 1: on this. It's very similar to declaring war on the Taliban.
Speaker 1: We can't do that. So we didn't declare war. We
Speaker 1: had operations, right, That's how they didn't have to go
Speaker 1: through Congress to have military operations. He's not gonna have
Speaker 1: to go through Congress to have some sort of a
Speaker 1: military operation and to send in the Marines, which is
Speaker 1: the whole point of them. So yeah, there you go.
Speaker 1: On Wednesday, Gene Shaheen, the ranking Democratic senator on the
Speaker 1: Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said while she supports cracking down
Speaker 1: on trafficking, the administration has gone too far in what way?
Speaker 1: In what way, is this too far? I don't see it,
Speaker 1: but okay. The Trump administration's authorization of covert CIA action,
Speaker 1: conducting lethal strikes on boats and hinting at land operations
Speaker 1: in Venezuela slides the United States closer to outright conflict
Speaker 1: with no transparency, oversight, or apparent guardrails. The American people
Speaker 1: deserve to know if the administration is leading the US
Speaker 1: into another conflict, putting service members at risk, or pursuing
Speaker 1: a regime change operation. Again, they nobody joins the military
Speaker 1: to not get put in risk anyway, kep Moving on,
Speaker 1: Maduro decried Trump's comments in what he called coup de
Speaker 1: tah orchestrated by the CIA. Shortly after, Trump also said
Speaker 1: that he was considering strikes against the Venezuelan carts on land.
Speaker 1: No to war in the Caribbean. No to regime change,
Speaker 1: No to coudata orchestrated by the CIA. That was from
Speaker 1: Maduro direct quote. The leftist leaders said in an address
Speaker 1: to a committee set up after Washington deployed warships in
Speaker 1: the Caribbean for what it said was an anti drug operation.
Speaker 1: At least twenty seven people have been killed in the
Speaker 1: US Caribbean attacks so far. After another boat was struck,
Speaker 1: Maduro on Wednesday ordered military exercises in the country's biggest
Speaker 1: shanty towns and said he was mobilizing the military, police
Speaker 1: and a civilian militia to defend Venezuela's mountains, coasts, schools, hospitals, factories,
Speaker 1: and markets. Trump has claimed they are Narco terrorists with
Speaker 1: providing evidence, without providing evidence. Rather, he has also said
Speaker 1: the strikes were targeting members of the Trende Raval gang,
Speaker 1: claims that the White House has not supported with concrete proof.
Speaker 1: You and experts said in September that the strikes on
Speaker 1: vessels violated international law, and a Democratic congressman said over
Speaker 1: the weekend that the attacks were illegal killings and wouldn't
Speaker 1: stand up in a single court of law. Again, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm if this boat that was struck was moving drugs
Speaker 1: and had members on it that were members of the
Speaker 1: Trende ar Raval cartel, how I must be missing the
Speaker 1: gap here. He just declared war on cartels. If this
Speaker 1: boat was cartel affiliated, that's that's kind of how wars
Speaker 1: go down. I don't know. Moving on the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: earlier this year cited unsubstantiated claims of affiliation with the Trende,
Speaker 1: a rival gang to fast track deportations of Venezuela's of
Speaker 1: Venezuelans to a notorious El Salvador prison. Trump is also
Speaker 1: pushed to in the temporary legal status of hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of Venezuelans. Trump is accused Madurea of heading the
Speaker 1: drug cartel, charges he denied. In August, Washington doubled a
Speaker 1: bounty on his head for fifty million dollars. The Venezuelan
Speaker 1: leader is widely accused of having stolen elections last year,
Speaker 1: which again that's to the shock of absolutely no one,
Speaker 1: that's how politics go in this region of the world.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so that's the latest. Be on the lookout
Speaker 1: for CIA operatives to be operating inside of Venezuela. And yeah,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be a thing that we have to talk
Speaker 1: about here soon. I'm sure that Maduro is either going
Speaker 1: to be arrested and or found dead. I could be wrong,
Speaker 1: but if you look at the track record of coups
Speaker 1: that have taken place in South America over the last
Speaker 1: fifty years, you know what, there's a YouTube video. I
Speaker 1: got a quick video pulled up as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: for anybody who's curious about how many coups have taken
Speaker 1: place in South America in the last fifty sixty, maybe seventy,
Speaker 1: give or take years, then we look at what's about
Speaker 1: to go down to Venezuela with CIA operatives being there
Speaker 1: boots on the ground. You make your own assertions about
Speaker 1: what you think is about to happen. But you know what,
Speaker 1: let's just play this quick little clip and maybe you'll
Speaker 1: understand where I'm coming from.
Speaker 15: He here's every South American country which has had its
Speaker 15: government overthrown by the CIA since nineteen forty seven. Costa
Speaker 15: Rica in nineteen forty eight, Guatemala nineteen fifty four, Al
Speaker 15: Salvador nineteen seventy nine, Nicaragua nineteen eighty one, Panama nineteen
Speaker 15: eighty nine, Paraguay nineteen fifty four, Brazil nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 15: Peru nineteen sixty eight, Chile nineteen seventy three, Uruguay nineteen
Speaker 15: seventy three, Argentina nineteen seventy six, and Venezuela in two
Speaker 15: thousand and two. Many of these were perceived as ideologically
Speaker 15: opposed to the United States, were leftist dictatorships or were
Speaker 15: some combination of the two.
Speaker 1: So again I don't know this for a fact. This
Speaker 1: is completely speculative and all that. But man, whenever you
Speaker 1: see that and you look at how the CIA is
Speaker 1: moving into Venezuela right now, it just it seems like
Speaker 1: the chips are falling into place. But again, I will
Speaker 1: keep my finger on the pulse of this situation so
Speaker 1: that we can can talk about it more in the
Speaker 1: coming weeks. On the Cage to Night Live. Now let's
Speaker 1: go on further. John Thune asks if he've used Trump's
Speaker 1: twenty million dollar bailout for Argentina as an American first policy. Yes,
Speaker 1: Trump is trying to give the Argentinian president a twenty
Speaker 1: million dollar bailout, and of course he is getting flag
Speaker 1: for that. Let's talk about it.
Speaker 16: The President has discussed a life fund of twenty million
Speaker 16: dollars Argentine. Do you think that's responsible, especially when giving
Speaker 16: that your government shutdown and do that as an America
Speaker 16: First falls.
Speaker 10: You know, I think that something along the lines of
Speaker 10: what he's doing has been done in the past, I
Speaker 10: mean previous administrations. If they think there are reasons in
Speaker 10: the interest of economic stability in areas of the world,
Speaker 10: that are important to us economically those there are previous
Speaker 10: administrations that have made similar decisions. In this case, my
Speaker 10: understanding is it's a currency swap, and so it's a
Speaker 10: it's a structured in a way that hopefully will support
Speaker 10: and give some stability to their economy. And I think
Speaker 10: the US has some strategic interest in that region of
Speaker 10: the world. So you know, again, I think it's a
Speaker 10: decision the administration is making based on precedent that past
Speaker 10: administrations have used, and I hope that the Argentine economy
Speaker 10: responds in a way that keeps them a stable economy
Speaker 10: working in a part of the world where American needs allies.
Speaker 1: Okay, very very very political answer, very talking around the
Speaker 1: question rather than just answering the question if this is
Speaker 1: an America first policy. But let's get into it here.
Speaker 1: This is from USA today. Why is Trump bailing out Argentina?
Speaker 1: What we know after White House visits with l Loco,
Speaker 1: which is the nickname for the Argentinian president. Let's actually
Speaker 1: know what they got a quick clip here. We can
Speaker 1: listen in together and learn about this as a group.
Speaker 1: Let's go.
Speaker 14: This man because his philosophy is correct.
Speaker 17: US President Donald Trump expressed his support for Argentina's President
Speaker 17: Javier Malay during their meeting at the White House Tuesday.
Speaker 17: The visit comes days after the US agreed to provide
Speaker 17: a major financial lifeline to the South American nation. The
Speaker 17: meeting also occurred ahead of Argentina's midterm legislative elections.
Speaker 14: We are going to work very much with the president.
Speaker 14: We think he's going to win, he should win, and
Speaker 14: if he does win, we're going to be very helpful.
Speaker 14: And if he doesn't win, we're not going to waste
Speaker 14: that time.
Speaker 17: Trump's remarks rattled Argentine markets that had previously been buoyed
Speaker 17: by the support package recently announced by US Treasury Secretary
Speaker 17: Scott Bessant, the centerpiece of which is a twenty billion
Speaker 17: dollar currency swap with Argentina's central bank, exchanging stable US
Speaker 17: dollar for volatilpesos. Bessen said in the meeting that the
Speaker 17: support package depended on the continuance of economic policies favored
Speaker 17: by the Trump administration.
Speaker 15: We're confident that the President's party will and the coalition.
Speaker 2: Will do well in the election, and this aid is.
Speaker 3: Predicated on robust policies and going back to the failed
Speaker 3: Perona's policies would cause a US rethink.
Speaker 17: The economic lifeline for Argentina marks an unusual move for
Speaker 17: the US, particularly under an administration that has largely stayed
Speaker 17: away from major foreign interventions. The White House has framed
Speaker 17: the deal as a strategic effort to stabilize a key
Speaker 17: regional ally, but it has drawn criticism at home, including
Speaker 17: from Democratic lawmakers who have accused Trump of prioritizing foreign
Speaker 17: bailouts and investor protections while the US government remains shut down.
Speaker 1: And the US government has only been shut down for
Speaker 1: fifteen days. But that's a talking point that they will
Speaker 1: continue going on about. But let's continue here the key
Speaker 1: points here. President Trump hosted the Argentine President, Javier Malay
Speaker 1: at the White House after announcing a twenty billion dollar
Speaker 1: bailout for Argentina. Now you also heard that it was
Speaker 1: a currency swamp on the screen just a moment ago.
Speaker 1: They showed that it's like a dollar forty US equals
Speaker 1: like two hundred and fifty of the Argentinian I don't
Speaker 1: remember if it's at Paso or what the currency was there,
Speaker 1: but whatever their local currency is, and I don't it
Speaker 1: basically is a bailout. Yeah, it's gonna be a currency exchange,
Speaker 1: and they're going to say it's not like that, it's
Speaker 1: we're getting equal back and this. Yeah, but the Argentinian
Speaker 1: dollar is dropping and they're not going to get better
Speaker 1: anytime soon. So let's just call it for what it is.
Speaker 1: It's a twenty billion dollar gift essentially, and especially interesting
Speaker 1: after Trump just did all the things with those to
Speaker 1: cut wasteful spending and stop sending money to so many
Speaker 1: other foreign countries for useless and frivolous expenditures. That was
Speaker 1: their whole big push. Now, why is it so critical
Speaker 1: to him to send twenty billion US to Argentina? Who
Speaker 1: if we're gonna say a strategic ally, that's another interesting
Speaker 1: talking point Argentina. Yeah, I'm not saying that they're not
Speaker 1: important by any means. I'm not gonna try to sound
Speaker 1: like I'm an asshole in that way. But what I
Speaker 1: am gonna say is that Argentina really doesn't hold much
Speaker 1: strategic importance to anything in that area, unless a potential
Speaker 1: military push into one of their kind of neighboring ish countries, Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Possibly possibly, I don't know, but I'm just throwing it
Speaker 1: out as perhaps that might be the long con or
Speaker 1: the long game that he's trying to play here. Let's see.
Speaker 1: Malay has often compared is often compared to Trump. He
Speaker 1: has pursued an aggressive cost cutting a and his party
Speaker 1: faces a midterm election this month. The financial assistance has
Speaker 1: drawn criticism from some American farmers and Democratic lawmakers. Interesting
Speaker 1: that American farmers would have something to say about this.
Speaker 1: Let's get into it. We talked about him hosting Malay.
Speaker 1: Trump has described Malay as his favorite president, and the
Speaker 1: eclectic leader has drawn comparisons to Trump. Malay has repeatedly
Speaker 1: wielded a chainsaw on stage to promote slashing spending, but
Speaker 1: his agenda, which also includes deregulation and free market reform,
Speaker 1: has led to a volatile peso currency. It is the
Speaker 1: Argentinian peso and seen investors aggressively dump Argentine stocks and bonds.
Speaker 1: Voters will deliver their verdict on Malay's party since he
Speaker 1: took office in December of twenty twenty three. At the
Speaker 1: Argentine midterm elections for legislators later this month, Trump said
Speaker 1: support for the country relies on his success. It says
Speaker 1: directly quotes we heard Trump say a moment ago. We
Speaker 1: think he's gonna win. He should win, and if he
Speaker 1: does win, we're going to be very helpful. And if
Speaker 1: he doesn't win, can to waste our time. The comment
Speaker 1: rattled Argentina's markets, according to Reuters. So why is Trump
Speaker 1: bailing out Argentina? Argentina is in a deepening economic crisis
Speaker 1: with a volatile currency. According to a blog published by
Speaker 1: the Council on Formulations, the ins and outs of the
Speaker 1: crisis are complicated, but undergirding it all is the fact
Speaker 1: that the country is running out of hard currency. Trump
Speaker 1: denied that money was politically motivated when a reporter asked
Speaker 1: on October fourteenth, instead saying, it's really meant to help
Speaker 1: a good financial philosophy and we can help our neighbors.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has also argued the financial crisis in
Speaker 1: the region could affect other countries in the region. So
Speaker 1: is that what he's after? He's trying to stabilize the
Speaker 1: entire region by stabilizing this one country that happens to
Speaker 1: have his homie as the president. Yeah, out loud, that
Speaker 1: sounds a little suss I'll be honest with you. The
Speaker 1: US Treasury Secretary Scott Pssent said that the United States
Speaker 1: economic lifeline from Malay's country will take the form of
Speaker 1: a currency swap with Argentina's central bank. That's a move
Speaker 1: that amounts to effectively exchanging stable US dollars for the
Speaker 1: volatile peso, he said on to Fox News. The ingram
Speaker 1: angle last week denied that it was a bailout according
Speaker 1: to Reuter's. However, the CFR article said it needs the
Speaker 1: standard qualifications to be considered a bailout, Reuters reported. He
Speaker 1: said the assistance was a strategic move for the United
Speaker 1: States for its openness to allow US companies to develop
Speaker 1: rare earths and uranium resources, and Malay's promise to keep
Speaker 1: to get China out of Argentina. Ah, there it is.
