Speaker 1: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to another edition of The
Speaker 1: caj To Knight Live. I am the Cajun Knight, your host,
Speaker 1: Jacob Mook. A lot of things to go over this evening.
Speaker 1: We are gonna start off talking about some things that
Speaker 1: are going on in the continental US. Then we're gonna
Speaker 1: take a quick trip north to Canada, where a teacher
Speaker 1: has been filed fired rather for a video that has
Speaker 1: been circulating the internet since it happened, but he decided
Speaker 1: it was a good idea to play it on repeat
Speaker 1: to a group of ten year olds. We are, in
Speaker 1: fact talking about the Charlie Kirk assassination. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: to it all. Then we're gonna take a little trip
Speaker 1: over the other side of the pond. Got some things
Speaker 1: to talk about with Russia and Turkey. Got some things
Speaker 1: to talk about with Albania and them. Albania just implemented
Speaker 1: a new minister in their government that's an AI bot
Speaker 1: like officially, the nation of Albania now has at least
Speaker 1: one AI overlord within the ranks of its government. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about all of it before we get started.
Speaker 1: I do want to give the shameless plug for anybody
Speaker 1: listening to the Cajun Night on the Cult of Conspiracy channel.
Speaker 1: If you will like to join in on the conversation,
Speaker 1: then please go to the link in the description to
Speaker 1: the Cajun Night at Patreon and join in. We do
Speaker 1: this every Wednesday night at nine pm Central. There is
Speaker 1: only one tier for entry. We are not trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, make this anything that it is not. But
Speaker 1: what we are trying to grow this into is in
Speaker 1: a community unto itself that is talking about the news,
Speaker 1: not just you know, our local news, the geopolitics, the
Speaker 1: world news, tech, new things that are coming up and
Speaker 1: down the pipe. We want to talk about all of
Speaker 1: it and grow this community to be an informational one.
Speaker 1: So if you'd like to be a part of that
Speaker 1: Cajun Night at patreon dot com, let's start off here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna go ahead and start off on a very
Speaker 1: sour note. Now, I don't know how many people live
Speaker 1: in California that listen to the show. Have We have
Speaker 1: thousands of people that listen to the Cajun Night, and
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of them are in California.
Speaker 1: I could pull the analytics and see, but you know,
Speaker 1: neither here nor there for this. There is a new
Speaker 1: bill that is trying to get passed in California called
Speaker 1: AB four ninety five. Okay, Now, this bill, they and
Speaker 1: by day I do mean the liberal politicians in this state,
Speaker 1: are trying to push it as some sort of a
Speaker 1: security for children that have parents that are legal. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's say that these parents get taken by ice while
Speaker 1: the kids are at school, and who's going to pick
Speaker 1: the kids up? In all these things, and they are
Speaker 1: they're promoting it as a way to where somebody could
Speaker 1: be there to pick up the kids, whether they're related
Speaker 1: by blood or not. However, there's a few wide open
Speaker 1: to interpretation things about this bill that also makes it
Speaker 1: a prime weapon for child abduction and child predators. But
Speaker 1: before I get into it, let's just hear what the
Speaker 1: official narrative is right now. This is from NBC seven
Speaker 1: San Diego, and let's listen to what the local news
Speaker 1: is saying about the bill and some of the criticism
Speaker 1: that is drawing. Although you'll notice they don't get into
Speaker 1: the depths of the negative aspects of it. Let's listen.
Speaker 2: In a bill making its way through Sacramento is now
Speaker 2: drawing some sharp criticism from parents and school board members
Speaker 2: here in San Diego. NBC seven Shelby Breemer has more
Speaker 2: on what AB four ninety five does and doesn't do.
Speaker 3: There's some controversy brewing over a piece of legislation aimed
Speaker 3: at addressing what to do when families are separated by
Speaker 3: immigration enforcement. At issue is a form called a caregiver's affidavit,
Speaker 3: which has been around for a while but is now
Speaker 3: sparking some pushback. Parents and critics of Assembly Bill four
Speaker 3: ninety five gathered outside San Diego Unified School District's headquarters
Speaker 3: to make their opposition known.
Speaker 1: This is ridiculous, is when our kids at risk.
Speaker 3: Some school board members in East County Lakeside Santee Alcohol
Speaker 3: are doing the same.
Speaker 4: Where are a safeguards for bad actors?
Speaker 3: In response to heightened immigration enforcement, the bill would expand
Speaker 3: the legal definition of who's a caregiver to include people
Speaker 3: like family, friends, or mentors. They would be authorized to
Speaker 3: enroll children in school and consent to their medical care
Speaker 3: with an affidavit. In the event of a parent's detention
Speaker 3: or deportation, like a father ice arrested outside Lindavista Elementary
Speaker 3: last week.
Speaker 1: Often when a parent is taken without warning children are
Speaker 1: left completely alone, vulnerable, and unprotected.
Speaker 3: The bill's author says it would encourage families to make
Speaker 3: a plan. Supporters say has nothing to do with policies.
Speaker 3: Schools already have on who can pick kids up, usually
Speaker 3: emergency contacts.
Speaker 5: Carriers, Affidavid don't talk about custody, They don't in fact
Speaker 5: transfer custody in any sort of way. They don't give
Speaker 5: anyone guardianship, and they don't allow somebody to pick a
Speaker 5: child up from school.
Speaker 3: Still, opponents in East County say, do you want more guardrails?
Speaker 6: I would suggest that all parents submit a list of
Speaker 6: pre approved people to the school district right now today.
Speaker 3: But those supporting the measures say, facing mass deportations, something
Speaker 3: must be done.
Speaker 5: If this administration is going to keep tearing families apart,
Speaker 5: then the least those in power can do is make
Speaker 5: sure children are not less than the dark, scared, abandoned,
Speaker 5: and forgotten.
Speaker 3: AB four ninety five is currently in the Senate suspense
Speaker 3: file basically on pause as it awaits another hearing from
Speaker 3: University Heights Shelby Breamer, NBC seven.
Speaker 1: Okay, now you see how they're formatting this, and they're
Speaker 1: trying to you know, put it under the banner of
Speaker 1: freedom for all open borders. They're making it a thing
Speaker 1: about illegal immigration, right. That's how it's being formatted. And
Speaker 1: as of this article here from Santa Maria hold On
Speaker 1: Santa Maria Times to Santa Barbara County lawmakers back above
Speaker 1: as bill heads on heads two Governor's Desk. Before I
Speaker 1: read this article, let me give you the breakdown the
Speaker 1: over under of what this bill states. Essentially, if this
Speaker 1: bill passes, let's say that bad actor Joe who wants
Speaker 1: to abduct a child, he can go up to any
Speaker 1: school in California, go to the office and say, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm here to check out Susie Q. You know, I
Speaker 1: am her legal guardian or something, I'm a family friend.
Speaker 1: This bill not only forces the school to hand the
Speaker 1: child over to the custody of this person, but they
Speaker 1: also within this bill state that it is illegal for
Speaker 1: the administrators to ask for any form of identification. It
Speaker 1: makes it illegal for them to ask any follow up
Speaker 1: questions about who this person is, How do you know
Speaker 1: the child, how do you know the family? Are you
Speaker 1: a relative, are you a mentor are you a family friend,
Speaker 1: whatever the case is, Because that's mean what if the
Speaker 1: person asking for the child is also an illegal alien
Speaker 1: who doesn't have credentials in paperwork and things like that.
Speaker 1: That's racist, that's mean. We can't do that. So for
Speaker 1: obvious reasons, For anybody who understands that we live in
Speaker 1: a world where there is a war being waged about,
Speaker 1: you know, on children and child safety, this is an
Speaker 1: extremely bad thing. And the fact that more and more
Speaker 1: California lawmakers are siding with it tells me that they
Speaker 1: are legitimately making it a hotbed for child abductions in California.
Speaker 1: For any of the listeners of the Cajun Night, if
Speaker 1: this bill passes and you live in California and have
Speaker 1: children in school, it's time to move out of the
Speaker 1: state because you honestly do not know if your child's
Speaker 1: gonna get off the bus or not. And if they don't,
Speaker 1: you're gonna call the school and say, hey, where's my kid? Oh,
Speaker 1: they got picked up at ten am this morning by
Speaker 1: your family friend. John. I don't have a family friend, John.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about. Oh, well, he said he was,
Speaker 1: and we had to let him go. Because of the
Speaker 1: new bill that just got passed. You will probably never
Speaker 1: see your child again, and If you think that I
Speaker 1: am trying to make this bill out to be more
Speaker 1: than what it is, do your research into AB four
Speaker 1: ninety five in California. This is exactly what it is.
Speaker 1: Anybody off the street could walk up and check this
Speaker 1: child out of school, and legally the school is forced
Speaker 1: to hand them over and they're gone, and that's it.
Speaker 1: Let's dig into it. Here. A bill that would change
Speaker 1: how families prepare for a crisis such as immigration enforcement
Speaker 1: or parental illness as awaiting Governor Gavinknewso signature after clearing
Speaker 1: the legislature last week. With support from two Santa Barbara
Speaker 1: County representatives, State Senator Monique Lemont, a Democrat from Santa Barbara,
Speaker 1: co authored AB four ninety five CHAKRA that works, known
Speaker 1: as the Family Preparedness Plan of twenty twenty five. The
Speaker 1: Assembly Member Greg Hart, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, voted
Speaker 1: for the measure during its final concurrence in the Assembly
Speaker 1: on September the eleventh. If signed into law, the bill
Speaker 1: would take effect January first, and require schools and child
Speaker 1: care facilities to distribute information about caregiver authorization AffA David's
Speaker 1: documents that allow trusted adults, including non relative, non related
Speaker 1: family members, to enroll children in school and make certain
Speaker 1: medical decisions if parents are unavailable. I should mention this also,
Speaker 1: the authorization AFFIDAVID is something that you could print up
Speaker 1: online and fill out yourself and bring to the school
Speaker 1: that day. That's it that it's really that simple. The
Speaker 1: legislation also prohibits schools from collecting immigration status information except
Speaker 1: when required by law. The bill has drawn strong support
Speaker 1: from immigration rights organizations that argue it protects children from
Speaker 1: unnecessary child protective services involvement during a family crisis. Critics,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, including parental rights groups, raised concerns
Speaker 1: this summer that early drafts were too broad and could
Speaker 1: open the door for child exploitation because it does. In response,
Speaker 1: lawmakers narrow the definitions in late August to require a
Speaker 1: quote substantial established familial or mentoring relationship end quote before
Speaker 1: an adult could use the AFFIDAVID. Schools will also be
Speaker 1: able to request reasonable evidence to verify affidavids, and the
Speaker 1: amendments encourage parental notifications whenever possible. AB four ninety five
Speaker 1: passed the Assembly in June by sixty two to seven vote,
Speaker 1: and the Senate on September tenth by a twenty nine
Speaker 1: to ten vote. The Assembly then agreed that the Senate
Speaker 1: amendments two days later, sending the bill to Newsom's desk.
Speaker 1: Newsom has until October fifteenth to sign or veto the measure.
Speaker 1: If enacted, the law could have particular impact on Santa
Speaker 1: Barbara County, where immigrant families are a significant part of
Speaker 1: the workforce, especially in agriculture. Local schools, including Lompoc Unified
Speaker 1: and Santa Maria Joint Union High School District, among others,
Speaker 1: would be among those required to provide affidavit information and
Speaker 1: follow the new guidelines. The Family Preparedness Plan Act was
Speaker 1: introduced in February by Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez. That's a
Speaker 1: Democrat from Los Angeles, following advocacy from the California Immigrant
Speaker 1: Policy Center the ACLU California. Lemon added her name as
Speaker 1: a co author earlier this year, signaling support for its
Speaker 1: focus on family stability. It's totally not going to tear
Speaker 1: any families apart when they're looking for their child that's
Speaker 1: gone to some island somewhere. It's totally not gonna do that.
Speaker 1: It's going to help them. Of course, heart who represents
Speaker 1: portions of Lompock in Santa Maria has spoken in recent
Speaker 1: months about protecting immigrant communities from enforcement actions and keeping
Speaker 1: families together, positions which align with the goals of the
Speaker 1: new bill. Now, like I said, they're trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: display this as a protection for immigrant families and things
Speaker 1: like that. Here's my issue with it, immigrant or citizen.
Speaker 1: If a parent is arrested in your child's at school,
Speaker 1: who comes and gets your kid? There's nothing in place
Speaker 1: for something like that. It's all about the immigration that's
Speaker 1: been an issue in this country for forever. Right, If
Speaker 1: mom is nowhere to be found or dad is nowhere
Speaker 1: to be found, and other parent gets arrested at one
Speaker 1: pm and is supposed to get their kid off the
Speaker 1: bus or pick their kid up from school or whatever,
Speaker 1: and they, you know, don't get their one phone call
Speaker 1: until way later that evening. What happens to the child?
Speaker 1: So all of a sudden, now this is a concern
Speaker 1: because it's in any kind of reference towards illegal immigration. Again,
Speaker 1: the AFFI davids are not something that are very regulated. Literally,
Speaker 1: you could just print one up all online and fill
Speaker 1: it out and say that my name is John Smith,
Speaker 1: and I am this child's recognized mentor. Because I said so,
Speaker 1: the school then cannot ask for any identification whatsoever to
Speaker 1: verify if this Affidavid is legit or not. And that's
Speaker 1: gonna be what happens if Gavin Newsom passes this again.
Speaker 1: To any of the listeners of the Cajun Knight who
Speaker 1: are living in California and have children in schools, now
Speaker 1: is the time to move. I wouldn't be shocked if
Speaker 1: there are other Blue states that start enacting something like this.
Speaker 1: I can realistically see Oregon and Washington doing this really
Speaker 1: really soon, especially with the whole Triune West Coast debacle
Speaker 1: that's happening right now with the medical and CDC things.
Speaker 1: I could absolutely Because Oregon and Washington also really big
Speaker 1: hotbeds for illegal immigrants, I could very easily see this
Speaker 1: getting passed through their you know, legislation as well. Anyway,
Speaker 1: all right, now that we've gotten that out of the way,
Speaker 1: let's talk about something on a little bit of a
Speaker 1: happier note. But now we're gonna be talking about something
Speaker 1: sad in order to talk about something happy. Jimmy Kimmel,
Speaker 1: some would say that he is a beloved talk show host.
Speaker 1: Others would say that he has had a very serious
Speaker 1: fall from grace. He has now been fired. ABC, owned
Speaker 1: by Disney, has fired him for his remarks after the
Speaker 1: death of Charlie Kirk. Let's listen in now to Fox News.
Speaker 1: They give us the rundown. Let's read a little bit
Speaker 1: more about it.
Speaker 7: We have been following a lot of breaking news over
Speaker 7: the past several hours, and we do have more that
Speaker 7: is now coming into the news room. This coming in
Speaker 7: courtesy the Associated Press as well as Reuter's a story
Speaker 7: that we have been following here as ABC has now
Speaker 7: suspended Jimmy Kimmel's late night show indefinitely following comments that
Speaker 7: he made about Charlie Kirk's killing. The network's decision came
Speaker 7: next Star announced that its ABC affiliates would pre empt
Speaker 7: Jimmy Kimmellive indefinitely over his comments.
Speaker 8: Quote.
Speaker 7: Mister Kimmel's comments about the death of mister Kirk are
Speaker 7: offensive and insensitive at a critical time at our national
Speaker 7: political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the
Speaker 7: spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities
Speaker 7: in which we are located. That's according to Andrew Alford,
Speaker 7: president of Nexstar's broadcasting division. As we mentioned, Nextstar made
Speaker 7: the announcement about its stations and ABC five that by
Speaker 7: pulling the plug indefinitely on Jimmy Kimmel's Late Night Show.
Speaker 7: Now we also have just a little bit more information here,
Speaker 7: as we know that earlier in the day, the FCC
Speaker 7: chair Brendan Carr had urged local broadcasters to stop airing
Speaker 7: the show on ABC. So again Next Star made the
Speaker 7: decision to pull it from their stations, and then after
Speaker 7: that ABC said We're going to suspend the late night
Speaker 7: show altogether indefinitely. And this is all related, of course,
Speaker 7: to the comments that were made about Charlie Kirk's killing.
Speaker 7: The conservative political activist shot and killed in a targeted
Speaker 7: attack one week ago today as he was at Utah
Speaker 7: Valley University speaking in front of thousands of people a
Speaker 7: crowd estimated to be three thousand when he was shot.
Speaker 7: We know that he was rushed over to the hospital there,
Speaker 7: President Trump making the announcement just hours later that Kirk
Speaker 7: had died from his injuries.
Speaker 1: Now, I gotta be honest with you, I have I
Speaker 1: don't think in my life I've ever watched an entire
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel Show start to finish. I've seen clips of it.
Speaker 1: He has been funny in the past, but especially in
Speaker 1: the last few years, he has taken a massive, massive decline,
Speaker 1: even comedically speaking, and so now he decided, I guess,
Speaker 1: to go for some very topical dark maybe an attempted humor.