Speaker 1: There's the kicker. So let's talk about reactions to the
Speaker 1: Argentina bailout. The decision to give Argentina a bailout has
Speaker 1: angered some American farmers, who have expressed concerns that Trump's
Speaker 1: tariff on China may have caused the Beijing markets to
Speaker 1: shift purchases of soybean's two countries such as Argentina. Why
Speaker 1: would USA help bail out Argentino while they take American
Speaker 1: soybean producer's biggest market, the Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa,
Speaker 1: a key soybean producer, wrote on social media last month.
Speaker 1: Democratic lawmakers have also criticized Trump for the move, accusing
Speaker 1: him of prioritizing foreign bailouts and protecting investors as the
Speaker 1: country has eclipsed two weeks in a government shut down.
Speaker 1: According to Reuters, so they go into who is the
Speaker 1: Argentinian president. We already know about him. He's seen as
Speaker 1: El loco. He's crazy, he brings a chainsaw to talk
Speaker 1: about government slashes. But let's talk about this here. On
Speaker 1: October six, Malay took to the stage in Buenos Aires
Speaker 1: for an event that appeared to be part of a
Speaker 1: book launch, part rock concert, and part political rally. Malay's book,
Speaker 1: The Construction of the Miracle compiles his speeches and social
Speaker 1: media posts going back several years. It's five hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy three pages. On stage in front of an estimated
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand people, the former frontman in a Rolling Stones
Speaker 1: tribute band saying a nine set of mostly nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: rock anthems. I'm human, he told the pack stadium. At
Speaker 1: one point, it might not seem like it, but I
Speaker 1: am wow. So Trump is trying to bail out his homie,
Speaker 1: and again they keep saying it's for strategic purposes. Could
Speaker 1: that be something tied to Venezuela? Could that be something
Speaker 1: tied to China? And to be honest with you, if
Speaker 1: you look at the China Venezuela connections, I think that
Speaker 1: this might be a multi pronged situation. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not smart enough with economics to know if a
Speaker 1: twenty billion dollar bailout is going to be enough to
Speaker 1: really do much in this regard that being said, I
Speaker 1: don't think that this is really putting it as as
Speaker 1: the media says, an American first policy. But I guess
Speaker 1: we'll have to see how it shakes out. Tony. What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wanted to say, when Malay took power a
Speaker 2: little over a year ago or close to two years
Speaker 2: ago now, whenever that was, I remember Argentina was on
Speaker 2: a path to join Brick that time, and he reversed
Speaker 2: that right away. So I think what's going on right
Speaker 2: now is kind of like his reward for doing that,
Speaker 2: And there must have been some understanding that if you
Speaker 2: get ever get into trouble, the US will help you,
Speaker 2: and the US is trying to well, Trump is trying
Speaker 2: to live it up to that side of the bargain.
Speaker 1: I think you could be onto something with this, honestly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I'm trying to remember. I don't remember who
Speaker 1: the administration was before Malay, but it was very liberal
Speaker 1: and they were wanting to be a part of bricks.
Speaker 1: I remember that Venezuela. They are a part of bricks, correct.
Speaker 2: I think maybe I don't remember, but.
Speaker 1: I want to.
Speaker 2: And they do have a very good relationship with China,
Speaker 2: and Argentina did have a better relationship with China, but
Speaker 2: not anymore. Argentina's had something like four currency defaults since
Speaker 2: the year two thousand and the main presidents I'm aware
Speaker 2: of since the Parons are the Kirchners.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't know who was in right before Malay though,
Speaker 2: but whoever that.
Speaker 1: Was, and I'm not sure if I could even pronounce
Speaker 1: the name right Kirkner or or.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a German name. There's lots of Germans and
Speaker 2: Italians and are interesting. In fact, it's kind of funny.
Speaker 2: It's wider than Europe, very interesting.
Speaker 1: The German and Italian influences in Argentina. You know, funny
Speaker 1: how those things happen right after nineteen forty five. But yeah,
Speaker 1: neither here.
Speaker 2: Nor there though.
Speaker 1: Probably honestly, but yeah, especially with the colonial Liberdad. I
Speaker 1: think it's called the uh, the basically Nazi colony that
Speaker 1: is operating in Argentina right now. It's it's pretty wild
Speaker 1: to look at. But uh. Anyway, so I don't know
Speaker 1: what's gonna come of this. It's very possible that Trump
Speaker 1: does this bailout thing and saves the Argentinian presidency and
Speaker 1: he's able to kind of like you said, he he
Speaker 1: got Argentina off of the bricks conversation, so now you know,
Speaker 1: you scratched our back, will scratch eres kind of thing.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's going to do well in the
Speaker 1: public image for Trump, but I also don't think he
Speaker 1: really cares about the public image of him is, which
Speaker 1: is there's pros and cons to that. I be honest,
Speaker 1: I see both. But yeah, so we will see what
Speaker 1: happens with the Argentina conversation and the Venezuela conversation. I
Speaker 1: think there is more of a connection here than what
Speaker 1: initially meets the eye. I think China is absolutely at
Speaker 1: play with all of this, especially like we just talked about,
Speaker 1: now that they're not buying American soy they are now
Speaker 1: buying Argentinian soy And I'm wondering if this twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollar bailout might be another way to tell Argentina, hey,
Speaker 1: you're not selling soy beans to China anymore. And I
Speaker 1: bet Malay would capitulate and be down with that as
Speaker 1: long as the money came flowing in. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm just speculating from my dvantage point. Now let's get
Speaker 1: into this kind of going off topic, but still staying
Speaker 1: on topic as far as the legal system in America goes.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court rejects Alex Jones's appeal in the Sandy hook
Speaker 1: defamation case on I mean, if you have heard about this,
Speaker 1: but so long story short, Sandy Hooks shooting took place. Okay,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones one of the all time greatest conspiracy heads
Speaker 1: in the game currently. Okay, agree with things he says,
Speaker 1: disagree with things he says, It doesn't matter. You can't
Speaker 1: deny that the man is at least a cultural icon
Speaker 1: in the realm of conspiratorial conversations. That being said, he
Speaker 1: made a lot of claims about Sandy Hook, about how
Speaker 1: it was all fake and these parents of these these
Speaker 1: murdered children were all crisis actors. And he not only
Speaker 1: doubled but tripled down on this and then got brought
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court and they said, no, you are
Speaker 1: gonna have to make massive payouts to the family families,
Speaker 1: I should say. And now he just tried to have
Speaker 1: this repealed, and the Supreme Court basically said, nah, homie,
Speaker 1: that's not happening. But you know what, let's hear about it?
Speaker 1: Is it from CBS News New York.
Speaker 7: The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from conspiracy theorist
Speaker 7: Alex Jones over the one point four billion dollar judgment
Speaker 7: against him for calling the twenty twelve Sandy Hook Elementary
Speaker 7: School shooting a hoax staged by crisis actors. The Info
Speaker 7: Wars host had argued that a judge was wrong to
Speaker 7: find him liable for defamation and infliction of emotional distress
Speaker 7: without holding a trial on the merits. Jones is separately
Speaker 7: appealing a forty nine million dollar judgment and a similar
Speaker 7: defamation lawsuit in Texas after he failed to turn over
Speaker 7: documents sought by the parents of another Sandy Hook victim.
Speaker 7: The justices did not comment on their decision.
Speaker 1: So essentially he's still going to have to pay. But
Speaker 1: the one point four billion dollars in all these things.
Speaker 1: His company has grown substantially since that judgment has been passed.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying it's because of the judgment or
Speaker 1: even in spite of the judgment, but Alice Jones and
Speaker 1: Info Wars as a whole is doing better now than
Speaker 1: they have ever done. A lot of people will say
Speaker 1: there's no way he's ever going to be able to
Speaker 1: make that kind of a payout one point four billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I have a weird suspicion that he'll be able to
Speaker 1: give him another ten years and he'll probably be able
Speaker 1: to make the payments, but of course he's going to
Speaker 1: try to fight it tooth and nail as much as
Speaker 1: he can. Look, one point four billion dollars is not
Speaker 1: a small amount of money to pay out. That's pretty large,
Speaker 1: but so are some of the claims that he was making.
Speaker 1: So anyway, not trying to detract from the conversation of geopolitics,
Speaker 1: but I thought that that was interesting to bring up
Speaker 1: as well, because now we go into talking about courts
Speaker 1: and legal things. This is from SCOTUSblog dot com. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court appears ready to curtail major provisions in a
Speaker 1: voting rights act. Now, this one kind of hits near
Speaker 1: and dear to myself because Louisiana is currently getting ready
Speaker 1: to draw a new map. California drew a new map
Speaker 1: and people got pissed about it. Texas drew a new
Speaker 1: map in response to California drawing that map. Now Louisiana
Speaker 1: is about to draw another map to talk about which
Speaker 1: dish get how many votes? As far as these things go,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court is now weighing in on it,
Speaker 1: and they're saying that it's all racially motivated. I shit
Speaker 1: you not. They are literally saying that the redistrict thing
Speaker 1: of the map is specifically and inherently a racially motivated decision.
Speaker 1: Never mind the fact of the race has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with this. In my personal opinion, I know tons
Speaker 1: of Republicans of all different races and backgrounds. I know
Speaker 1: tons of Democrats from all races and backgrounds. As far
Speaker 1: as that's concerned, Louisiana has a population it's like a
Speaker 1: third of the population of Louisiana is of the African
Speaker 1: American persuasion. Not all of those are Democrats. And I
Speaker 1: would also like to mention that black conservatives in this
Speaker 1: state are not some sort of a weird monolith by
Speaker 1: any means, especially now after the last couple of elections.
Speaker 1: But sure, we got to make it a race issue,
Speaker 1: let's get into it. The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared
Speaker 1: ready to strike down a twenty twenty four congressional map
Speaker 1: that the group of voters has challenged as the product
Speaker 1: of unconstitutional racial jerrymandering. That is, according to them, it
Speaker 1: sorts voters based on race in violation of the Fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment's equal protection clause. During nearly two and a half
Speaker 1: years of oral arguments, the Court's conservative justices signaled that
Speaker 1: they are likely to undermine a key provision of the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act, even if they may not ultimately strike
Speaker 1: it down altogether. Wednesday's oral argument was the latest chapter
Speaker 1: in a dispute that dates back to twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: when Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty census. Roughly one third of the
Speaker 1: state's population is black, but the twenty twenty two map
Speaker 1: had only one majority black district out of the six
Speaker 1: districts allotted to the state. That prompted a group of
Speaker 1: black voters to go to federal court, where they argued
Speaker 1: that the twenty twenty two map violated Section two of
Speaker 1: the Federal Voting Rights Act, which barres discrimination in voting practices.
Speaker 1: The US District Judge Shelley dick Wow agreed that the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two map likely violated Section two. She prohibited
Speaker 1: the state from using the map in future elections and
Speaker 1: ordered the state to draw a new map with two
Speaker 1: majority black districts. The US Court of Appeals in the
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling. He gave the state until
Speaker 1: January fifteenth, twenty twenty four, to enact a new map
Speaker 1: or face the prospect that the lower court would adopt
Speaker 1: a plan. For the twenty twenty four elections, Louisiana drew
Speaker 1: a new map that created a second majority black district.
Speaker 1: The twenty twenty four map drew a challenge from a
Speaker 1: group of voters who described themselves as non African American.
Speaker 1: A three judge federal District court agreed with them that
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four map violated the Constitution's equal Protection
Speaker 1: clause by sorting voters based on race, and it barred
Speaker 1: the state from using the map in the future elections,
Speaker 1: so getting into it here. In May twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court put three judge district courts ruling on hold,
Speaker 1: which allowed the state to move forward with the using
Speaker 1: the new map in twenty twenty four elections. Voters in
Speaker 1: the sixth district, the new majority black district, elected Cleo Fields,
Speaker 1: a former member of Congress who had represented another majority
Speaker 1: black district during the nineteen nineties, to represent them. Louisiana
Speaker 1: and the black voters appealed to the Supreme Court, which
Speaker 1: heard oral arguments for the first time in the spring
Speaker 1: of this year. Louisiana contended that once the law made
Speaker 1: the excuse me. Once the lower courts had concluded that
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two map likely violated the VREA and
Speaker 1: directed it to draw map with a second majority black district.
Speaker 1: Its primary goal was to protect the state's powerful Republican
Speaker 1: incumbents in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Mike
Speaker 1: Johnson and Representative Julia Letlow, who sits on the House
Speaker 1: Appropriations Committee. The non African American voters countered that it
Speaker 1: was utterly implausible that both race and politics were equally
Speaker 1: responsible for the twenty twenty four map. The state first
Speaker 1: decided to draw the second majority black district, and then
Speaker 1: considered how to draw the map in a way that
Speaker 1: would protect Republicans, they contended. On June twenty seventh, the
Speaker 1: last day before the justices summer recess, the Court issued
Speaker 1: a brief order setting the case for another argument in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty five twenty sixth term. On August first,
Speaker 1: Justices issued an order in which they directed the litigations
Speaker 1: to file briefs addressing a new question whether the state's
Speaker 1: intentional creation of a second majority minority district violates either
Speaker 1: the fourteenth or fifteenth Amendment, which bars the government from
Speaker 1: denying or restricting voting rights based on race. At Wednesday's
Speaker 1: oral argument, lawyer Jannai Nelson, representing the black voters, defended
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four map. She told the Justices that
Speaker 1: a mere two years ago, in Allen versus Milligan, a
Speaker 1: case nearly identical to this one, the Supreme Court noted that,
Speaker 1: under certain circumstances, it has authorized race based redistricting to
Speaker 1: remedy state restriction maps that violate Section two, Louisiana Solicitor
Speaker 1: General Benjamin Auguena Auguinaga, I don't speak the language. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: By contrast, urged the Court to reevaluate its voting precedents,
Speaker 1: although the state had defined the twenty twenty four map
Speaker 1: when the case was before the Supreme Court in March.