Speaker 1: And whatever he said was so indecent that even Disney
Speaker 1: decided that they were done with him. Because you gotta understand,
Speaker 1: ABC is owned by Disney, So if ABC says that
Speaker 1: they're done with him, Disney is the one that said
Speaker 1: that they are done with him. And that is a
Speaker 1: very very big name in the entertainment industry to piss
Speaker 1: off to this level where they completely just suspend the
Speaker 1: entire show. They're not even getting a new host, you know,
Speaker 1: a late night talk show host to take him that position. No,
Speaker 1: they're just canning the whole shebang. That's a wild thing
Speaker 1: to have happened because of your mouth. But let's read
Speaker 1: into it now. It says Jimmy Kimmelive pulled by ABC
Speaker 1: indefinitely after host comment about Charlie kirk. Let's read in
Speaker 1: here has been indefinitely pulled. On Wednesday, September seventeenth, it
Speaker 1: was announced that Disney's ABC would be pulling Jimmy Kimmelive
Speaker 1: in definitely. An ABC spokesperson confirmed to People that's a
Speaker 1: People magazine if I'm not mistaken. The network's decision follows
Speaker 1: Nextstar's media decision to preempt airings of the program. Nextstar
Speaker 1: Media is the largest local broadcast and digital media company
Speaker 1: in the US that owns more than two hundred television
Speaker 1: stations in one hundred and sixteen markets. Next Star said
Speaker 1: in a statement to People that it quote owned and
Speaker 1: partner television stations affiliated with ABC Television Network will preempt
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmelive for the foreseeable future, beginning with tonight's show.
Speaker 1: So this was an immediate They weren't even gonna let
Speaker 1: him finish this season or however his contract read. They
Speaker 1: basically said, you're done, and this is effective right now.
Speaker 1: The statement added that the company strongly objects to recent
Speaker 1: comments made by mister Kimmel concerning the killing of Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk and will replace the show with other programming in
Speaker 1: its ABC affiliated markets. Andrew Alfred, president of Nextstar's broadcasting division,
Speaker 1: elaborate on the decision in a statement to people saying,
Speaker 1: mister Kimmel's comments about the death of mister Kirk are
Speaker 1: offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national
Speaker 1: political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the
Speaker 1: spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local community
Speaker 1: in which we are located. Alfred continued continuing to give
Speaker 1: mister Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve
Speaker 1: as simply not in the public interest at the current time,
Speaker 1: and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his
Speaker 1: show in an effort to lead cooler heads, or excuse
Speaker 1: me to in an effort to let cooler heads prevail
Speaker 1: as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue, which,
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, was Charlie Kirk's entire stick was,
Speaker 1: you know, respectful and constructive dialogue. So that's a positive.
Speaker 1: The media company's decision came two days after Kimmel mentioned
Speaker 1: Kirk in his monologue. Kirk was shot and killed during
Speaker 1: the speaking engagement in Utah Valley. We talked about that already.
Speaker 1: During Kimmel's Monday, September fifteenth monologue, he directly addressed Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's Make America Great Again supporters, saying, quote, we hit
Speaker 1: some new lows over the weekend with the Maga gang
Speaker 1: trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as
Speaker 1: anything other than one of them. People reached out to
Speaker 1: representatives for Kimmel, so he basically saying that this kid
Speaker 1: was a MAGA supporter who killed Charlie Kirk. And there
Speaker 1: was we talked about this on the Cult of Conspiracy.
Speaker 1: There was a couple of pictures that were circulating of
Speaker 1: this kid wearing a MAGA shirt and it doesn't really
Speaker 1: take much effort to see that that was photoshopped. And
Speaker 1: then the social media page that put that up right
Speaker 1: behind it put up the picture of the original photo
Speaker 1: of this kid to show that, yes, the T shirt
Speaker 1: was in fact photoshopped onto his body and that's not real.
Speaker 1: So I guess Jimmy Kimmel didn't see that that was
Speaker 1: a hoax and decided to really lean into that. The
Speaker 1: News comes admitted Kimmel's ongoing few with President Trump, who
Speaker 1: predicted that the longtime ABC host would be the next
Speaker 1: late night casualty after CBS canceled The Late Show with
Speaker 1: Stephen Colbert in July of twenty twenty five, he did
Speaker 1: make that prediction, but I also wanted to be understood.
Speaker 1: Trump didn't make this happen. There was some things going on,
Speaker 1: some chicanery, if you will, with the CBS cancelation of
Speaker 1: Stephen Colbert, because CBS was trying to get they were
Speaker 1: having a big buy out, they were doing a merger
Speaker 1: I think it was with Sky Dance, and and for
Speaker 1: a business deal at that level to be done, you
Speaker 1: have to get basically government approval, and they, basically they
Speaker 1: being the government, said that unless you get rid of
Speaker 1: this guy, we're not going to make that approval happen,
Speaker 1: and this big deal won't be able to go through.
Speaker 1: I am paraphrasing super heavily there, but just bear with me, okay.
Speaker 1: That was the over under on the Stephen Colbert conversation.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel did this to his damn self with doing
Speaker 1: piss poor research, I guess, and deciding to try to
Speaker 1: take a stand and lean into it, and it was
Speaker 1: the wrong move. Prior to Trump warning of a late
Speaker 1: night exodus, Kimmel himself had repeatedly hinted at ending his show.
Speaker 1: He told the Los Angeles Times in February of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four that he had a three year contract he
Speaker 1: signed in twenty twenty two, and probably he would take
Speaker 1: his last joking. I hate to even say it because
Speaker 1: everyone's laughing at me now each time I think that,
Speaker 1: and then it turns out to be the case. I
Speaker 1: still have a little more than two years left on
Speaker 1: my contract, and that seems pretty good. He added at
Speaker 1: the time, that seems like enough. Kimmel, who was hosted
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel Wive since two thousand and three, has frequently
Speaker 1: found himself in the President's crosshairs, whether for monologue jokes
Speaker 1: or jabs he took at Trump while hosting the Oscars.
Speaker 1: Following the late show's cancelation, the President took to his
Speaker 1: truth social account, claiming the word is and it's a
Speaker 1: strong word at that Jimmy Kimmel is next to go
Speaker 1: in the Untalented Late Night Sweepstakes, and shortly thereafter, Jimmy
Speaker 1: Fallon will be gone. And again, I gotta be honest,
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever seen an entire Jimmy Fallon show.
Speaker 1: I don't even think I've seen an entire interview with
Speaker 1: a person from Jimmy Fallon. I don't really find him
Speaker 1: very entertaining or likable. He seems. I don't know. Moving on,
Speaker 1: These are people with absolutely no talent who were paid
Speaker 1: millions of dollars for, in all cases, just showing what
Speaker 1: used to be great television. Trump wrote, It's really good
Speaker 1: to see them go, and I hope I played a
Speaker 1: major part in it. Yeah, nobody's going to be more
Speaker 1: petty than Donnie t That still resides. Kimmel expressed frustration
Speaker 1: of his own talent toward the president while on summer
Speaker 1: vacation with his family, sharing a photo of his family
Speaker 1: at an anti Trump protest on July seventeenth with a
Speaker 1: pointed message quote, may every day be another wonderful secret.
Speaker 1: Kimmel's Instagram caption read reference to a line from a
Speaker 1: cryptic letter that Trump allegedly wrote two sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: as reported by The Wall Street Journal. In the photo,
Speaker 1: he and his wife Live co head Molly mcneere are
Speaker 1: pictured in anti Trump shirts with their children, Jane and Billy.
Speaker 1: Each member of the family is holding a sign with
Speaker 1: phrases like don't bend the knee, make America good again,
Speaker 1: and I wish I had a better president. Jimmy, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: When Kimmel learned that the late show cancelation was going down,
Speaker 1: he came three days after Colbert tore into his parent company,
Speaker 1: Paramount for offering up sixteen million to settle a lawsuit
Speaker 1: with the president. The ABC host took Instagram Stories to
Speaker 1: took to Instagram Stories to stand up for his friend
Speaker 1: and late night rival. Reposting a clip from the Colbert's announcement,
Speaker 1: Kimmel wrote, love you, Steven. He then called out the
Speaker 1: network behind the decision, adding FU and all your Sheldon's
Speaker 1: CBS okay, seemingly referring to the network's Big Bang Theory
Speaker 1: and Young Sheldon series, two wildly popular shows that made
Speaker 1: CBS a good jillion dollars apiece. And yeah, he's basically
Speaker 1: saying f you and your success. All right, Well, that's
Speaker 1: that's an adult way to go about it. Back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Kimmel admitted that he'd previously considered quitting
Speaker 1: his late night show if he wasn't allowed to make
Speaker 1: fun of Trump. Quote. There was one time, right around
Speaker 1: the beginning of this whole Trump thing, maybe not quite
Speaker 1: eight years ago, he told uh Stitchers Naked Lunch podcast.
Speaker 1: I said, listen I get it. You're right, I have
Speaker 1: lost half of my fan base, maybe more. Ten years ago,
Speaker 1: among Republicans, I was the most popular talk show, at
Speaker 1: least according to the research they did. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and call BS on that one too. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that Jimmy Kimmel was never popular, and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying he wasn't popular among Republicans, but ten years ago,
Speaker 1: so we're talking in twenty sixteen, twenty fifteen, twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel actually believes statistics that say that he was
Speaker 1: the most popular talk show among Republicans. I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: that that's just mathematically incorrect. But sure, okay, continuing his quote,
Speaker 1: if I get it, or if I get it, if
Speaker 1: blocking Trump jokes is what they want to do, Kimmell continued,
Speaker 1: I said, if that's what you want to do, I
Speaker 1: don't begrudge you for it, but I'm not going to
Speaker 1: do that. If you want someone else to host the show,
Speaker 1: that's fine with me. I'm just gonna do it like that. So, basically,
Speaker 1: he has been unapologetic for his dismay towards Trump, which
Speaker 1: that is your freedom as an American citizen. I have
Speaker 1: no problem with somebody having an issue with whoever's in
Speaker 1: the presidency. I may disagree with them, but I don't
Speaker 1: have a problem with somebody having an opinion. And I,
Speaker 1: for one, am somebody who believes in freedom of speech
Speaker 1: and believes that you should be willing to fight to
Speaker 1: the death for someone's right to say whatever they're going
Speaker 1: to say. But freedom of speech does not equal freedom
Speaker 1: from consequence. And that's something that I feel like a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans have forgot in the past few years.
Speaker 1: So apparently Jimmy Kimmel has lost his mind and lost
Speaker 1: his job, and I gotta say, I'm pretty happy about this, Tony,
Speaker 1: what you got?
Speaker 9: Yeah? I agree that Kimmel and Colbert kind of lost
Speaker 9: their sense of humor too. I remember thinking they were
Speaker 9: funny like twenty years ago, but they just got weighing
Speaker 9: more and more serious since then. By the way, I
Speaker 9: linked to the one minute or so that Jimmy Kimmel
Speaker 9: was going to put on TV, It's only like twenty
Speaker 9: seconds of him talking to them, like forty of a
Speaker 9: clip of Trump that he thoughts and it wasn't very
Speaker 9: embarrassing to Trump. It's down in the comments. Mean, yeah,
Speaker 9: something about these guys getting old. Just they take themselves
Speaker 9: really seriously. Like when Colbert got thrown off the air,
Speaker 9: he said, oh fu was his response, But he should
Speaker 9: have handled it like South Park where south Park created
Speaker 9: a like a newsroom where the hosts were too afraid
Speaker 9: to say anything that was against Trump. Yeah, that was
Speaker 9: the humorous way to handle it. And South Park's doing
Speaker 9: a good job. I think they know that they're so
Speaker 9: powerful that you know, if they start pulling their punches,
Speaker 9: that that's going to be a terrible signal for free
Speaker 9: speech nationwide. And I think we'll probably get a little
Speaker 9: bit into Pambandi after this, And just there is too
Speaker 9: much cancel culture going on right now, and I think
Speaker 9: Jimmy Kim can lose his job anyway. But there'should there
Speaker 9: be no legal thing as a hate crime?
Speaker 1: Now, I agree with you, But first of all, with
Speaker 1: them being funny, I would even say, depending on what
Speaker 1: they were talking about, twenty years ago, I would even
Speaker 1: say ten years ago, I thought both of them were funny. Again,
Speaker 1: I may not have laughed at every single joke they made,
Speaker 1: but I thought that they were at least good at
Speaker 1: their job of making light of serious situations, right. They
Speaker 1: were comics first and foremost they were comedians. Somewhere along
Speaker 1: the way they started seeing themselves as legitimate journalists rather
Speaker 1: than comics, and their art form of comedy drastically suffered
Speaker 1: as a result of this. I agree with you one
Speaker 1: hundred percent. So let's see. This is a one minute
Speaker 1: clip from Jimmy Kimmel talking about the UH. I guess
Speaker 1: this is part of the monologue Let's go.
Speaker 6: We had some new lows over the weekend, with the
Speaker 6: Maga gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered
Speaker 6: Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and
Speaker 6: do everything they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 6: In between the finger pointing, there was grieving. On Friday,
Speaker 6: the White House flew the flags at half staff, which
Speaker 6: got some criticism, but on a human level, you can
Speaker 6: see how hard the President is taking this back indulgence on.
Speaker 8: The laws of your friend.
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk asked sir personally, how are you holding up
Speaker 2: for the last day and a half, sirve I.
Speaker 10: Think very good.
Speaker 6: And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks.
Speaker 6: They've just started construction of the new ball room for
Speaker 6: the White.
Speaker 4: House, which is something they've been trying to get.
Speaker 11: As you know, for about one hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 12: And it's going to be a beauty.
Speaker 1: Yes, he's at the fourth stage.
Speaker 6: Of grief construction, the demolition.
Speaker 7: Construction.
Speaker 6: This is not how an adult griefs the murderer of
Speaker 6: somebody called a friend. This is how a four year
Speaker 6: old mourns a goldfish.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, that's that's what did it. That is absolutely
Speaker 1: what did it. And again, his statement about this kid
Speaker 1: being maga is I mean, just outright incorrect. And it's
Speaker 1: not even like he was even saying that in a
Speaker 1: joking way. He was trying to really make a point
Speaker 1: with that one, so big shwinging a miss to you,
Speaker 1: mister Kimmel to the tune of you losing your job.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and I agree with you also, Tony, I
Speaker 1: use South Park for a lot. First of all, I
Speaker 1: think that they are unmatched comedically speaking, and some of
Speaker 1: their jokes I think are in very poor taste. But
Speaker 1: there's a way that they do it and a reason
Speaker 1: that they do it, and they it's all a part
Speaker 1: of the overarching thing. They are fully aware of how
Speaker 1: important it is for them to stay funny and relevant.
Speaker 1: This is somebody's failed attempt instead of if you're going
Speaker 1: to lean into it, which I get right that, Like
Speaker 1: you said, there is a correct way to lean into
Speaker 1: this and try to make light of a very dark situation.
Speaker 1: There is a way to make bad things funny. That's
Speaker 1: why professional comedians make the money that they do, because
Speaker 1: they are professionals at turning bad things into something that
Speaker 1: we can laugh at. This is not it, and you
Speaker 1: could tell the whole studio audience felt very awkward as
Speaker 1: they were laughing and applauding when the lights hold them too.
Speaker 1: So wow. Yeah.
Speaker 9: Well, here's another thing. Everyone is trying to blame the
Speaker 9: shooter on their own personal enemies, whether it's Republicans, Democrats,
Speaker 9: or Jews, and everyone's trying to claim Charlie Kirk as
Speaker 9: a martyr for their own side. Not so much the left,
Speaker 9: but every different faction of the right is definitely trying
Speaker 9: to do it, and most of them are wrong. He
Speaker 9: is what he is, and the shooter is what he is.
Speaker 9: The shooter is mostly a lone wolf. He may have
Speaker 9: been poked a little bit by somebody from an intelligence
Speaker 9: agency somewhere, but we're just never going to know. I
Speaker 9: don't know what to make of it, but that's all.
Speaker 9: And I'm not digging into this. I don't want to
Speaker 9: spend my life on this, but it is what it is.
Speaker 1: I agree. I'm like you said, I'm not saying he
Speaker 1: was a complete lone wolf. I think that prodded by
Speaker 1: an intelligence agency of some type. Maybe it was a
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence agency. I don't know. I can't find really
Speaker 1: heads or tails of any kind of intel that would
Speaker 1: back that claim. But every talking head with a microphone
Speaker 1: right now is saying that it was for their cause,
Speaker 1: right And I'm hearing Candice Owens is even saying that
Speaker 1: this is all because he would in back Israel. Some
Speaker 1: meeting that happened in the Hamptons. I did my own
Speaker 1: research that meeting didn't. It's not what they were trying
Speaker 1: to say. It is that meeting wasn't put on by
Speaker 1: this very wealthy Jewish financier. Charlie called for that meeting
Speaker 1: to take place. He's the one that got those conservative
Speaker 1: people together to brainstorm ideas for the future that right
Speaker 1: off the rip. The story that everybody's going on and
Speaker 1: on about is incorrect. This kid being maga saw a
Speaker 1: bunch of people I'm talking about that that is incorrect.