Speaker 1: The General told the justices on Wednesday that those precedents
Speaker 1: had place states in impossible situations where they only where
Speaker 1: the only sure demand is more racial discrimination for more decades. Therefore,
Speaker 1: he said, we have taken the position that Section two,
Speaker 1: insofar as it requires race based redistricting, is unconstitutional. Chief
Speaker 1: Justice John Roberts, the author of the court's opinion in Milligan,
Speaker 1: appeared to suggest that the Milligan case should not necessarily
Speaker 1: dictate the outcome of the Louisiana case. That case, he said,
Speaker 1: took the exist misting precedents as a given, and he
Speaker 1: continued that it was a case in which we were
Speaker 1: considering Alabama's particular challenge based on what turned out to
Speaker 1: be an improper evidentiary showing. Justice Elena Kagan countered that
Speaker 1: Alabama had made several arguments that we specifically rejected in Milligan,
Speaker 1: and that the answers that you just gave, and in
Speaker 1: the answer that you just gave to me, it seems
Speaker 1: to me that you repeated each and every one of
Speaker 1: those arguments that we rejected. It's a fair point. Justice
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the majority in Milligan, raised a
Speaker 1: point that he had made in concurring opinions in a
Speaker 1: concurring opinion in that case. This Court's case is a
Speaker 1: variety of Contexts have said that race based remedies are
Speaker 1: permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long
Speaker 1: period of time decades in some cases, but they should
Speaker 1: not be an indefinite and should not have or or
Speaker 1: should have an endpoint. Nelson resisted any tension that Section
Speaker 1: two or race based redistricting should have a similar endpoint.
Speaker 1: She noted, among other things, that Congress decidedly did not
Speaker 1: include a time limit in Section two, even though it
Speaker 1: had done so elsewhere in the Vra. Justice Kintaji Brown
Speaker 1: Jackson emphasized that Section two is not a remedy in
Speaker 1: and of itself, but is instead the mechanism by which
Speaker 1: the law determines whether a remedy is necessary, which she
Speaker 1: said may or may not involve the consideration of race,
Speaker 1: and so that's why it doesn't need a time limit,
Speaker 1: she reasoned, because it's not doing any work for any
Speaker 1: work other than just pointing us to the direction of
Speaker 1: where we might need to do something, as they had
Speaker 1: in or argent argument. In March, some justices questioned whether
Speaker 1: the District's court decisions findings in the twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: map likely violated Section two justified the creation of the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four map with its second majority Black District
Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas president prest Nelson, asking whether the lower
Speaker 1: court had ordered this particular map. Nelson responded that had not.
Speaker 1: The court gave the State of Louisiana an opportunity, as
Speaker 1: this Court has suggested to it do. It gave it
Speaker 1: broad discretion, gave it wide latitude to create a map
Speaker 1: that felt that it felt was satisfactory. But the General
Speaker 1: told Thomas that the District Court's decision of the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two map is the only reason that the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four map exists. Louisiana, he said, drew the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four map under protest because the threat was that
Speaker 1: the federal courts were going to do it if we didn't.
Speaker 1: Just as Amy Cony Barrett echo Thomas's concerns about the
Speaker 1: weight that the district court decision should carry, she noted
Speaker 1: that the court had assumed, without deciding, that complying with
Speaker 1: the Section two is a compelling interest for purposes of
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment, as part of the test that comes
Speaker 1: into play when race occupies a predominant role in redistricting.
Speaker 1: But in the case like this, like the one involving
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two map, when this doesn't really think
Speaker 1: that the map violates Section two and it hasn't been
Speaker 1: finally adjudicated, it seems to suggest that there is really
Speaker 1: a compelling interest. Or she's asking, does it seem that
Speaker 1: it does? It seem to suggest that there really is
Speaker 1: a compelling interest. Kavanaugh also appeared somewhat receptive to the
Speaker 1: Trump administration this argument made by Principal Deputy Solicitor General
Speaker 1: Hashim Moupon all Right, that the constitutional problem before the
Speaker 1: court is not the mere consideration of the race in districting.
Speaker 1: The problem is when race subordinates traditional neutral principles and
Speaker 1: is factor that cannot be compromised. The Trump administration, while
Speaker 1: not jettisoning Section two would make it more difficult to
Speaker 1: bring a Section two claim. In its view, a violation
Speaker 1: of Section two cannot rest on a lack of equal
Speaker 1: opportunity for minority plaintiffs to participate in the political process
Speaker 1: when politics, rather than race, is the likely reason for
Speaker 1: the state's refusal to create a majority minority district. Anyway,
Speaker 1: you know, I only got a little bit left to
Speaker 1: gover Nelson cautioned that adopting her opponent's position would create
Speaker 1: a staggering reversal of precedent that would throw maps across
Speaker 1: the country into chaos. But if the court believes that
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four map is unconstitutional, she continued, it
Speaker 1: should send the case back to the lower court for
Speaker 1: it to use one of the many alterations that are
Speaker 1: available to meet Section two and also comply with the Constitution.
Speaker 1: But it should lead the lower Court's findings that the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two map violated Section two undisturbed, she said,
Speaker 1: and it must be remedied. Moupon countered that there are
Speaker 1: roughly sixty black representatives in Congress right now and only
Speaker 1: fifteen majority black districts. None of these positions advanced by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration or the other litigations opposing the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four map, he said, is going to lead to
Speaker 1: there being no black representation in Congress or anything remotely
Speaker 1: approaching that. Okay, long article, but long story short, we're
Speaker 1: wanting to redistrict the map based off of a census
Speaker 1: that was took and them redistricting this map precedent to this,
Speaker 1: or you know, a couple of years ago they redistricted
Speaker 1: to where there was two majority black districts. They're saying
Speaker 1: that they need to redistrict this again because that's race
Speaker 1: based and not census based. Take that for what you want. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't have any real fear of
Speaker 1: Louisiana becoming a blue state. As far as federal elections go.
Speaker 1: State elections kind of swing one way or another. We
Speaker 1: have Democrat governors sometimes and Republican governors others. That kind
Speaker 1: of goes up in the air depending on who the
Speaker 1: candidates are. To be honest with you, but yeah, apparently
Speaker 1: Louisiana is possibly also having some jerrymandering issues, and uh,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is weighing in on this. Say, I'm
Speaker 1: see your hand raised, brother, what you got.
Speaker 6: My question is while we did, people are trying to
Speaker 6: bring back segregation when that we all evil.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not necessarily segregation in that way. So jerry mandering,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to find a way to describe this without pictures. Essentially,
Speaker 1: it is redrawing the lines to where you get more
Speaker 1: votes that look like they're swaying one direction rather than another.
Speaker 1: A vote is a vote is a vote, and it
Speaker 1: counts this way. But they are saying that the black
Speaker 1: vote is going to be made lesser by redrawing the
Speaker 1: maps to where instead of having two majority black districts
Speaker 1: who are voting on behalf of all of the African
Speaker 1: American population in Louisiana according to these people, which is incorrect,
Speaker 1: but whatever, they're saying that the black vote will not
Speaker 1: be counted as much. And I understand what they're saying.
Speaker 1: Jerry Mandering has been done very very bad, bad, bad,
Speaker 1: bad things in the past. I'm not taking away from that.
Speaker 1: But again, more and more black voters in this state
Speaker 1: are swapping sides, So having two majority black districts, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to help the cause. From the
Speaker 1: left versus right, conversation like they think it will. But
Speaker 1: you know, I'm I'm all for rezoning when it's needed,
Speaker 1: especially in this state. There is so much movement that
Speaker 1: has happened in the last twenty years. Certain cities, Okay,
Speaker 1: New Orleans and Baton Rouge and Shreveport are always going
Speaker 1: to be majority black cities. I get that. But if
Speaker 1: you look parish to perish, what other states have, like
Speaker 1: county to county, it's not so segregated like it once was.
Speaker 1: I mean, hell, Livingston Parish, it's not too far from me.
Speaker 1: At one point was very, very heavily white based, and
Speaker 1: it was very racial. As a matter of fact, it
Speaker 1: was very racist. It was seen as like the last
Speaker 1: stronghold for the Klan in this state. Right that is
Speaker 1: no longer the case, and there are more and more
Speaker 1: black people that are moving out that way, and they're
Speaker 1: not doing it because of you know, gentrification or whatever else.
Speaker 1: The opportunities in Louisiana are more equal now than they've
Speaker 1: ever been, and you have people, regardless of whatever race,
Speaker 1: they are making equal money to white people, so they're
Speaker 1: able to move into the same areas that white people
Speaker 1: are living. We have a real melting pot that is
Speaker 1: going on in this day right now, which I am
Speaker 1: all for for the record. So for them to redraw
Speaker 1: these maps to make more black districts, they're using race
Speaker 1: as their motivating factor, and I think that's just wrong.
Speaker 1: But I know that I'm looking at it from my
Speaker 1: own vantage point here. But Tony, go ahead, brother.
Speaker 2: Yeah, pall politics is friend enemy and just the basic
Speaker 2: definition of jerrymandering is that depending on how you draw
Speaker 2: the boundaries, you could take a fifty to fifty Republican
Speaker 2: versus Democrat state and you could get like ninety percent
Speaker 2: of the House representatives to be Republican just by drawing
Speaker 2: the boundaries a certain way, or ninety percent Democrat just
Speaker 2: by drawing the boundaries a certain way. And since there's
Speaker 2: an obvious beneficiary to any kind of drawing in the boundaries,
Speaker 2: the other party is always going to see it is unfair.
Speaker 2: As for segregation and everything, yeah, I'm glad that we
Speaker 2: don't have mandatory segregation. But here's the big butt. You know,
Speaker 2: some people do really well in a non segregated, integrated environment,
Speaker 2: other people not so much. Some people do want some segregation,
Speaker 2: not just white people either. So there's been some black
Speaker 2: movement to you know, creating their own spaces for example,
Speaker 2: black only dormitories or the Black National Anthem being serving
Speaker 2: sporting events. And I don't know if I'm in favor
Speaker 2: of that, but it just goes to show that it's
Speaker 2: not one size fits all. I think like eighty percent
Speaker 2: of people can get by really well in an integrated culture,
Speaker 2: but there's always like twenty percent that won't. And if
Speaker 2: having some Blacks only spaces or some whites only spaces
Speaker 2: even today in modern day America, would help them, maybe
Speaker 2: it's okay.
Speaker 1: To do that. I get what you're saying. And there
Speaker 1: are certain cultures that do well in de facto segregation,
Speaker 1: not d joro right, Dajora being the one where there's
Speaker 1: legal there's laws in place saying that you can only
Speaker 1: live here, you can only work these jobs based off
Speaker 1: of your race. De facto segregation is more just like
Speaker 1: this culture and society in this one city is inherently
Speaker 1: very Latin based, and that's just how it goes because
Speaker 1: that just happens to be where all the Latin people
Speaker 1: move to or all the black people live in this city,
Speaker 1: and that just makes it what it is. Fine. I
Speaker 1: don't have a problem with that. But what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is redrawing the lines based off of race alone. That
Speaker 1: leads down this road where they think that the majority
Speaker 1: black districts are only going to vote Democrat, and that
Speaker 1: is simply not the case. That may be the case
Speaker 1: in some places, that may be the case in a
Speaker 1: lot of places. I can speak pretty intelligently on this
Speaker 1: one in Louisiana, even though, Yeah, if you were to
Speaker 1: look at the census and see how many Black Louisianians
Speaker 1: are registered Democrat, but then you also compare that to
Speaker 1: how they voted in the last two elections for state
Speaker 1: and for federal, it's not gonna work out the way
Speaker 1: that they hope it will. But you know, it's an attempt.
Speaker 1: I see what you're saying. Some cultures benefit from segregation
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form, some benefit from integration.
Speaker 1: I am personally of the belief, and I could be
Speaker 1: wrong here. I don't know. I'm not an expert in
Speaker 1: all things. I am of the opinion that America has
Speaker 1: done our best when the integration came into play. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Maybe I'm just completely off my rocker on
Speaker 1: that one. But ever since the Civil Rights Acts, and
Speaker 1: ever since the schools were integrated in all these things,
Speaker 1: I feel like we as a soil and culture have
Speaker 1: done better in certain regards and worse in certain regards.
Speaker 1: I'm aware of this, But overall, I would say that
Speaker 1: we have advanced ourselves far and beyond our for lack
Speaker 1: of better words, competition nation, competition than any other. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's because of our what's the way
Speaker 1: that they were saying it's our differences that make us stronger.
Speaker 1: I think there's something to be said for that. But
Speaker 1: I also think that trying to blend everybody together to
Speaker 1: get a unified American culture is the way that we
Speaker 1: should move forward. I don't know, but.
Speaker 2: Who is assimilable today, Like even Muslims can be assimilated
Speaker 2: and people from I don't know, it's China and India
Speaker 2: that those I think India and Islam are the biggest,
Speaker 2: you know, hardest to assimilate that most people on the
Speaker 2: right consider today.
Speaker 1: So they can assimilate, but they have to leave their
Speaker 1: cultures behind. When you get to America, you take on
Speaker 1: your American identity, You become a member of this nation.
Speaker 1: You don't try to make America like the country you
Speaker 1: just left. That's the only way that this culture can
Speaker 1: thrive and move forward. I'm not saying you need to
Speaker 1: leave your religious practice behind, or leave your language at home,
Speaker 1: or any of those types of things. That's fine. Be
Speaker 1: proud of who you are and what it took to
Speaker 1: get you here. But once you get here, work towards
Speaker 1: making your home country, which would be America at that point,
Speaker 1: a better country. Don't go out of your way to
Speaker 1: make America more like Mexico, or more like India, or
Speaker 1: more like wherever you That goes against the entire premise
Speaker 1: of coming here. That's my opinion. Anyway, I got a
Speaker 1: quick little video that's gonna break down jerrymandering a little
Speaker 1: bit better because I feel like I did a bad
Speaker 1: job explaining. Let's listen in, and this is essentially what
Speaker 1: they are trying to do in Louisiana right now.
Speaker 18: So you want to know what gerrymandering is. First, Let's
Speaker 18: start with government.
Speaker 1: One oh one.
Speaker 18: In the United States, each state elects a certain number
Speaker 18: of representatives based on the state's population. The larger population,
Speaker 18: the more representatives you have. Each representative represents a district
Speaker 18: or a geographical area, including its voters. Ideally, we want
Speaker 18: to have a range of representatives who reflect the political
Speaker 18: views of the population across the state. But how do
Speaker 18: we decide who gets to vote for each representative. Let's
Speaker 18: look at an example. Suppose we have a very tiny
Speaker 18: state of fifty people. Thirty of them belong to the
Speaker 18: Blue Party and twenty belong to the Red Party, and
Speaker 18: just our luck, they all live in a nice even grid,
Speaker 18: with Blues on one side of the state and Reds
Speaker 18: on the other. Now, let's say we need to divide
Speaker 18: the state into five districts. Each district will send one
Speaker 18: representative to the House to represent the people. Fortunately, because
Speaker 18: our citizens live in a neatly ordered grid, it's easy
Speaker 18: to draw five lengthy districts, two for the Reds and
Speaker 18: three for the Blues. Voila perfectly proportional representation, just as
Speaker 18: the founders intended.
Speaker 1: Now, let's say instead that.
Speaker 18: The Blue Party controls the state government and they get
Speaker 18: to decide how the lines are drawn. Rather than draw
Speaker 18: districts of horizontals, they draw them vertically, so that in
Speaker 18: each district there are six Blues and four Reds, with
Speaker 18: a comfortable blue majority in the state. Each district elects
Speaker 18: a Blue candidate to the House, the Blues win five
Speaker 18: seats and the Reds don't get a single one. Oh well, finally,
Speaker 18: what if the Red party controls the state government. The
Speaker 18: Reds know they're at a numerical disadvantage, but with some
Speaker 18: creative boundary drawing, they can slice the Blue population up
Speaker 18: such that they only get a majority in two districts.
Speaker 18: So despite making up forty percent of the population, the
Speaker 18: Reds win sixty percent of the seats.
Speaker 1: Not that This.
Speaker 18: Process of redrawing district lines to give an advantage to
Speaker 18: one party over another is called jerrymandering, and it's nothing new.
Speaker 18: The term jerrymander is named after early nineteenth century Massachusetts
Speaker 18: governor Elbridge Jerry, who redrew the map of the Senate's
Speaker 18: districts in eighteen ten in order to weaken the opposing
Speaker 18: Federalist Party. Our example is, of course a huge simplification.
Speaker 18: In the real world, people don't live in neatly ordered
Speaker 18: grids sorded by plays party. But for politicians looking to
Speaker 18: give themselves an advantage at redistricting time, the process is
Speaker 18: exactly the same and the consequences are very real. Jerrymandering
Speaker 18: is at least partly to blame for lopsided representation in
Speaker 18: the House seen in recent elections, and it's been argued
Speaker 18: by the President for political polarization since representatives don't have
Speaker 18: to compromise hardline views in order to win seats.
Speaker 1: And there we have it. So I think you did
Speaker 1: a way better job of explaining it than I did.
Speaker 1: But so again, Jerry mannering is nothing new. Redrawing the
Speaker 1: maps are nothing new. But yeah, this is apparently what
Speaker 1: they're trying to go through in Louisiana, and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has to weigh in on it. And also for
Speaker 1: the record, Tony, with the example that we gave earlier,
Speaker 1: as far as like foreign assimilation, I feel the same
Speaker 1: way as far as like California transplants moving to Texas
Speaker 1: and trying to make Texas more like California. Like this
Speaker 1: is right. I know. Wait, you're a California transplant.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I grew up in California until I was thirty
Speaker 2: one to move to Texas.
Speaker 1: But do you vote like Californians or do you vote
Speaker 1: to keep Texas like Texas?
Speaker 2: No, I've always voted to libertarian and Republican.
Speaker 1: That's my point. You didn't come to California, or you
Speaker 1: didn't come to Texas trying to make it more like La.
Speaker 1: You came knowing that Texas is Texas, and if you
Speaker 1: want to keep it that way, you have to vote
Speaker 1: a certain way.
Speaker 2: So okay, well I got one other thought here. You know,
Speaker 2: California was more Republican when I was born than Texas
Speaker 2: is now. So Texas, unfortunately, as much as I love
Speaker 2: it and it's like the best state in so many ways,
Speaker 2: it's going to go the way California eventually. I hate
Speaker 2: to say it, but the whole US is a little
Speaker 2: screwed in that regard. Everything goes to the left with time.
Speaker 2: And I hate to be, you know, so doom pilled
Speaker 2: on this, but I just that's the way I see
Speaker 2: things going eventually, and I hate it.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, and I don't like it either.
Speaker 1: And to your point, for the record, California is majority red,
Speaker 1: like hands down. But if you look at population density
Speaker 1: and the big cities and how those dishes have been jerrymandered,
Speaker 1: this that makes the state inherently blue. The vast majority
Speaker 1: of people that live in California are hard line Republicans.
Speaker 1: It's the big cities and the surrounding areas that make
Speaker 1: it the blue state that it is, and Texas is
Speaker 1: going through their own version of that right now. And
Speaker 1: to that point, California and Texas just went through their
Speaker 1: own map redrawings last or this year, as a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, so it's it's just a mess.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Territorially, California is definitely very red. When you look
Speaker 2: at the map, I'd say the population is more like
Speaker 2: sixty percent Democrats, so it is a pretty large majority Democrat.
Speaker 2: And yet that forty percent of Republicans is still so big.
Speaker 2: There's more Republicans in California than there are in Texas,
Speaker 2: because California's population is about forty million, Texas is about
Speaker 2: twenty five. Yeah, in Texas, unfortunately it's gone a little
Speaker 2: purple recently. But yeah, in California there's still a surprising
Speaker 2: number of Republicans that most people aren't aware of.
Speaker 1: That's very true. It's very true. And again I'm hoping
Speaker 1: and praying to the Good Lord that Texas stays red.
Speaker 1: I agree with your statement, by the way, I don't
Speaker 1: want to be doom pilled. I want to get high
Speaker 1: on hopium over here. But at the same time, the
Speaker 1: facts of the facts, and if the trajectory that they
Speaker 1: have been on for the last few years continues down
Speaker 1: that way, it's only a matter of time. Texas was
Speaker 1: way more purple in the last elections than I think
Speaker 1: we've ever seen in our lifetime. Given another twenty years,
Speaker 1: thirty maybe and Texas might very well become a blue
Speaker 1: state and it will be a sad day. But anyway,
Speaker 1: all right, moving on from the conversation about politics, kind
Speaker 1: of but still in line with administrational changes and things.
Speaker 1: I don't know who's heard about this, but apparently there
Speaker 1: is about to be a Katari Air Force base built
Speaker 1: in Idaho. Now let's break this down because we're hearing
Speaker 1: a lot of conflicting reports here. There are some that
Speaker 1: are saying that it is going to be an American
Speaker 1: Air Force base that is used primarily to cross train
Speaker 1: kataripilots or cutter. I keep hearing that use that way
Speaker 1: whatever Katari pilots on the I think it's the F
Speaker 1: fifteen platform, which is what they primarily use over there,
Speaker 1: which is fine, is a great training jet. And so
Speaker 1: this base is going to be kind of seen as
Speaker 1: a joint force base for our international allies. But it's
Speaker 1: going to be a US Air Force base. Then there
Speaker 1: are others that are saying Katar is going to own
Speaker 1: the land itself, that this is on and they're going
Speaker 1: to have Katari troops stationed there year round. And we
Speaker 1: now have a foreign government with a military base on
Speaker 1: US soil, which is mind blowing that. Let's get into
Speaker 1: the article here. This is from Air Force Times dot com.
Speaker 1: Let's hear what the Secretary of War has to say
Speaker 1: on this. The War secretary that keep saying to Secretary,
Speaker 1: I swear to God. It's like these people can't read.
Speaker 1: The War Secretary's announcement that the United States would allow
Speaker 1: Qatar to build an air Force facility in Idaho was
Speaker 1: in the works for years, and mirrors accommodations made for
Speaker 1: a handful of other allies in the country. A US
Speaker 1: Air Force spokesperson told The Military Times on Tuesday, again,
Speaker 1: not Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. War Secretary Pete Hegseth said
Speaker 1: Friday during a meeting that the Pentagon, or at the
Speaker 1: Pentagon with his Katari counterpart, sowed then obdural Abdul Rahman
Speaker 1: Althani good Lord, that Mountain Home Air Force Base will
Speaker 1: host a contingent of Katari F fifteens and pilots to
Speaker 1: enhance our combined training and increase lethality interoperationally. After criticism
Speaker 1: from prominent figures in the GOP's magabase, including right wing
Speaker 1: personality Laura Lumer, which I'm sorry, I am not a
Speaker 1: fan of Laura Lumer even a little bit. God, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go on a quick side tangent about this human being.
Speaker 1: She is essentially a conservative. I'm gonna call her a
Speaker 1: content creator, and I mean that in a very demeaning way.
Speaker 1: And she is also one of these people that has
Speaker 1: Trump derangement syndrome on the other side of it, to
Speaker 1: think that everything that Trump says is as if it's
Speaker 1: the word of God himself. Okay, that being said, there's
Speaker 1: a Medal of Honor recipient that is a Democrat, and
Speaker 1: that's fine. Uh, she basically went on this whole spree
Speaker 1: of shitting on this guy and calling his service essentially bullshit.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind, he is awarded the Medal of Honor
Speaker 1: for some gangster shit that he did overseas for our country.
Speaker 1: But because he's listed as a Democrat, she decided to
Speaker 1: go ahead and try to take shots at this guy
Speaker 1: so on behalf of anybody that actually gives a fuck.
Speaker 1: Fuck Laura Lumer. Just so we're all clear, moving on,
Speaker 1: including right wing personality Laura Lumer. Qatar's media attache in
Speaker 1: the United States later clarified that a standalone Katari air
Speaker 1: base will not exist, reiterating that Qatar will have a
Speaker 1: facility at an existing US base. US Air Force spokesperson
Speaker 1: and Stephanick hope I pronounced that one right said that
Speaker 1: the service notified Congress about its intent to make a
Speaker 1: foreign military sale to Qatar in twenty seventeen, during President
Speaker 1: Trump's first term. An environmental assessment was made in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two at Mountain Home Air Force Base, where Singapore
Speaker 1: already has an F fifteen training facility that was established
Speaker 1: in two thousand and nine. Stephanick added Mountain Home is
Speaker 1: not only is not the only air Force base in
Speaker 1: America or on American soil with facilities owned and operated
Speaker 1: by foreign allies. The EUNATO Joint Jet Pilot Pro Training
Speaker 1: Program in Shepherd Air Force Base in Texas hosts allies
Speaker 1: including Germany, Italy, Norway, and the Netherlands. Singapore is another
Speaker 1: facility on Luke Air Force base in Arizona that will
Speaker 1: soon move to Ebbing Air National Guard Base in Arkansas.
Speaker 1: According to the US Air Force, they paid for it,
Speaker 1: and we build it and secure it. Stepanek said. Military
Speaker 1: leaders hailed a ribbon cutting for the new facility at
Speaker 1: Ebbing in September of twenty twenty four. The Air National
Speaker 1: Form military sale of F thirty five pilot training center
Speaker 1: is being funded and occupied by allies including Poland, Finland, Singapore,
Speaker 1: and Germany, with Poland graduating its first pilots from the
Speaker 1: training center in May of this year. City and local
Speaker 1: military officials in Mountain Home, Idaho holiday news conference Tuesday
Speaker 1: to address questions about last week's announcement of a new
Speaker 1: katar Amiri Air Force training facility at the nearby base.
Speaker 1: Direct quote here, I think the keyword here is hosting.
Speaker 1: We are excited to host the Katari's and partner with
Speaker 1: the Mountain Home Air Force Base. Colonel Michael A. Perez,
Speaker 1: commander of the three hundred and sixty six Maintenance Group
Speaker 1: at the base, tot reporters. This is nothing new. This
Speaker 1: has been in the works as far back as twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: City representatives and US military officials visit Qatar on in
Speaker 1: May Rather in twenty twenty three to discuss the Katari
Speaker 1: Air Force's needs and expectations. Mountain Home Mayor Rich Sykes said, so,
Speaker 1: to put it to rest here, Qatar is not going
Speaker 1: to own a base in the United States. They are
Speaker 1: going to own a building at a United States Air
Speaker 1: Force owned facility. And again this is not like it's crazy.
Speaker 1: We have had multiple countries do very similar things. And
Speaker 1: you know, Qatar is an ally of ours. I mean, yes,
Speaker 1: I understand that people are gonna throw shades their way
Speaker 1: because they're a Muslim country. I get it. Okay, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: have your opinions on this, But Qatar is a homie.
Speaker 1: I mean, they already have Patriot missile systems there. That
Speaker 1: was a whole thing we talked about whenever the Iran
Speaker 1: strikes happened on their nuclear facilities. Iran started firing at Katar.
Speaker 1: It's not this is an ally of ours. So I
Speaker 1: see the need for some cross training, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to some of our more high tech platforms, like
Speaker 1: the F thirty fives that is going out like hotcakes
Speaker 1: right now. America just gave the designation to Lockheed Martin
Speaker 1: to build two hundred and ninety six more f thirty fives.
Speaker 1: So with that being said, some cross training with our
Speaker 1: allies I think is not necessarily a negative thing. However,
Speaker 1: I completely understand people having a little bit of hesitancy
Speaker 1: towards the conversation. But let's get into it here. It's
Speaker 1: this is from KGW News as headlines swirl. Qatar won't
Speaker 1: have separate military bases in Idaho. Let's listen in that a.
Speaker 19: Foreign country could soon have a military base right here
Speaker 19: in the northwest in Idaho, about fifty miles southeast of Boise.
Speaker 19: Secretary Pete Hegseth made the announcement Friday alongside leadership of
Speaker 19: the Middle Eastern country we're talking about here, Qatar.
Speaker 20: Today, we're announcing or signing a letter of acceptance to
Speaker 20: build a Katari Emi Air Force facility at the Mountain Home.
Speaker 1: Air Base in Idaho. Location will be host.