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk having a spiritual shift and was about to
Speaker 1: convert to Catholicism, absolutely incorrect. He did recently say that
Speaker 1: Protestants do not give Mary her proper veneration, which as
Speaker 1: a Protestant I would also agree with. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that Mary wasn't by important, but she also you know me, Tony,
Speaker 1: I know you're a Catholic. So I'm not going to
Speaker 1: start debating the morals and dogma of our different denominations
Speaker 1: of Christianity. But I can at least say that I
Speaker 1: agree that Mary does not get as much respect from
Speaker 1: the Protestant faiths as I believe that she should get,
Speaker 1: so all right, something to be said for that, But
Speaker 1: that also doesn't mean that I am in the process
Speaker 1: of turning Catholic. And when Cannis Owens told him and
Speaker 1: even admitted to saying, Charlie, you are too smart to
Speaker 1: be a Protestant, just make the final step and become Catholic,
Speaker 1: there is a wing of the internet that is saying
Speaker 1: that because he wouldn't convert to Catholicism like all these
Speaker 1: other big political talking heads, that the assassination had something
Speaker 1: to do with that. I don't believe that. I really
Speaker 1: don't believe that. But that's just like you're saying, everybody
Speaker 1: with a microphone is trying to use this to say
Speaker 1: that he was a martyr for this cause, for that cause.
Speaker 1: I would say that he wasn't even a martyr for Christianity.
Speaker 1: He was a Christian and he is a martyr for
Speaker 1: the cause of free speech and respectful discourse. And I
Speaker 1: would even say there's a pretty fair argument to say
Speaker 1: that he is a martyr for the conservative mindset of
Speaker 1: this country, not the Republican Party, but conservatism as a whole.
Speaker 1: If you want to say that he was a martyr
Speaker 1: for these things, I got you, and I agree anything
Speaker 1: else as people just putting their own spin on a
Speaker 1: horrible tragedy and trying to use it as bait to
Speaker 1: boost their algorithms, which I find disgusting. Sam, go ahead, sir.
Speaker 13: I actually feel like he actually is.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 12: I feel that while yes, he is a quote unquote
Speaker 12: martyr for the conservative mindset and all, but I believe
Speaker 12: he's he was an actual martyr for the Lord. And
Speaker 12: the reason why I say that is because, uh, he
Speaker 12: with his death, it sold a lot of seeds to
Speaker 12: a lot of like they needed. Like Statistically, the like
Speaker 12: church attendants went up by what fifty percent because after
Speaker 12: his death and everything across the nation, there's people across
Speaker 12: the world.
Speaker 4: That's doing visuals for the man that they've never met.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I've never mourned for somebody I've never met before
Speaker 12: as much as I did for Charlie.
Speaker 1: And I think, I think you're right. There's a lot.
Speaker 1: There's multiple things happening at the same time here. I
Speaker 1: I don't believe that he was necessarily I don't think
Speaker 1: he was killed because of his Christian beliefs, right, that
Speaker 1: would be that would make him a martyr for Christendom. However,
Speaker 1: his videos are being viewed more now than ever before
Speaker 1: when he was alive, and more people are looking at
Speaker 1: what he said as far as his faith goes, and
Speaker 1: they're attending church to see what was he talking about,
Speaker 1: what had him this level of convicted to be about
Speaker 1: his faith in such a public manner. So you're right,
Speaker 1: there is actual uptick in church attendance across the country
Speaker 1: and possibly across the world. So it's being used in
Speaker 1: that way. But it's not like he died in the
Speaker 1: middle of giving a speech about Jesus Christ. That that's
Speaker 1: what I mean.
Speaker 13: I understand that. But actually, if you are there, I
Speaker 13: was sorry.
Speaker 12: And there's been uprisings in Germany and in England now
Speaker 12: and in Nepal. But a British a guy who was
Speaker 12: so a veteran, don't know what denomination of what a
Speaker 12: but the UK has or whatever. But I don't know
Speaker 12: much about British since seventeen seventy five. But yeah, dude,
Speaker 12: though he said that he was over in Afghanistan, did
Speaker 12: multiple tours, it wasn't until and these things have been
Speaker 12: building up for years, but it wasn't until Charlie Cook
Speaker 12: got got killed that it said that was.
Speaker 4: The breaking point. And now that now.
Speaker 12: Elver in Germany, they're trying to throw the all the Muslims,
Speaker 12: they're telling them to send them back and everything because
Speaker 12: they're trying to uh. Sharia law is starting to sweep
Speaker 12: over the nations. New York is fat as a Michigan.
Speaker 12: There's a town in Michigan that's fifty seven percent Muslim.
Speaker 12: They're trying to build a Muslim compound thing, right, that's
Speaker 12: when under Sharia law in Texas, I I know this
Speaker 12: sounds bigger trade or whatever. I really don't care, but
Speaker 12: I people need to understand, like, this ship's going on.
Speaker 12: And when people think, oh, it's an invasion, which I
Speaker 12: first believe it is, they're thinking, oh, it's gonna be
Speaker 12: guys jumping out of planes, tanks filling up. No, that
Speaker 12: that that's one way to do it. That's effective, but
Speaker 12: that's not the most effected. You have to astall it
Speaker 12: within squad like hints.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Now, I think you're absolutely right.
Speaker 13: That is what that ideology is.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not gonna say that every Muslim out there
Speaker 1: is trying to bring about Sharia law on all these things.
Speaker 1: I will say that, mathematically speaking, you have more extremists
Speaker 1: on the in the Muslim faith than to that level
Speaker 1: of extremism that's willing to do violence on behalf of
Speaker 1: their faith, then you're do in arguably any other religious sect.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a crazy statistic throwout, Tony. Your
Speaker 1: hand is raised, brother. What you got?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I got three things pretty quick. In Germany, the
Speaker 9: AfD a'l tell Natifa for Deutsche Land is doing better
Speaker 9: than ever. It's twenty seven percent. It's bigger than any
Speaker 9: other party right now, especially in former East Germany, Best
Speaker 9: Germany and Ministry of Defense of Russia. We were just
Speaker 9: talking about England. They say they've eliminated twenty five British
Speaker 9: mercenaries in Krevoy Rogue just a couple of days ago.
Speaker 9: And I read somewhere else on telegram. I can't find
Speaker 9: it now, but one guy's estimating one thousand British mercenaries
Speaker 9: have probably been killed in this whole fight, which is
Speaker 9: twenty percent of five thousand total. Who knows if any
Speaker 9: of these numbers are accurate, but the British in Ukraine,
Speaker 9: British mercenaries in Ukraine since twenty twenty two. And the
Speaker 9: last thing, this is maybe about a minute on the Muslims.
Speaker 9: But yeah, they do want to build parallel institutions. But
Speaker 9: you may have heard of the Immigration Act of nineteen
Speaker 9: twenty four. It was passed primarily to keep out Italians
Speaker 9: and Jews, and the reason was actually very similar, because
Speaker 9: they were building parallel institutions. The Italians had the mafia
Speaker 9: and the Jews have their own kind of thing. And
Speaker 9: you know, I used to think, I used to be
Speaker 9: very pro immigration libertarian, but I think that those Anglo
Speaker 9: Protestants back in the twenties, they actually had a legitimate
Speaker 9: reason to be afraid of Catholics and Jewish immigration, because
Speaker 9: if you get enough of these people in here and
Speaker 9: they built enough parallel institutions, it takes over the government,
Speaker 9: and you know, the demography is destiny and they just
Speaker 9: closed it off. It wasn't the libertarian thing to do.
Speaker 9: But this is just what societies do, so be it.