Speaker 20: To contingent of Katari F fifteen's and pilots to enhance
Speaker 20: our combined training, increase lethality, interoperability. Is just another example
Speaker 20: of our partnership.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 19: Of course, in the wake of that announcement, social media
Speaker 19: was ablaze with reaction from both sides of the aisle,
Speaker 19: and while the announcement appears to mark the first time
Speaker 19: a foreign country will have its own base on US soil,
Speaker 19: there's a lot of context missing if you only hear
Speaker 19: that part and not the rest of the story. So
Speaker 19: let's dive in. Qatar will not have its own separate base.
Speaker 19: It will be a group of buildings to handle training
Speaker 19: and maintenance for Katari troops at the US Air Force
Speaker 19: Mountain home Base. A US Air Force spokesperson says security
Speaker 19: at the base itself will continue to be handled by
Speaker 19: US forces, requiring proper credentials to enter and things like that.
Speaker 19: In fact, that same base in Idaho has hosted a
Speaker 19: squadron of fighter jets from Singapore since two thousand and eight.
Speaker 19: Secretary Hegseth even posted on social media Friday night, writing,
Speaker 19: in part, to be clear, Qatar will not have their
Speaker 19: own base in the United States, nor anything like a base.
Speaker 19: We control the existing base like we do with all partners.
Speaker 19: It's also worth noting this agreement with Qatar has been
Speaker 19: in the works for several years. The country decided to
Speaker 19: buy the fighter jets from a US government program called
Speaker 19: Foreign Military Sales back in twenty seventeen. The US Air
Speaker 19: Force says discussions to train Katari troops on those jets
Speaker 19: began shortly thereafter, around twenty twenty, work began on an
Speaker 19: environmental assessment to look it impacts to the area for
Speaker 19: Qatari facilities, and that assessment was completed in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 19: That's what you're looking at here. And on the flip side,
Speaker 19: Katar hosts a US air base in the Middle East
Speaker 19: with roughly ten thousand American troops. So that's more of
Speaker 19: the background leading up to Friday's announcement. But there's been
Speaker 19: movement recently between the countries as well. Two weeks ago,
Speaker 19: President Trump signed an executive order guaranteeing the security security
Speaker 19: of Qatar, which is not a member of NATO. Shortly
Speaker 19: after that, the Israeli government and Hamas agreed to a
Speaker 19: peace deal, which Qatar was involved with. But why allow
Speaker 19: Qatar to have a military presence in the US. It's
Speaker 19: a thorny issue, no doubt. Qatar has been accused of
Speaker 19: financing terrorist organizations and has played both sides of the
Speaker 19: fence when it comes to Israel and Jamas. But as
Speaker 19: many of you remember, the news of these Katari facilities
Speaker 19: in the US is not the first flight related news
Speaker 19: involving the country and the current administration. In the White House,
Speaker 19: Cutter asked for anything in exchange for that four hundred
Speaker 19: million dollar luxury jumbo jet, and how can the American
Speaker 19: people be so sure that they will.
Speaker 1: Not in the future.
Speaker 14: Well, I think what happens with the plane is that,
Speaker 14: you know, we're very disappointed that it's taken Boeing so
Speaker 14: long to build a new air Force one. You know,
Speaker 14: we have an air Force one that's forty years old.
Speaker 1: I have a lot of.
Speaker 14: Respect for the leadership and for the leader guitar, and
Speaker 14: I think they very nice. They knew about it because
Speaker 14: they buy Boeings. They buy a lot of Boeings, and
Speaker 14: they knew about it, and they said, we would like
Speaker 14: to do something, and if we can get a seven
Speaker 14: forty seven as a contribution to our defense department to
Speaker 14: use during a couple of years while they're building the
Speaker 14: other ones. I think that was a very nice gesture. Now,
Speaker 14: I could be a stupid person to say, oh, no,
Speaker 14: we don't want a free plane. We give free things
Speaker 14: that we'll take one too. And I think this was
Speaker 14: just a gesture of good faith.
Speaker 19: Back in May the Defense Department announced it as officially
Speaker 19: accepted that luxury jet from Qatar to use as the
Speaker 19: new Air Force One. The gift drew concerns from lawmakers
Speaker 19: in both parties, but that did nothing to stop the
Speaker 19: plane's delivery. Also worth noting, a Trump branded golf course
Speaker 19: is being developed in Qatar, so that can't really be
Speaker 19: ignored here either, as the Trump Organization's business deals with
Speaker 19: foreign governments with President Trump still in office have generated
Speaker 19: questions as well. But back to the original headline here,
Speaker 19: a foreign country building a military base on US soil.
Speaker 19: Qatar will not have its own base, but it will
Speaker 19: have its own facilities as part of a US Air
Speaker 19: Force base.
Speaker 1: Okay, so there we go a little bit more in
Speaker 1: depth on this. And yes, it is worth noting that
Speaker 1: Qatar just donated the new Air Force one to Trump.
Speaker 1: It's a very lavish, expensive gift. Perhaps that was something
Speaker 1: to be said. As far as greasing the wheels goes
Speaker 1: with this new military joint venture, I don't know that
Speaker 1: for a fact, but it makes sense on paper. But again,
Speaker 1: this is not unprecedented. There are multiple countries that are
Speaker 1: allies of ours that have done very similar things. Now,
Speaker 1: Qatar is an interesting case because they have been seen
Speaker 1: as riding the fence when it comes to for instance, Gaza,
Speaker 1: and there is a couple of claims that have been
Speaker 1: made about them funding and supporting terrorist organizations. Then also
Speaker 1: they have a lot of a military personnel from the
Speaker 1: United States station there. We have a base in Qatar,
Speaker 1: so kind of interesting. I understand people's hesitation, I really do,
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying it's not you know, it's not unfounded.
Speaker 1: But I also am of the belief that when you
Speaker 1: look at the amount of Katari money that is being
Speaker 1: spent on US politicians right now, not just the air
Speaker 1: Force one gift, I mean legislators, congressmen, senators, all of
Speaker 1: these people, representatives, A lot of people want to draw
Speaker 1: comparisons about or or at least draw attention to Ape
Speaker 1: and sure we should do that. Qatar is out spending
Speaker 1: Israel right now by leaps and bounds. As far as
Speaker 1: buying American politicians, I feel like that also might have
Speaker 1: something to do with the greasing of the wheels to
Speaker 1: get this pushed through. Anyway, moving on, while we're still
Speaker 1: talking about aircraft and bases and things, and we're not
Speaker 1: gonna spend too much time on this. But did anybody
Speaker 1: hear about the mysterious aircraft crash near Area fifty one
Speaker 1: in October of this year? Now, well, let's learn about
Speaker 1: it together. Mysterious aircraft crash near Area fifty one just
Speaker 1: got weirder. The incident in the Nevada Desert prompted flight
Speaker 1: restrictions over the crash site, and now a joint investigation
Speaker 1: with the FBI. This article was published October sixth of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. Let's get into it here. Details are
Speaker 1: man scant about an unspecified US Air Force aircraft widely
Speaker 1: believed to be a drone of some kind, which came
Speaker 1: down in southern Nevada not far from Area fifty one
Speaker 1: nearly two weeks ago. Whether the aircraft was ever actually
Speaker 1: inside Area fifty one's highly restricted airspace, also known as
Speaker 1: the Box, is unknown. The mishap prompted authorities to temporarily
Speaker 1: close the airspace above the crash site with some exemptions,
Speaker 1: while the wreckage was cleared. In a bizarre twist of events,
Speaker 1: the US Air Force has publicly disclosed that it and
Speaker 1: the FBI are now investigating apparent strange tamperings at the
Speaker 1: crash site afterwards. This crash happened on September twenty third.
Speaker 1: Let's get into it. On September twenty third, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: an aircraft assigned to the four hundred and thirty second
Speaker 1: Air Wing was involved in an incident with no fatalities
Speaker 1: or injuries, the wings public affairs officers released in the
Speaker 1: statement regarding the incident on October fourth. The site was
Speaker 1: secured and guarded until recovery and clean up operations were
Speaker 1: completed on September twenty second. Excuse me, twenty seventh. The
Speaker 1: four hundred and thirty second Wing is headquartered at Creech
Speaker 1: Air Force Base. The flying squadron assigned to the four
Speaker 1: to thirty second are primarily equipped with MQ nine Reaper drones,
Speaker 1: but this is not the only type of aircraft the
Speaker 1: wing operates, as we will come to learn later on.
Speaker 1: This is a picture of the MQ nine Reaper, by
Speaker 1: the way. During a follow on site survey on October third,
Speaker 1: investigators discovered signs of tampering at the mishap location, including
Speaker 1: the presence of an inert training bomb body and an
Speaker 1: aircraft panel of unknown origin that were placed on the
Speaker 1: site post incident. The release put out this past weekend.
Speaker 1: At it the matter is under investigation by the Air
Speaker 1: Force and special investigations in the FBI. No further details
Speaker 1: are available at this time. So again they go more
Speaker 1: in depth with it all, and I feel like we
Speaker 1: might even make a cult conspiracy episode talking about this event.
Speaker 1: But I just wanted to make a mention of this. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this was alien craft. I'm also not
Speaker 1: not saying it, but it's interesting that there is yet
Speaker 1: another random, crazy, questionable crack near Area fifty one in Nevada.
Speaker 1: So I just thought it would be fun to bring
Speaker 1: that up to kind of break up the the more
Speaker 1: negative conversations that we are having. Now, there is a
Speaker 1: video that has been making its way around the interwebs.
Speaker 1: Hamas gunman are carrying out public executions right now. This
Speaker 1: ties into Hamas carrying out public executions of one hundreds
Speaker 1: of victims last week. But let's talk about it a
Speaker 1: little more in depth, because out loud that sounds wild.
Speaker 1: Let's learn about this. We're gonna listen to Sky News
Speaker 1: Australia just for a few minutes of this, and then
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into some articles breaking down what this
Speaker 1: is and why these executions are taking place. Let's learn together.
Speaker 21: A graphic video has shown Hamas fighters conducting a public
Speaker 21: execution of alleged Israeli collaborators. The footage here shows Hamas
Speaker 21: gunman lining up seven men in a public square and
Speaker 21: shooting them from behind. Hamas confirmed the authenticity of the video.
Speaker 1: The group told Reuters they.
Speaker 21: Will not be tolerated any violations of ordering. Gaza Palestinian
Speaker 21: security sources say dozens of people have been killed and
Speaker 21: clashes between Hamas fighters and rival tribal groups in recent days.
Speaker 22: It depends on what level you want to go down to.
Speaker 22: But you know you've got Hamas and allied groups who are,
Speaker 22: if you like, of an Islamist stamp. You've also got
Speaker 22: non Islamist, hardline Palestinians who reject any accommodation with Israel.
Speaker 22: And then you've got some groups who are not allied
Speaker 22: with Hamas. And then you've got clans and families. In
Speaker 22: many cases those people are against Hamas as well.
Speaker 21: So what you got there is a power vacuum. We've
Speaker 21: seen this before. Joining us live on our Wednesday morning
Speaker 21: is our panel with two men with experience in intelligence
Speaker 21: communities in ca Labor MP Julian here, Liberal MP Philip Thompson.
Speaker 21: Good morning to you both. So, Julian, I'll start with
Speaker 21: you here. How concerned are you about a war if
Speaker 21: you like within.
Speaker 23: A war, war, a war within a war, pain, a.
Speaker 21: War within a war. You've got a war within a
Speaker 21: war if you want me to spell it out. You've
Speaker 21: got a small kind of civil war between these rival
Speaker 21: groups in Gaza, now that small picture, while you've got
Speaker 21: the bigger war which Donald Trump now has conceded.
Speaker 23: Is over happy to comment on that. I thought you're
Speaker 23: talking about the Coalition and the Liberal Party and their
Speaker 23: civil war. Look, that video is disgusting and it reinforces
Speaker 23: the position the government's taken to listen to MASS as
Speaker 23: a terrorist group and make clear that they can have
Speaker 23: no role in the future governance of a Palestinian state.
Speaker 21: Philip, as someone who knows a bit about warfare, what
Speaker 21: do you make of this power vacuum?
Speaker 24: Well, it's quite concerning. And hearing from President Trump earlier
Speaker 24: saying that if a mass doesn't disarm, he'll disarm them,
Speaker 24: it is very concerning to see that there is conflict
Speaker 24: that is bubbled up over again and execution's happening. We
Speaker 24: should be keeping a close eye on it because if
Speaker 24: it isn't controlled, it will explode into militia style conflict
Speaker 24: throughout the regions and something that we don't want to see,
Speaker 24: especially in times of peace.
Speaker 21: Talking yeah, I mean this is what we'd be phasing
Speaker 21: if we went in with peacekeeping troops. John o'duanneam supported
Speaker 21: that yesterday. If we were asked big caveat there, would
Speaker 21: you support that? Phillip peacekeeping troops to Gaza.
Speaker 1: I think it's a.
Speaker 24: Bit early right now to be talking about setting Australians
Speaker 24: as peacekeepers, especially since we're only now seeing the release
Speaker 24: of hostages. Not all of the bodies of the hostages
Speaker 24: have been released. It's still in turmoil and conflict and
Speaker 24: things like that. It will put people in danger. And
Speaker 24: if you're going over to be a peacekeeper, it's not
Speaker 24: supposed to be in a kinetic role. You're not supposed
Speaker 24: to be gunfighting. You're supposed to be there to make
Speaker 24: sure that the peace is stable and happening. With linking
Speaker 24: backs to the NAT, the UN, the US, I don't
Speaker 24: think we're there yet because of these public executions. If
Speaker 24: Australians were there now, it would be a kinetic fight
Speaker 24: and it would draw in every other nation. So I
Speaker 24: think we've got to watch this from a distance, but
Speaker 24: also make sure that we're standing closely with our allies
Speaker 24: in the US and the UK and offer support where
Speaker 24: they think it's needed. But right now we'd been in
Speaker 24: a gunfight.
Speaker 9: How would you feel about peacekeepers, Julian, I mean the
Speaker 9: government would consider any requests for contributions to international efforts
Speaker 9: in the normal way. I'll make one point I've said
Speaker 9: for years, I think on your show, Pete, in forums
Speaker 9: and elsewhere, that my view about this decade's old conflict
Speaker 9: is that it will only end when the world sets
Speaker 9: limits to the conflict and intervenes collectively to guarantee the
Speaker 9: security of the State of Israel and the Palestinian state.
Speaker 1: So, yes, there was public executions. Hamas was doing it
Speaker 1: to Palestinian people. They were saying that these were Israeli
Speaker 1: sympathizers for lack of better words. They had their own
Speaker 1: claims as far as what these people were, and look,
Speaker 1: this is a group that is carrying out their own
Speaker 1: justice on their land. And I get that. But also
Speaker 1: for everybody that thinks that you know, these poor gosins
Speaker 1: were not being repressed or you know, in any way
Speaker 1: by Hamas. It's not a good look. And Hamas even
Speaker 1: came out later and said, no, that was absolutely us.
Speaker 1: We were absolutely doing public executions in the street. Again,
Speaker 1: not a good look. And there is currently a power
Speaker 1: vacuum in Gaza because Hamas was the ruling faction. Yes,
Speaker 1: they had elected leaders, but they were put there by Hamas. Okay,
Speaker 1: now Hamas has lost power quote unquote, and I am
Speaker 1: hoping that they will stay without power in this area.
Speaker 1: We shall see how this plays out. But let's get
Speaker 1: into the BBC article here. Footage shows public executions in
Speaker 1: Gaza city streets. Footage has emerged showing the public executions
Speaker 1: of three men accused of being Israeli collaborators in Gaza City.
Speaker 1: This was published, I should mention on October twenty second.
Speaker 1: This is before the six men that we just saw
Speaker 1: being publicly executed as well, So there is a mass
Speaker 1: of public executions that are going on here. BBC Verify
Speaker 1: has verified wow that the location of the executions was
Speaker 1: on a street outside of Shifa Hospital in the center
Speaker 1: of the city, which is the focus of a major
Speaker 1: Israeli ground offensive. Video circulating on Sunday evening showed at
Speaker 1: least five armed, armed and masked men, three blind, blindfolded
Speaker 1: Palestinian men kneeling on the ground, and a large crowd.
Speaker 1: One of the armed men is heard saying the death
Speaker 1: sentence has been decided for all collaborators. There are cheers
Speaker 1: before the three men are pushed to the ground and
Speaker 1: shot several times in the back of the head. The
Speaker 1: crowd then praises Hamas armed wing the Casam brigades. The
Speaker 1: Palaestinian security official from the Hamas run Gaza government told
Speaker 1: Reuters that the execution were carried out by the Joint
Speaker 1: Operations Room of Palestinian Resistance. This is a rare instance
Speaker 1: in which a public execution in Gaza has been captured
Speaker 1: on video. There have been previous reports of Hamas using
Speaker 1: violence on those who dissent. In May, Hamas led groups
Speaker 1: are poorly executed four Palestinians for looting aid trucks Okay.
Speaker 1: In Sunday's footage, one armed man singles out Yasir Abu
Speaker 1: Shabab as a major collaborator who they seek to kill.
Speaker 1: Abu Shabab is a major figurehead of a clan which
Speaker 1: has reportedly been armed by the Israeli government. It has
Speaker 1: been operating in Rafa, in an area under Israeli military control.
Speaker 1: The group has presented itself as an opposition forced to Hamas.
Speaker 1: So again, depending on what narrative you'll get, Gaza is
Speaker 1: only just anti Israel, and there's nobody in Gaza that
Speaker 1: does not like Hamas. That is certifiably not true. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's it's the wherever you go, there's gonna be leading faction,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be people that do not like that leading faction.
Speaker 1: So the media has skewed and spun a lot of
Speaker 1: this narrative as far as Gaza is concerned, some of
Speaker 1: it some of it very purposely done to make Hamas
Speaker 1: look like victims and all this, and it's crazy to me.
Speaker 1: The victims of this entire conflict have been the civilian
Speaker 1: population in the Gaza strip. Hamas have been the bad guys.
Speaker 1: The IDF have been the bad guys. The civilian population
Speaker 1: who wanted none of this smoke are the only ones
Speaker 1: that have really suffered. I'm gonna just call it now,
Speaker 1: but anyway, in July, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed that
Speaker 1: Israel was arming clans in Gaza that he said were
Speaker 1: opposed to Hamas. However, Yaser Abu Shabab posted online to
Speaker 1: categorically reject that Israel had supplied his group's weapons. Okay,
Speaker 1: so Hamas just doesn't like this guy and his claiming
Speaker 1: that he is Israeli aligned whenever he himself said that's
Speaker 1: not true. That same month, a senior officer in Hamas's
Speaker 1: security forces told the bb SEE that the Palestinian Armed
Speaker 1: Group had lost much of its control over the Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip and that armed clans were filling the void. Aboushabab's
Speaker 1: armed group has been advertising for recruits on social media,
Speaker 1: was reported. The news agency quoted residents and sources close
Speaker 1: to Hamas As saying that other groups opposed to Hamas
Speaker 1: had also emerged in parts of northern Gaza and near
Speaker 1: Khan Yunis in southern Gaza. Israeli troops, meanwhile, have continued
Speaker 1: to operate in Gaza City. The Israeli military said troops
Speaker 1: had dismantled military infrastructure used by Hamas and killed a
Speaker 1: Hamas cell that had attacked Israeli soldiers, wounding an officer.
Speaker 1: It is said that its objectives are to free the
Speaker 1: hostages still held by Hamas and defeat up to three
Speaker 1: thousand fighters in what it has described as the group's
Speaker 1: main stronghold. However, the offensive in Gaza's biggest urban area,
Speaker 1: where one million people were living and a famine was
Speaker 1: confirmed last month, has drawn widespread international condemnation. Last week,
Speaker 1: a spokesperson for the UN's Humanitarian Office said she had
Speaker 1: seen a constant stream of Palestinians heading south during a
Speaker 1: recent visit to the city, but that hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: remained in the city. She described the situation as cataclysmic.
Speaker 1: The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza to response
Speaker 1: to the Israelis attack on southern Israel on October seventh,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, in which about twelve hundred people were
Speaker 1: killed and two hundred and fifty one were taken hostage.
Speaker 1: At least sixty five thousand, three hundred and forty four
Speaker 1: people have been killed in Israeli attacks and Gaza since then,
Speaker 1: according to the territories Hamas run health Ministry. Now, all
Speaker 1: of that being said, as of this moment, HAMAS says
Speaker 1: that it has returned all Israeli hostages that it can recover,
Speaker 1: living and dead. This was posted five hours ago. Let's
Speaker 1: listen in This is from CBS News.
Speaker 12: And Hamas says it has returned all of the Israeli
Speaker 12: hostages that it is able to recover, living and dead.
Speaker 12: That would mean the remains of nearly two dozen people
Speaker 12: kidnapped on October seventh, twenty twenty three, they never come home.
Speaker 12: Barbara Plutt, Usher with our partners at BBC News, has.
Speaker 25: More a dispute over the remains of the dead hostages
Speaker 25: is shaking up the ceasefire here. Israel had said that
Speaker 25: Hamas wasn't handing over enough bodies fast enough, and it
Speaker 25: threatened to restrict the flow of aid into Gaza. Hamas
Speaker 25: responded by handing over a few more, including two of
Speaker 25: them on Wednesday night. But now it's saying that's all
Speaker 25: it can do for now. It says it's committed to
Speaker 25: the ceasefire deal, but locating and recovering the rest of
Speaker 25: the bodies is going to be a major effort and
Speaker 25: will require special equipment. Now, it was understood that finding
Speaker 25: some of the bodies would be quite difficult because of
Speaker 25: the ruins and rubble of Gaza. But Hamas has only
Speaker 25: handed over nine. There are still nineteen left and in Gaza,
Speaker 25: Palestinians are worried that any further delays will cut off
Speaker 25: the flow of aid. They have been stockpiling what food
Speaker 25: there is and the prices have really been rising. Under
Speaker 25: the deal, Israel is also supposed to hand back the
Speaker 25: bodies of Palestinian prisoners. So far it has returned ninety,
Speaker 25: but the hospital is struggling to identify some of them
Speaker 25: because they came with numbers, not names, and the doctor
Speaker 25: in charge says that some of them are unrecognizable.
Speaker 12: Back to you, Barbara Flett Usher, thank you.
Speaker 1: So we shall see what happens with this. Is this
Speaker 1: going to be the thing that makes the conflict kick
Speaker 1: back off because they're not returning all the bodies? Are
Speaker 1: they going to find some other thing to keep the
Speaker 1: flames of this conflict alive? And well? Are they going
Speaker 1: to let cooler heads prevail finally and let the ceasefire continue?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know, Tony. You have a
Speaker 1: couple of different opinions on this. I'm sure what is
Speaker 1: your take on this?
Speaker 2: Sorry, I was still stuck back in the Gaza situation.
Speaker 2: I saw a lot of people actually saying, oh yeah,
Speaker 2: Hamas was totally right to execute those people, and I
Speaker 2: didn't look into it a huge amount. They blamed them
Speaker 2: for price gouging, which is something that I don't believe
Speaker 2: is wrong in the first place, and collaborating with Israel,
Speaker 2: which may be true but also may not be true.
Speaker 2: There's an enormous amount of pressure on the people who
Speaker 2: lived there. And also I think they're very PTSD. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of PTSD in Gaza, so they are going
Speaker 2: to be less inhibited in killing each other now than
Speaker 2: they would have been otherwise because they've seen so much
Speaker 2: death and this is just kind of something they're inured
Speaker 2: to now, if that's the right word. They're kind of
Speaker 2: numb to it. But you're asking about the Taliban and Pakistan.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I was asking about Gaza. I was
Speaker 1: asking you what your take was on Gaza. But we're
Speaker 1: going to get to Afghanistan and Pakistan here in a moment.
Speaker 1: But before we get there, I did want to check
Speaker 1: out the chat and I did want to hear in
Speaker 1: from any of you that have any opinions on what
Speaker 1: we have covered thus far. And I know that you
Speaker 1: Tony or somebody that keeps your finger on the pulse
Speaker 1: for geopolitical things. So I was wondering what your take
Speaker 1: was on the Hamas. I don't want to use the
Speaker 1: term death squad because I feel like that's not exactly accurate,
Speaker 1: but them seeking their own specific brand of justice for
Speaker 1: Israeli collaborators, and I also could get that point right,
Speaker 1: So like, if these people are aligning themselves with Hamasa's enemy,
Speaker 1: executions are to be expected. But I'm also wondering if
Speaker 1: that is going to be used as more provocation to
Speaker 1: keep the conflict going even further aligned. Aside from the
Speaker 1: bodies not being recovered and returned to Israel and all that,
Speaker 1: the public executions are not a good look as far
Speaker 1: as showing that they nobody wants Amasa to continue to
Speaker 1: be the reigning power in Gaza. But this shows that
Speaker 1: they still have power in Gaza. So do you think
Speaker 1: that that might also play into Israel showing even more
Speaker 1: of a military presence in this area going forward.
Speaker 2: Well, I bet I bet that half the population of
Speaker 2: Gaza still will want Hamas in power. It's gonna be
Speaker 2: hard to tell. But like the North Korea, I believe
Speaker 2: that Kim Jong un is legitimately popular there. And even
Speaker 2: if you didn't put a gun to people's heads, they
Speaker 2: would still say, oh, yeah, he's our guy. He's the
Speaker 2: only guy they can imagine as his leader. And it's
Speaker 2: probably similar with Hamas. Another thought that pops into my
Speaker 2: mind is there are a lot of executions at the
Speaker 2: end of World War Two by the Allied side and
Speaker 2: the Axis side when they could do it too, right
Speaker 2: before they lost power. It's kind of sad that that's
Speaker 2: just how people, the behavior people drift into when there's
Speaker 2: a lot of death around, they must feel like it's
Speaker 2: going to solve problems. And I think it's kind of
Speaker 2: ironic that the Europeans, at least my whole life, have
Speaker 2: been very anti death penalty and they really look down
Speaker 2: on Americans for it. But just in living memory, it's
Speaker 2: fading now, But at the end of the World War
Speaker 2: Two they were still executing people with guillotines.
Speaker 1: The French last guillotine death happened in like the seventies.
Speaker 2: Death penalty until nineteen seventy.
Speaker 1: Seven, yeah, seventy seven.
Speaker 2: In fact, Japan still exercises the death penalty. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean they haven't. I think Japan had a moratorium on
Speaker 2: it in like twenty eighteen way more recently than you
Speaker 2: would have expected, and it's still on the books over there.
Speaker 2: But and China still does it. But yeah, yeah, Gaza
Speaker 2: having the death penalty, maybe it shocks Western Europeans, but
Speaker 2: it really shouldn't shock most people.
Speaker 1: In Yeah, I would agree with that.
Speaker 2: Doesn't Reel have the death penalty.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they do. I believe they do,
Speaker 1: but I think it has to be. It can't just
Speaker 1: be for like, you know, a string of bank robberies
Speaker 1: or anything like that. It has to be basically an
Speaker 1: attack on Israel itself. Yeah, they I could. I don't.
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine them not having the death pane,
Speaker 1: to be completely honest with you. With net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: in charge, there's no way. There's no way. But I
Speaker 1: don't know. But yeah, so I'm with you. I'm not
Speaker 1: against people getting their justice by any means. Of course,
Speaker 1: I'm not pro Hamas here, and I don't think that
Speaker 1: Hamas is like the good guys in executing these people.
Speaker 1: But I understand that I also have my own biases
Speaker 1: as far as that's concerned. It's not the executions that
Speaker 1: have a problem with Yeah, I think I am against
Speaker 1: the death penalty, just in principle, I could go either
Speaker 1: ray on it.
Speaker 2: I'm not super strongly opinionated on it. The people who
Speaker 2: say that, well, you're not pro life unless you're also
Speaker 2: against the death penalty, I think that's.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: There's way more important issues out there than the death
Speaker 2: penalty ward peace and abortion, and there's a whole host
Speaker 2: of other issues. How many people die of the death
Speaker 2: penalty every year worldwide? Maybe a few dozen or hundred, right,
Speaker 2: and they mostly deserve it, right, you know, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to cry too hard about them.