Speaker 9: And that's all I gotta say right now, thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, When we're talking about the historical precedents of this,
Speaker 1: how there was certain immigration policies that were specifically put
Speaker 1: in place for Italians and those of Catholic descent, right,
Speaker 1: the Irish, things like this, that was done because kind
Speaker 1: of the same the same spirit was behind those laws
Speaker 1: being put into place, or at least attempted to is
Speaker 1: because they were worried that culturally they would not align
Speaker 1: with the American culture. And at the time, I think
Speaker 1: there may have been a case for that, especially because
Speaker 1: this was back when most of Europe was still under
Speaker 1: the control of monarchs, right, and most of these monarchs
Speaker 1: took their lead from the pope, which not all, not all,
Speaker 1: There were some Protestant nations out there. But you never
Speaker 1: heard anything about the German immigrants making their way to
Speaker 1: America and getting shit on like you did about the
Speaker 1: Irish and the Italian and the Polish. Right, there's reasons
Speaker 1: for that. They saw it as these people won't listen
Speaker 1: to the laws and the rules of this land. They're
Speaker 1: only going to listen to the pope. And how can
Speaker 1: we trust that if you're going to be in this country,
Speaker 1: you need to abuy it by the laws of this
Speaker 1: country and adhere to our president more than the Pope. So,
Speaker 1: at least in that day and age, that was the
Speaker 1: overarching theme. However, I would say that that was a
Speaker 1: bit I understand the mindset of it, but I disagree
Speaker 1: with it because I feel like Catholics and Protestants, while yes,
Speaker 1: there may be some dogmatic differences and some discrepancies as
Speaker 1: far as interpretation of the book, they're still reading out
Speaker 1: of the same book, right, And so we could see
Speaker 1: how America turned into the melting pot that it is
Speaker 1: when we get to the conversation of Islam. Their culture
Speaker 1: does not align by and large. By and large, it
Speaker 1: does not align with the majority of the cultures of
Speaker 1: the Western world, not just America. This is why we
Speaker 1: have the issues that we are having in Germany and
Speaker 1: in France and in Britain, all over Europe as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact. So yeah, to say that they're trying
Speaker 1: to do this in America, which they absolutely are raven
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact. The two things that I'm
Speaker 1: looking at right here that you posted these are the
Speaker 1: Instagram posts that you sent me earlier.
Speaker 14: Yes, So the first one is the children in Philadelphia
Speaker 14: going on about how they're going to be head people
Speaker 14: and all of that, and if you if you read
Speaker 14: in the comment section, one of the people that actually
Speaker 14: live in Philadelphia, like the one guy was talking about
Speaker 14: his he has multiple of these children going to a
Speaker 14: Catholic school where his kids go, and there's a lot
Speaker 14: of comments being talked about how like more and more
Speaker 14: people have Islamic people going to their Catholic schools, their
Speaker 14: private Christian schools, and then talk about, you know, they're
Speaker 14: pretty much Trojan horses kind of a vibe. And then
Speaker 14: the second one is of Michigan. What's going on in
Speaker 14: Michigan right now, and not only that, like a good
Speaker 14: place to look at what the culture has done is
Speaker 14: actually England and there's a place in England, and they
Speaker 14: actually did a whole series you can watch it on
Speaker 14: YouTube about people trying to go in like even just
Speaker 14: to document like what's happening and like to show that
Speaker 14: the police can't go into this area because they aren't Muslim,
Speaker 14: and then getting like forcibly attacked and removed and stopped
Speaker 14: like twenty feet into this invisible line inside England itself.
Speaker 14: Like they've taken over all sorts of areas. It's not
Speaker 14: just Germany, but multiple places are pushing them out as
Speaker 14: best as they can, because I mean, if you read
Speaker 14: their read the Koran, like their whole goal is to
Speaker 14: take over, and it's spreading and it's spread globally, and
Speaker 14: they're very strategic. They're having more children than anybody else,
Speaker 14: and it's you can't you can't kill an idea, and
Speaker 14: the idea is spreading like wildfire, and they really do
Speaker 14: want to take over and have create another Islamic country
Speaker 14: within America.
Speaker 1: Wow. All right, So we're going to play this clip
Speaker 1: right here. It is in the Arabic language, and I
Speaker 1: do not speak the Arab so I'm going to read
Speaker 1: these subtitles in English again for anybody who would like
Speaker 1: to see what we are talking about rather than just
Speaker 1: hear about it. Come to the Cajun Night at Patreon.
Speaker 1: The link is in the description below. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get into it here. The liberals ICE don't support the children.
Speaker 1: The children in question says, we will chop off their heads,
Speaker 1: we will liberate the sorrowful and the exalted. We will
Speaker 1: lead the army of a law fulfilling his promise, and
Speaker 1: we will subject them to the servants. They're all screaming, rebels, rebels, rebels.
Speaker 1: They're doing this little dance number they're throwing on these scarves,
Speaker 1: glorious steeds. Call us to lead us onto paths, leading
Speaker 1: us to the Alisade mosque. The blood of the martyrs,
Speaker 1: protect us. Paradise needs real men. Okay, that's happening in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: By the way, this little song and dance routine that
Speaker 1: these children are putting on about beheading these people and
Speaker 1: all these things. Then we go over here, says thanks
Speaker 1: to Obama and Biden, good job, liberals. This is not Iran.
Speaker 1: This video that we're watching here, people waving these flags.
Speaker 1: This is Dearborn, Michigan. That's the town that Sam was
Speaker 1: talking about. Earlier. That's like fifty seven percent Muslim. And
Speaker 1: there is a massive protest in the streets. People are
Speaker 1: waving every single flag that you can think of, as
Speaker 1: far as nations and statements. And I'm even a minute
Speaker 1: ago I saw Isis flag being waved. Yeah, that is.
Speaker 1: That's in Dearborn, Michigan. Out we have a militia group
Speaker 1: out in the streets doing a step dance. Wow. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: this is the current state of America in the city
Speaker 1: of Dearborn, Michigan. And for anybody who doesn't know what
Speaker 1: Dearborn has got going on, I highly recommend you do
Speaker 1: a quick little Google search into it. You'll find all
Speaker 1: kinds of things. Tony, what you got, man?
Speaker 9: Okay, I was gonna interject a few things to defend
Speaker 9: some of these people. I didn't see any Isis flags
Speaker 9: in there. Also, the other thing about the alak Samsque
Speaker 9: is from twenty nineteen, So look, there is some bad
Speaker 9: behavior in this group. Overall, I'm not quite as afraid
Speaker 9: as you can, guys are I'd still want to keep
Speaker 9: out the new ones. Dearborn has been Muslim for a
Speaker 9: long time. It was going that way even ten or
Speaker 9: fifteen years ago. And I one a controversy I just
Speaker 9: read about today is they're going to name a street
Speaker 9: there after a guy named Osama Siblani. And I saw
Speaker 9: a lot of people posting about this, saying, oh, he's
Speaker 9: pro hesbaalat. Well, he moved to America in nineteen seventy
Speaker 9: six before Hesbala even existed, and he started a Muslim
Speaker 9: newspaper in Dearborn. And I think he's made some pro
Speaker 9: Hesbelah comments throughout the history of the conflict. And yeah,
Speaker 9: I see how some people would really hate that, but
Speaker 9: I think it's really not much of America's business. And yeah,
Speaker 9: well I want to prevent more of these people from
Speaker 9: coming in. I don't think this is quite as bad
Speaker 9: as it's being made out right now.
Speaker 1: My question is that they want to live in a
Speaker 1: land that has Sharia law, why don't they, you know,
Speaker 1: move to a country that has Sharia law, Like there's
Speaker 1: a good number of them out there.
Speaker 15: There's fifty two countries that I have showy a law
Speaker 15: as the dominant law. And if and Islam believes that
Speaker 15: shi a law is the divine law, that every country
Speaker 15: must have it. So that I also I sent you
Speaker 15: a video I text to you because I couldn't figure
Speaker 15: it out on the thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, let me see what you sent me here. But
Speaker 1: I mean it's the same thing. If you want to
Speaker 1: live by the Royce helped me out here, the Noah
Speaker 1: Hyde laws, what would be the laws that that most
Speaker 1: Jews like, regardless of sect or denomination or whatever, that
Speaker 1: most of them like would agree with.
Speaker 16: I mean, I would just say we're Revenic because the
Speaker 16: high laws for non Jews that want to follow just
Speaker 16: those seven categories.
Speaker 1: Okay, but what would the I mean Talmudic laws? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean Orthodox Yeah, okay. So like if somebody wanted
Speaker 1: to live in a country where that was the law
Speaker 1: the land, you would move to Israel, right Like, you
Speaker 1: wouldn't try to enforce that in a land where they
Speaker 1: don't recognize those laws. At the same thing as Sharia
Speaker 1: law conversations, if you want to live in a land
Speaker 1: that has the cast system and the Vedic system, you
Speaker 1: would move to India. That that just makes more sense
Speaker 1: to me. And I'm not saying that we need to
Speaker 1: kick out anybody who's different from us. I'm saying that
Speaker 1: if you live in a foreign land, then expect to
Speaker 1: live under foreign law. I don't know.
Speaker 9: Maybe there used to be a lot more communities in
Speaker 9: this country that would speak Lithuanian or Polish or Italian
Speaker 9: at the local level, and they would have their own
Speaker 9: local laws. There's at least one big town in New
Speaker 9: York called Carryos Joel, which speaks mostly Yiddish and Hungarian,
Speaker 9: and they're mostly Jewish there, and they're almost exclusively and
Speaker 9: the Homish community is another example, and they mostly mind
Speaker 9: their own business. I guess the complain is that what
Speaker 9: if these Muslims don't mind their own business and they
Speaker 9: want to impose these rules on the whole state, for example,
Speaker 9: And yeah, that would be a problem. But if they
Speaker 9: have a local town or neighborhood and they're all like that,
Speaker 9: there's one of those I've heard going up in Texas.
Speaker 9: We actually have a lot of Muslims here. They must
Speaker 9: like the climate, it must remind them of home.
Speaker 1: Oddly enough, where they're trying to set up it looks
Speaker 1: very desert esque. We're gonna be honest with you, I
Speaker 1: could see it.
Speaker 9: But to that point, sure, it's just gonna happen. Probably,
Speaker 9: But we've.
Speaker 1: Never had the Lithuanian and Polish groups try to do
Speaker 1: terrorism the world over, right, the people then they're speaking Yiddish,
Speaker 1: I mean the Upper East Jo, I can't speak the
Speaker 1: Upper East Side of New York City. The closest thing
Speaker 1: we have to them doing terroristic things is them digging
Speaker 1: tunnels during COVID, which is still something that we need
Speaker 1: to be concerned with. I'm not denying that, but also
Speaker 1: like that's the big shtick. They were digging tunnels. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: there are multiple Islamic extremist groups that have put sleeper
Speaker 1: cells in this country, and there are aside from nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, the world over, there's multiple terrorist attacks that
Speaker 1: have been done by very similar groups. The Amish, like
Speaker 1: you said, they keep to themselves. These groups that are
Speaker 1: doing these things, speaking these languages, enforcing local laws in
Speaker 1: their communities. That's a local law for their community. They're
Speaker 1: not they're mining their own business. Islam is not a
Speaker 1: religion that is known for mining their own business. Like
Speaker 1: by and large, what you got, Sam. I tried finding
Speaker 1: the text. I can't pull it up on my phone
Speaker 1: as of with the computer up and things.
Speaker 12: But oh yeah, it's just it shows the NILEV and
Speaker 12: then it shut. It also shows them today twenty four
Speaker 12: years later, right like.
Speaker 13: A block from ground zero.
Speaker 12: The the local Muslim population is still on a fucking
Speaker 12: grade making with the fucking terroristic flags and shit. And
Speaker 12: I I I will fight to the death for anyone's
Speaker 12: freedom of speech and everything. I believe that is all
Speaker 12: that is all man's. And when I say man, I
Speaker 12: mean mankind. Yeah, but I believe that's every man, woman,
Speaker 12: and child's right.
Speaker 13: That's the God given right.
Speaker 12: But I also believe if you're where you find a
Speaker 12: terrorist flag and you stump the America flag, I have
Speaker 12: all fucking rights to put you at will introduce you
Speaker 12: to your God.
Speaker 1: See. I have no issue with the freedom of speech,
Speaker 1: even if it's something that I disagree with, including religious
Speaker 1: things like that. Fine. And again, I know Muslims personally.
Speaker 1: I have friends that are Muslims and came from Muslim
Speaker 1: countries and they live in this country. Now, you know what,
Speaker 1: They don't want America to become like the land they left.
Speaker 1: They still do their five prayers a day, they still
Speaker 1: worship a lot, they still see the prophet Muhammad as
Speaker 1: the guy. Like all the things. They're not wanting to
Speaker 1: enact for real law in America because it won't be
Speaker 1: America anymore. The majority of the Muslims I know, not granted,
Speaker 1: I don't know like thousands of Muslims, but the ones
Speaker 1: that I know are solid people, just trying to earn
Speaker 1: their daily bread and give their kids a better future.
Speaker 1: They're not out there waving flags like this. They're not
Speaker 1: out there trying to enact and enforce a law that
Speaker 1: this country doesn't recognize. There's clear lines here, you know.
Speaker 1: But anyway, all right, let's go to the next conversational piece.
Speaker 1: Still sticking on the Charlie Kirk conversation. Apparently in Toronto,
Speaker 1: a teacher is under investigation after allegedly showing the video
Speaker 1: related to Charlie Kirk's shooting. Again from Toronto, A teacher
Speaker 1: in Toronto school has been temporarily relieved of their duties
Speaker 1: after allegedly showing students a portion of a violent video
Speaker 1: quote unquote related to the shooting death of right wing
Speaker 1: commentator Charlie Kirk. The incident happened in Corvette Junior Public
Speaker 1: School on Thursday, says a letter sent to parents from
Speaker 1: Principal Jennifer Copd. Students in grades five and six were
Speaker 1: shown the video once after asking the teacher about a
Speaker 1: recent tragedy event in the United States, Copty said. The
Speaker 1: Toronto District School Board confirmed to CBC that the video
Speaker 1: was related to Kirk's death. It's a direct quote. While
Speaker 1: an investigation must still be conducted to learn all the details,
Speaker 1: the report of this incident is extremely troubling and completely unacceptable,
Speaker 1: Copty said in a letter. Since Friday, the teacher has
Speaker 1: been relieved of all teaching responsibilities while an investigation is underway,
Speaker 1: said Copy's letter, adding that they will not be at
Speaker 1: the school. Okay, just so we're all clear here, the
Speaker 1: teacher in question was showing the shot and the blood
Speaker 1: spurts on repeat for two hours to a group of
Speaker 1: ten year olds. That's the issue. It's not just showing
Speaker 1: the incident one time and the kids were all frazzled
Speaker 1: by it and they went home and told their parents.
Speaker 1: The teacher played it on repeat to basically make a
Speaker 1: statement to these children. You be the judge of what
Speaker 1: that statement was. Toronto is not known for being a
Speaker 1: very conservative city. Teachers are not known for being typically
Speaker 1: conservative minded. There are exceptions to these things. I understand that,
Speaker 1: but overall, you know, I'm just gonna say that, for instance,
Speaker 1: I don't want my children seeing that. I really don't,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure that at least one of my children
Speaker 1: has seen the video at some point in the last week.
Speaker 1: I get that that being said, the teachers should not
Speaker 1: be showing gore porn two children. That absolutely shouldn't be
Speaker 1: the way. Now, if you're gonna talk about what happened
Speaker 1: to the class, okay, you want to talk about some
Speaker 1: a very big story that's going on in the world
Speaker 1: right now, all right, I get that you shouldn't be
Speaker 1: showing the video over and over and over and over
Speaker 1: again for two hours. That's extreme. That teacher deserves to
Speaker 1: be fired, and I'm happy that they have been relieved
Speaker 1: of their teaching duties. All right, Before I move on
Speaker 1: to the tech sector, does anybody have anything else that
Speaker 1: they would like to bring up in reference to the
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk conversation.
Speaker 16: I think the only thing that I'd like to say
Speaker 16: is it for the most where I don't know or
Speaker 16: think that Israel's involved, whether that's because I'm the local
Speaker 16: Jewish correspondent or just my own personal opinion, it has
Speaker 16: a lot of enemies. If they if they were to
Speaker 16: try to get rid of absolutely every single person, then
Speaker 16: what kind of where would that be? And I don't
Speaker 16: really think that they have much to gain, especially since
Speaker 16: the overwhelming majority.
Speaker 10: Of people blame Israel is Jus for things anyway, So
Speaker 10: it doesn't make sense. One of the things that you
Speaker 10: have reiterated it in past episodes are specifically who has
Speaker 10: the most to gain? And in this case, I think
Speaker 10: it was extremely bad timing and I don't see them
Speaker 10: having that they gained anything from this.