Speaker 1: No, I agree with you one hundred percent. But I
Speaker 1: am curious how that's gonna shake out. As far as
Speaker 1: the Israel Gaza conflict is concerned, I don't know for
Speaker 1: a fact that Israel is going to use that as
Speaker 1: justification to continue pushing further in with a military presence.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they're gonna use the issue with
Speaker 1: the recovering of bodies of captives as provocation either. I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that cooler heads can prevail and that this whole
Speaker 1: situation can be put to rest in whatever the hell
Speaker 1: that looks like moving forward. But I also don't believe
Speaker 1: that net Yahoo is satisfied. So I wouldn't be surprised
Speaker 1: if he looks for any and all reasons as provocation
Speaker 1: to continue to push. But we shall see, we shall
Speaker 1: see how things shake out. And to all the people
Speaker 1: listening to the Cajun Night, I know there's thousands of
Speaker 1: you listening. As a matter of fact, I look at
Speaker 1: the analytics. I know what's happening. You would need to
Speaker 1: be a part of this conversation. Go to link in
Speaker 1: the description below and join us at Cajun Night on
Speaker 1: Patreon to join us every Wednesday night to let us
Speaker 1: hear what you think about the conversation. But moving forward,
Speaker 1: let's talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan. All right. So both
Speaker 1: the articles I have pulled up from this are from
Speaker 1: Al Jazeera. Yes, I understand they have their biases as
Speaker 1: far as things are concerned, But that being said, I
Speaker 1: think it's worth listening. So real quick, we got a
Speaker 1: four minute video that we're going to play here. This
Speaker 1: article doesn't do a really great job all the way down,
Speaker 1: is more like a blog post. I do have an
Speaker 1: article that we're going to talk about here in a moment,
Speaker 1: but right now, let's hear from this video here. It's
Speaker 1: a four minute long video describing what is going down
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 26: Taliban and Pakistani forces have traded five across the Afghan border,
Speaker 26: with Taliban officials saying their forces captured three Pakistani military outposts.
Speaker 26: Taliban said the attack represents a retaliation for what it
Speaker 26: calls a violation of its sovereignty on Thursday with air
Speaker 26: strikes on the capital Kabul. Pakistan has long accused of
Speaker 26: Askanisan of harboring armed groups that carry out attacks inside
Speaker 26: its territory. Islamabad also said its forces destroyed Taliban outposts.
Speaker 26: Afghanistan's foreign ministers said on Friday relations with his country
Speaker 26: must go through proper diplomatic channels.
Speaker 27: Afghanistani, could you be no foreign military has ever been
Speaker 27: accepted by the people of Afghanistan and they still don't
Speaker 27: accept it. This is our decision that Afghanistan is a
Speaker 27: free and independent country and after this it will remain
Speaker 27: free and independent. If countries want to have relations with us,
Speaker 27: they can come to the diplomatic mission, but we don't
Speaker 27: accept them in military uniform.
Speaker 26: Kamal Haida joins US live now from Islamabid with the
Speaker 26: latest on this developing story. Come on what is actually
Speaker 26: going on here?
Speaker 28: Well, First of all, It's important to note that there's
Speaker 28: a little bit of a background here, and that is
Speaker 28: the fact that Pakistan had repeatedly, as you mentioned, told
Speaker 28: the Afghan side that they must restrain and prevent the
Speaker 28: grot bordered attacks because under the Dohai Agreement, the Afgran
Speaker 28: Taliban had assured that their soil would not be used
Speaker 28: in attacks on any country. So importantly, the Pakistanis told
Speaker 28: the Avrans that they must do something on several occasions. However,
Speaker 28: they did not get a firm reply, and in the
Speaker 28: past week, Pakistan lost almost two dozen of its security
Speaker 28: forces personnel, including officers, in attacks carried out near the
Speaker 28: Afgran border. Pakistan had said that it would retaliate and
Speaker 28: take massage into its own hand after those reports of
Speaker 28: air incursions into Afghan airspace. The Taliban said that they
Speaker 28: were launching a reprisal attack, after which the Pakistanis retaliated
Speaker 28: with heavy artillery fire as well. They're claiming that they
Speaker 28: have taken over nineteen posts from the Avrans on that
Speaker 28: border area. And also the fact that this comes at
Speaker 28: a time when the Afghan foreign Minister Mutaki is in Delhi,
Speaker 28: which Pakistan viewed with suspicion because of its deteriorating relationship
Speaker 28: with India. Pakistan continues to maintain that these ttp fighters
Speaker 28: are directly getting support from the Indian intelligence.
Speaker 26: Come on, the Taliban and Pakistan have had quite close
Speaker 26: ties though in the past.
Speaker 28: Indeed, it is alarming because over the past, after this
Speaker 28: new government took over, and we're talking about Taliban one
Speaker 28: point oh and this is Taliban two point oh, it
Speaker 28: has changed a lot. There are restrictions inside Afghanistan on
Speaker 28: women's education, women's rights, and of course the fact that Afghanistan,
Speaker 28: according to Pakistan, has not been able to live up
Speaker 28: to its promises of preventing their territory being you their
Speaker 28: sanctuaries for carrying out the attacks against Pakistan, so that
Speaker 28: relationship has now starved. Pakistan says that it does not
Speaker 28: take kindly to this new growing nexus between New Delhi
Speaker 28: and Kabbal and of course, Pakistan said that it will
Speaker 28: retaliate in kind whenever provoked. This is of course a
Speaker 28: dangerous crisis because both countries have economic issues, both countries
Speaker 28: have a history of friendship and brotherhood, and of course
Speaker 28: friendly countries are now asking Pakistan and Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia
Speaker 28: Cutter even the Iranian foreign minister saying that both sides
Speaker 28: must exercise maximum restraint and try to solve this diplomatically.
Speaker 1: Come on, thank you very much. Come on, hid there
Speaker 1: in all right? So let's read in a little bit
Speaker 1: here updates. Afghanistan's Taliban and Pakistan say border clashes killed dozens.
Speaker 1: Some of the keynotes that we need to talk about
Speaker 1: what happened today as we closed the live page soon.
Speaker 1: Pakistan's military says it has killed more than two hundred
Speaker 1: Taliban and other fighters in an overnight border clash, adding
Speaker 1: that twenty three of its soldiers were killed and twenty
Speaker 1: were injured. It added that its forces carried out infrastructure
Speaker 1: damages to Taliban posts, camps, headquarters and support networks. Afghanistan
Speaker 1: claims it killed fifty eight Pakistani soldiers in the fighting.
Speaker 1: Afghani Foreign Minister Amir Khan Matiki says Kabul achieved our
Speaker 1: military objectives last night and that its military has paused
Speaker 1: the fighting from our side for the time being. Katar
Speaker 1: and Saudi Arabia have expressed deep concern over the recent
Speaker 1: escalation and tensions along the border, calling for restraint and
Speaker 1: the need to be to de escalate Iran said it
Speaker 1: was ready to assist in easing tensions between the two countries.
Speaker 1: Of course, Iran is there to hease the tension because
Speaker 1: they don't have any anything they need to be more
Speaker 1: pressed with anyway. So real quick, here is a map
Speaker 1: of the situation along the Afghani and Pakistani borders showing
Speaker 1: some of the conflicts that have taken place. And again,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna spend too much time into this article
Speaker 1: because it seems like it's more of a blog post
Speaker 1: than an article, but we do have another Al Jazer
Speaker 1: article pulled up talking about it. So it says that
Speaker 1: it claimed dozens of casualties in the border clashes. Let's
Speaker 1: get into it here. Pakistan's military says it killed more
Speaker 1: than two hundred Afghan Afghan fighters, while Afghanistan claimed it
Speaker 1: killed fifty eight Pakistani soldiers in cross border clashes along
Speaker 1: their frontier. A spokesperson for Afghanistan's Taliban government on Sunday
Speaker 1: said thirty other Pakistani soldiers were wounded and a significant
Speaker 1: amount of Pakistani weapons fell into Afghan hands. Now, the
Speaker 1: Taliban blames Pakistan after an explosion or explosions in Kabul
Speaker 1: amid outreach to India. Pakistani raids near Afghan border killed
Speaker 1: at least nineteen soldiers and thirty five fighters. Now, how
Speaker 1: Pakistan misread the Taliban and lost peace on the frontier,
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about that, and India to reopen
Speaker 1: its embassy in Kabul after four year hiatus amid new
Speaker 1: Taliban ties. Now, I find that also very interesting that
Speaker 1: Pakistan twice this year has been involved in border clashes
Speaker 1: with its neighbors. Just a few months ago, we were
Speaker 1: talking about the Pakistan India conflict that was going on.
Speaker 1: They basically lobbed some rockets at each other, They killed
Speaker 1: a couple of people on each side, and they decided
Speaker 1: that they were gonna cal them down with it. Now
Speaker 1: Pakistan and Afghanistan are getting after it literally just to
Speaker 1: the other side of their country. Pakistan is just becoming
Speaker 1: a whole warring nation over there, isn't it? Now? Is
Speaker 1: it their fault? Are they just responding to things that
Speaker 1: are happening to them, you'd be the judge. But also
Speaker 1: in the back burner of this, I find it interesting
Speaker 1: because China has influence in this area. They have a
Speaker 1: massive influence in India, they have a massive influence in
Speaker 1: Pakistan and a massive influence in Afghanistan because of their
Speaker 1: Belt and Road initiative. So with all this going on,
Speaker 1: just being a little bit of a conspiracy theorist here,
Speaker 1: I'm wondering if this is being orchestrated. I don't know
Speaker 1: that for a fact, but we'll see how it all
Speaker 1: shakes out anyway. Mujahid challenged the Pakistani reports, adding that
Speaker 1: nine Taliban soldiers were killed in overnight operations and nearly
Speaker 1: a dozen others were injured. Pakistan's military, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: said twenty three of its brave sons quote unquote were
Speaker 1: killed in the clashes, and officials said they closed their
Speaker 1: borders with Afghanistan. Border hostilities erupted after Thursday's explosions in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: which the Taliban blamed on Pakistan, representing the sharpest escalation
Speaker 1: in months of strained relations over Islamabad's allegations that Afghanistan
Speaker 1: is harboring armed groups behind attacks inside Pakistan. Earlier on Sunday,
Speaker 1: Taliban said it captured three Pakistani border posts during its
Speaker 1: retaliatory attacks at several points along the border in Kunar
Speaker 1: and Hellman provinces. Oh wow, Yeah, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: try to pronounce that name. The spokesperson for the Afghan
Speaker 1: Ministry Defense said late on Saturday that the Taliban forces
Speaker 1: that carried out successful retaliatory attacks against Pakistani soldiers in
Speaker 1: response to the neighboring country's repeated violations of and airstrikes
Speaker 1: on Afghan territory. The Pakistani state media on Sunday said
Speaker 1: its forces seized nineteen Afghan border posts, citing security sources
Speaker 1: who said Afghan Taliban fighters at the post were either
Speaker 1: killed or fled. A video broadcasted by Pakistani television showed
Speaker 1: Afghan posts in flames Taliban soldiers allegedly surim during in Kuram.
Speaker 1: Radio Pakistan, citing security sources, said Pakistani forces completely destroyed
Speaker 1: the Taliban's Monajba Camp, Battalion headquarters, Jendusar Post, Turkmenzai Camp
Speaker 1: and kur Kharchar Fort. I am sorry for the mispronunciation.
Speaker 1: I speak the American English. The state broadcaster said Pakistan
Speaker 1: was targeting the hideouts of armed groups near the border
Speaker 1: with great precision. The fighting has prompted calls for restraint
Speaker 1: from Iran, Katar and Saudi Arabia. Long term consequences of
Speaker 1: this are worrying. The overnight fights marks a sharp excalation
Speaker 1: between the South Asian neighbors, coming days after an explosion
Speaker 1: in Kabul and Paktia Paktika that the Taliban government blamed
Speaker 1: on Pakistan. Islamabad did not claim responsibility for the blasts,
Speaker 1: but Defense Minister of Pakistan told parliament that enough is enough,
Speaker 1: warning Kabul of consequences for continued assaults on Pakistani forces,
Speaker 1: an unarmed Pakistani source told or excuse me. An unnamed
Speaker 1: Pakistani source told Reuters that the strike targeted the leader
Speaker 1: of the t Reek e Taliban Pakistan the TTP in Kabul.
Speaker 1: Once warm, relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have deteriorated as
Speaker 1: islam Mama Bad has accused Coable of harboring members of
Speaker 1: the TTP and other armed groups which carry out attacks
Speaker 1: against it. The TTP or Pakistani Taliban, were formed in
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven in response to Pakistan's military operations
Speaker 1: in its tribal border regions supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: It has since waged a deadly insurgency. Since the TTP
Speaker 1: issue has become a major sticking point in the relations
Speaker 1: between the two countries. This is an Islamabad based expert
Speaker 1: on Pakistani and Afghan armed groups told Al Jazeera the
Speaker 1: long term consequences are worrying as they will only deepen
Speaker 1: existing animosities. He said Pakistan has faced an intensified offensive
Speaker 1: from the TTP in recent months, and with Islamabad based
Speaker 1: Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies reporting the August
Speaker 1: marked the deadliest month for militant violence in more than
Speaker 1: a decade. The institute said that one hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: four people were killed and more than two hundred injured
Speaker 1: in one hundred and forty three attacks across the country.
Speaker 1: Pakistan now ranks second in the Global Terrorism Index, which
Speaker 1: evaluates countries based on the impact and consequences of attacked
Speaker 1: by or attacks by armed groups within their borders. Tens
Speaker 1: of thousands have been displaced due to the military's operations
Speaker 1: against the TCP and other armed groups. The flare up
Speaker 1: in fighting coincided with Afghan foreign minister's visit to India,
Speaker 1: signaling a potential shift in bilateral relations and provoking Pakistan,
Speaker 1: which regards New Delhi as a regional rival. Pakistan's military
Speaker 1: said in a statement that it was concerned about the
Speaker 1: timing of the fighting and said India was the biggest
Speaker 1: sponsor of terrorism in the region. Again not surprising that
Speaker 1: Pakistan would take that stance, especially seeing as how just
Speaker 1: a few months ago they were having armed conflict with India,
Speaker 1: so moving on. New Delhi denies the charge, while the
Speaker 1: Taliban says it does not allow its territory to be
Speaker 1: used against other countries. Meanwhile, the Iranian Minister of Foreign
Speaker 1: Affairs called on his country's two neighbors to exercise restraint.
Speaker 1: Our position is that both sides much exercise restraint, he said,
Speaker 1: according to the report by the AFP News agency, adding
Speaker 1: that stability between the countries contributes to regional stability. Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia two express concern. The Kingdom calls for restraint, avoiding
Speaker 1: escalation and embracing dialogue and wisdom to contribute to reducing
Speaker 1: tensions and maintaining security instability in the region. That's the
Speaker 1: Saudi Foreign Minister said that the Kingdom affirms its support
Speaker 1: for all regional and international efforts aimed at promoting peace
Speaker 1: and stability, and its continued commitment to ensure security which
Speaker 1: will achieve stability and prosperity for the brotherhood or the
Speaker 1: brotherly Pakistani and Afghan peoples. It added, so they basically
Speaker 1: had some explosions that took place. This sparked the conflict.
Speaker 1: One side blames the other, the other side blames this side.
Speaker 1: It's how this goes. So we shall see. It is
Speaker 1: not a good look. I will admit that the Taliban
Speaker 1: leader is currently in India in a little bit of
Speaker 1: a speaking engagement, while Pakistan just finished up a conflict
Speaker 1: with India and is now in a conflict with Taliban
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. It's it's it's not a good look and
Speaker 1: of course is going to lead to them having a
Speaker 1: little bit of skepticism. As far as the Taliban's words.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know how this is going
Speaker 1: to shake out. Tony. I don't know if you have
Speaker 1: an opinion on this matter, but if you do, I
Speaker 1: would love to hear it.
Speaker 2: Well, Lady Snooze, I just found on Twitter from two
Speaker 2: sources say that a forty eight hour ceasefire has just
Speaker 2: gone into effect. I guess that's good news for everyone
Speaker 2: who would have been fighting and dying in that time.
Speaker 2: And this is just a bit of a tangent. But
Speaker 2: did you hear Trump say yesterday that that Mody told
Speaker 2: him he was going to stop buying Russian oil. And
Speaker 2: I haven't heard anything to back that up that that's
Speaker 2: actually true, But I can totally understand that Mody would
Speaker 2: say something like that if it's just cheap words, and
Speaker 2: you know, maybe he'll stop like one percent of it.
Speaker 2: But that's kind of what I'm assuming it's gonna be.
Speaker 2: The end result, like, not much change on that front.
Speaker 2: I know it's kind of diverting to another topic. No, No,
Speaker 2: you're India. Kind of made me think of that.
Speaker 1: No, We're It's definitely a tangent, but not completely off
Speaker 1: based from what we're talking about. So I am mad
Speaker 1: at it. Okay, Trump saying that Mody claimed that he's
Speaker 1: gonna stop buying Russian oil. I believe that's probably more
Speaker 1: cheap words than anything else. We're talking about a bricks
Speaker 1: nation not doing trade with another bricks nation. I find
Speaker 1: that highly unlikely. Now that being said, could that also
Speaker 1: be in response to Trump putting on higher tariffs on
Speaker 1: China and India, who just got done with the whole
Speaker 1: tariff debacle with America doesn't want to continue that conversation.
Speaker 1: So did he say some cheap words to kind of
Speaker 1: bypass and subdue Trump for a bit. Did he mean
Speaker 1: these things? Was it actually ever said or is this
Speaker 1: Trump talking shit? I could say it is going a
Speaker 1: couple of different ways on that, for sure. I don't
Speaker 1: personally as of this moment, very subject to change. I
Speaker 1: do not think that India is about to stop buying
Speaker 1: Russian oil when they have had all the opportunity to
Speaker 1: stop doing this in the entire conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker 1: The world told them to stop and they basically were like, yeah,
Speaker 1: but he's selling it to us for cheap, so like,
Speaker 1: we're just going to keep doing it. I don't think
Speaker 1: Mody is going to do that because in turn, that
Speaker 1: would affect his people. And I will say this for Mody,
Speaker 1: like him or hate him. He is an Indian first dude,
Speaker 1: which he should be being the leader of India. So
Speaker 1: if it's going to be bad for his people, he's
Speaker 1: not going to do it. At least that's my hot
Speaker 1: take on him.
Speaker 2: But anyway, yeah, I agree, all right.
Speaker 1: So in what you were saying, though, Yes, Pakistan and
Speaker 1: Afghanistan have agreed to a forty eight hour ceasefire. This
Speaker 1: was actually posted nine hours ago as a time of recording.
Speaker 1: This is from the BBC let's listen in.
Speaker 29: Pakistan and Afghanistan have agreed to a forty eight hour
Speaker 29: ceasfire following days of crosswater fighting. Later's development comes shortly
Speaker 29: after Pakistan said it carried out what it called precision
Speaker 29: strikes on carbar. Both sides say several people have been
Speaker 29: killed and injured and skirmishers on the border. Pakistan's Foreign
Speaker 29: Ministry is saying both Pakistan and Afghanistan will make some
Speaker 29: efforts through dialogue to find a positive solution to what
Speaker 29: was described as a complex yet resolvable issue. Pakistan corresponding
Speaker 29: Caroline Davies explained to me what's been happening on the border.
Speaker 30: We've been hearing about these clashes happening over the course
Speaker 30: of the last few days. As you say, firstly, we
Speaker 30: started hearing about them over the weekend, and then last
Speaker 30: night again we heard firstly hum on social media talking
Speaker 30: about this. Then we started hearing confirmation from the Taliban
Speaker 30: authorities and then confirmation as well from the Pakistan side too.
Speaker 30: Now what was also apparent is that as well as
Speaker 30: having these attacks on the border, both sides are trying
Speaker 30: to get the upper hand on social media and the
Speaker 30: impression that this is giving to other countries as well.
Speaker 30: Both sides are talking about are blaming the other side
Speaker 30: for starting any of these skirmishes overnight. We've seen that
Speaker 30: from the various comments that they have released, and they're
Speaker 30: also talking about who is getting the upper hand in
Speaker 30: terms of who is inflicting the most damage on the
Speaker 30: other side too. It's very difficult to be able to
Speaker 30: verify the numbers that are coming out from both sides
Speaker 30: that we have heard accusations from them, and social media
Speaker 30: is also full of videos that are alleging to show
Speaker 30: images of people who have been killed in these attacks.
Speaker 30: There's also images that are apporting to be of checkpoints
Speaker 30: that are being blown up. So really a battle of
Speaker 30: information as well as these border clashes too.
Speaker 1: So again we will see if the ceasefire actually holds
Speaker 1: and cooler heads will prevail. I hope it does. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm all for war if it's justified, but yeah,
Speaker 1: and honestly, regardless of how that shakes out, I just
Speaker 1: hope that America doesn't try to get involved and stick
Speaker 1: its hand somewhere. We just got out of Afghanistan. We
Speaker 1: don't need reason to go back over there, realistically, and
Speaker 1: I know that Pakistan and America are allies. I know this,
Speaker 1: but I am also of the belief, just knowing what
Speaker 1: I know about Pakistan, they are more than capable of
Speaker 1: handling the Taliban. I'm just throwing this out. They are not.
Speaker 1: They may not be a military powerhouse by any stretch
Speaker 1: of the imagination. I mean, when they were taking off
Speaker 1: and they were fighting against India, that wouldn't work well
Speaker 1: because India would have absolutely dominated Pakistan. When it's Pakistan
Speaker 1: versus the Taliban, Yeah, that's not a very fair comparison,
Speaker 1: even with the Taliban having all of the weapons that
Speaker 1: we left there because of Biden's hasty evacuation for lack
Speaker 1: of better words, of Kabul. Even with that, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't believe that it's going to be much of a
Speaker 1: fight in the grand scheme of things. I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong. But again, there's a forty eight
Speaker 1: hour ceasefire that is currently under review for lack of
Speaker 1: better words, and we shall see if that does continue.
Speaker 1: Sticking on with the BBC, let's talk about France real quick.
Speaker 1: The French Prime Minister backs freezing mcrone's pension reform to
Speaker 1: save the government. Yeah, the French government is also in
Speaker 1: a shutdown right now, and they are also having a
Speaker 1: whole prime minister dispute. We're not gonna spend too much
Speaker 1: time on this, but I figured we could lead this
Speaker 1: on at least somewhat of a semioka note with the
Speaker 1: world and the things. French Prime Minister Sebastian Lecornu has
Speaker 1: told Parliament that he backs suspending controversial twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: pension reforms in the face of crucial votes of no
Speaker 1: confidence later this week. The charges, which raised the retirement
Speaker 1: ah from sixty two to sixty four, were seen as
Speaker 1: a signature reforms in e Manuel mccrone's presidency. He is
Speaker 1: a direct quote from him from Lacornu this autumn, I
Speaker 1: will propose to Parliament that we suspend the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three pension reform until the twenty twenty seven presidential election,
Speaker 1: corn who said to applause from the left wing parties.
Speaker 1: Lecornu was reappointed prime minister last week, only four days
Speaker 1: after he resigned. He resigned and then was reappointed. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's France for you, and needs the support of
Speaker 1: the socialist MP's in Parliament if his government is to survive.
Speaker 1: Opposition parties on the far right and far left have
Speaker 1: called confidence votes known as censure votes on the Cornu's
Speaker 1: government for Thursday morning and are demanding parliamentary elections. The
Speaker 1: Socialists said that they would be they would be prepared
Speaker 1: to support the new government, but only if it promises
Speaker 1: to completely suspend the macrone's pension changes. If he does
Speaker 1: not explicitly say the words immediate and complete suspension of
Speaker 1: the pension reform, it will be censure. Socialist MP Laurent
Speaker 1: Baummel said earlier on French TV. He is holding his
Speaker 1: destiny in his own hands. He knows what he has
Speaker 1: to do if he doesn't want to be the prime
Speaker 1: minister who resigns every week. Ee, that's a that's a statement.
Speaker 1: But yeah, apparently your boy can't decide if he wants
Speaker 1: to be prime minister or not. But all right, And
Speaker 1: I could be wrong in this, like his sixth or
Speaker 1: seventh time trying to resign and keeps getting put back
Speaker 1: in the position. I could be wrong. The reforms were
Speaker 1: finally pushed through Parliament in March twenty twenty three, less
Speaker 1: than a year after McCrone was voted in for a
Speaker 1: second presidential term. There have been months of political debate,
Speaker 1: strikes and street protests, and in the end the bill
Speaker 1: had to go through without a vote in Parliament using
Speaker 1: a constitutional mechanism known as forty nine to three. Last week,
Speaker 1: la Cornew said it was something many French people remembered
Speaker 1: as a wound on democracy. On Tuesday, he made a
Speaker 1: plan to the MPs that suggested or that suspending the
Speaker 1: pension reform would cost four hundred million euros, which is
Speaker 1: equivalent to three hundred and fifty pounds million pounds in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six and a further one point eight billion
Speaker 1: euro in twenty twenty seven. This will have the compensated
Speaker 1: or I'm sorry, this will have to be compensated by
Speaker 1: other savings. Locorn who said Locorn who is France's third
Speaker 1: prime minister in the past year. But even if he
Speaker 1: does survive, he needs to get a budget through Parliament
Speaker 1: that brings down a budget deficit headed for five point
Speaker 1: four percent of the economic output this year. Cool so
Speaker 1: their GDP is going into a deficit of five point
Speaker 1: four percent. That's wild. France's public debt earlier this year
Speaker 1: stood at three point four trillion euro which is all
Speaker 1: or almost one hundred and fourteen percent of the GDP,
Speaker 1: the third highest in the Eurozone after Greece and Italy.
Speaker 1: Wow Lecorn who has been one of mccrone's most loyal allies,
Speaker 1: so his decision to row back on such a contested
Speaker 1: reform shows how keen the president is to avoid further turmoil.
Speaker 1: Felipe Agyon a gion I don't know, who was jointly
Speaker 1: awarded the twenty twenty five Nobel Economics Prize on Monday,
Speaker 1: said earlier that he also backed a suspension of the
Speaker 1: pinch reform because it would still come at a smaller
Speaker 1: cost than the insustainable or instability that would follow another
Speaker 1: government collapse. Another government collapse. They show a quick little
Speaker 1: image here of the French National Assembly breakdown of seats.
Speaker 1: Long story short. The France unbowed holds seventy one seats,
Speaker 1: the Communists holds seventeen seats, Ecologists hold thirty eight, the
Speaker 1: Socialists hold sixty nine, The Assembly Alliance or Ensemble Alliance
Speaker 1: holds one hundred and sixty one, the Republicans hold fifty,
Speaker 1: the National Rally holds one hundred and thirty eight, and
Speaker 1: the others hold thirty one. So anyway, they're basically trying
Speaker 1: to avoid another French government collapsed to happen right now.
Speaker 1: And yeah, they are having a real issue holding on
Speaker 1: to prime ministers whatever. Anyway, Anyway, I think on that note,
Speaker 1: we are going to wrap up this episode of The
Speaker 1: Cajun Night Live. I want to thank everybody for joining
Speaker 1: me this evening. As we took a wild trip around
Speaker 1: the world. We talked about America, we talked about some
Speaker 1: states jerrymandering, we talked about some Trump bailout money to Argentina,
Speaker 1: we talked about the Middle East, we talked about Gaza.
Speaker 1: I think we did a pretty fair job of covering
Speaker 1: a little bit everywhere today. Once again, thank you everybody
Speaker 1: for joining me this evening and for everybody listening to
Speaker 1: The Cajun Night. If you would like to join in
Speaker 1: this conversation next week and support the Cajun Night Live,
Speaker 1: then go to the link in the description to patreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash Cajunnight. There's only one tier for entry.
Speaker 1: We are trying to build this to be a information
Speaker 1: sharing community that gather once a week to just discuss
Speaker 1: the goings and comings of the day to day for
Speaker 1: the world. Again, thank everybody, I am the Cajun Knight
Speaker 1: and as always God bless St