Speaker 1: I agree with you also the whole conversation about Israel
Speaker 1: having something to do with Charlie Kirk's death and all
Speaker 1: these things. Two weeks ago, well two weeks prior to
Speaker 1: him being shot and killed, he was giving a talk,
Speaker 1: I want to say it was at a university and
Speaker 1: they had a Jewish guy come up and ask about
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. Charlie Kirk very clearly said that there are
Speaker 1: groups of people on the internet these days that blame
Speaker 1: Israel and the Jews for everything. He said that this
Speaker 1: was demonic and straight from the depths of hell. That
Speaker 1: is a direct quote from Charlie Kirk two weeks prior
Speaker 1: to him being shot. And the people that are spitting
Speaker 1: this rhetoric about how this was clearly Net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: because he was pissed off at him. They talk about
Speaker 1: months ago he had issues in a big falling out
Speaker 1: with Net and Yahoo and this, this and this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: his perspective shifted on the way that is going down,
Speaker 1: but he never wavered in his support of Israel as
Speaker 1: a as a nation, and he definitely was no hater
Speaker 1: of the Jews. So I just I don't know. People
Speaker 1: are gonna make their own assertions and assessments on this
Speaker 1: thing based off of their own biases. I myself have
Speaker 1: my own biases, and I acknowledge that, But I still
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that there is zero shot that Moussad
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with it. I'm saying that as
Speaker 1: of this moment, with even the even more and more
Speaker 1: research I've done into it, I just cannot see the connections.
Speaker 1: I really can't, uh, Sam, go ahead, I really don't.
Speaker 13: I can understand.
Speaker 12: I talked about how I thought it was being and
Speaker 12: averything just based on I don't think.
Speaker 4: He himself actually orchestrated or anything.
Speaker 12: I just find the timing very coincident, bental and all.
Speaker 12: But I don't understand why everybody as the Jews for everything.
Speaker 4: I understand that they have.
Speaker 12: They have a hand and key to play wind with
Speaker 12: the end times and all bike the Jews on the
Speaker 12: like these mastercasts it a evil, demonic people that they
Speaker 12: are God's first chosen people did because to them we.
Speaker 13: Have the light the blove line of Jesus.
Speaker 1: So to answer that question would take a good long
Speaker 1: history lesson that we don't have time for this evening.
Speaker 1: I will say that when it comes to anti Semitic rhetoric,
Speaker 1: that is not a American concept and it predates Nazi Germany.
Speaker 1: Hel Martin Luther wrote a book called The Truth on
Speaker 1: Jews after he nailed his ninety nine ethos or thesis
Speaker 1: or whatever to the church doors. The helped me out, Tony,
Speaker 1: I know, I probably butchered that one.
Speaker 9: Yeah, And it was called of the Jews and their Lives.
Speaker 1: The Jews in their Lives, that's right, And that book
Speaker 1: is also banned in the United States. You can find it,
Speaker 1: you got to know where to look, though, And my
Speaker 1: point is though anti Semitic rhetoric has been around for centuries,
Speaker 1: it's that is not a new concept. It's just kind
Speaker 1: of getting a new wave in the past few decades.
Speaker 12: Like the the anti Semitic like they like to throw,
Speaker 12: uh the analogy that I've heard a lot growing up
Speaker 12: and everything but color for people. Okay, oh, like that
Speaker 12: if you say the guy he gets he gets kicked
Speaker 12: out of one hundred and nine bars, Is it the
Speaker 12: bar's fall or is it the guy's fault?
Speaker 1: Well, when you put it, when you put into a
Speaker 1: different perspective, that every one of those one hundred and
Speaker 1: nine bars only allowed him to drink ever clear straight
Speaker 1: from the bottle. Yeah, that that changed the perspective a bit,
Speaker 1: does it not?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 12: And and then they want to say, why, well, this
Speaker 12: is the Jews all the reason why we have have
Speaker 12: ridges on our coins. I'm like, yeah, I so I
Speaker 12: understand the Jusually or whatever, but like, you can't blame
Speaker 12: every little thing on the Jews, dude.
Speaker 1: The ridges on the coin are so that they could
Speaker 1: get a Yeah, it was for clipping, but also so
Speaker 1: that they could know when it was time to take
Speaker 1: the old coins out of circulation. There was like a
Speaker 1: way to tell whear and tear. I've collected coins for
Speaker 1: a good portion of my life. The reason why America
Speaker 1: started putting ridges on the coins is because they could
Speaker 1: take that as like a litmus test, so to speak,
Speaker 1: of when it is time to take old coins out
Speaker 1: of circulation. There's a reason why it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: find a quarter from nineteen thirty five these days, because
Speaker 1: as they would make their way to banks, they would
Speaker 1: take them out of circulation and basically de mill them.
Speaker 1: That's where that started from. But clearly it was because
Speaker 1: of other other reasons, depending on who you ask. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I heard it.
Speaker 12: I have a nineteen like twenty week penny of whether
Speaker 12: it's it's a double headed Abraham Lincoln.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, that's probably worth some serious money. Have you
Speaker 1: gotten it appraised?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to Oh you should get it
Speaker 1: a praised, Dude, I won't.
Speaker 13: Because in that I feel like that's going to put
Speaker 13: a tugget on my back. And my house has been broken.
Speaker 4: My house been broken in twice already.
Speaker 13: I ain't no fair enough.
Speaker 1: But go ahead, Royce. I saw you were about to
Speaker 1: say something.
Speaker 16: No, I was just making a comment.
Speaker 10: We did it.
Speaker 11: Here.
Speaker 1: You go lean into it, Royce. I like it.
Speaker 4: I like help in your case. Bubble allegations.
Speaker 16: Yeah, I know for sure, that's why everyone. While I
Speaker 16: like going by the U just for shog yeah, I
Speaker 16: like it.
Speaker 1: I like it. Yeah.
Speaker 9: I just have one more comment about the Charlie Kirk situation.
Speaker 9: Everyone's probably her about the text messages that allegedly were
Speaker 9: sent between Robinson and his roommate that like nobody's believing in.
Speaker 1: Have you guys seen this, Yeah, we talked about last
Speaker 1: night or I think yeah, it was last night's episode.
Speaker 1: So it apparently, you know, the furry trans boyfriend roommate
Speaker 1: in him had this big text dialogue where he like
Speaker 1: admitted it outright now, I'm not saying that I believe
Speaker 1: that's actual correspondence or not. If it is, that is
Speaker 1: a sheer emission of guilt. I did watch the first
Speaker 1: court hearings today of him, and I think it was
Speaker 1: like only like a little fifteen minute ten minute clip
Speaker 1: of it or something like that. And he has been
Speaker 1: very uncooperative with the police. His trans boyfriend, however, has
Speaker 1: been extremely cooperative with the police. Look, I'm not and
Speaker 1: again I'm not saying that there are certain aspects of
Speaker 1: the story that make no sense to me. There absolutely is.
Speaker 1: On just being a conspiracy nut and looking at the
Speaker 1: story about the rifle and the breakdown and wrapping in
Speaker 1: a towel and jumping down and the changing of the clothes,
Speaker 1: and I can see that there is some sort of
Speaker 1: chicanery afoot here. I'm with that. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: there wasn't some sort of a foreign actor involved. It's
Speaker 1: very possible. All I'm saying is that as of right now,
Speaker 1: I can see no evidence of that. That's just my
Speaker 1: two sents. I know that there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: in the comments section that really really disagree with me,
Speaker 1: and they are pissed, and that's fine. But see, that's
Speaker 1: also another portion of this, a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are very angry at the things that I'm saying. Isn't
Speaker 1: that kind of why Charlie Kirk died because of his
Speaker 1: fight for freedom of speech and respectful dialogue. Just food
Speaker 1: for thought anyway, All right, let's move on to the
Speaker 1: next conversation. NASA says that the Mars rover discovered potential
Speaker 1: biosignatures last year. Now they discovered it last year. I
Speaker 1: don't know why they are just now bringing it up,
Speaker 1: but I thought this was interesting as hell. Allegedly they
Speaker 1: found signs of life on Mars. Now, this is very
Speaker 1: small bio life, more like a bacteria or something like that,
Speaker 1: but life nonetheless, and I found it interesting, so let's
Speaker 1: get into it. A sample collected by NASA's Perseverance Mars
Speaker 1: rover from an ancient dry riverbed in Ja Zero Crater
Speaker 1: could preserve evidence of ancient microbial life. Taken from a
Speaker 1: rock named Cheva Cheyava, Yeah, Chejava Falls last year, the sample,
Speaker 1: called a Sapphire Canyon, contains potential biosignatures. According to a
Speaker 1: paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature, a potential biosignature
Speaker 1: is a substance or structure that might have a biological
Speaker 1: origin but requires more data to further study before a conclude,
Speaker 1: which can be reached about the absence or presence of life.
Speaker 1: Direct quote here. This finding by Perseverance, launched under President
Speaker 1: Trump in his first term, is the closest we have
Speaker 1: ever come to discovering life on Mars. The identification of
Speaker 1: a potential biosignature on the red planet is a groundbreaking
Speaker 1: discovery and no one will advance or our under excuse me,
Speaker 1: and one that will advance our understanding of Mars, said
Speaker 1: Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy. NASA's commitment to conducting gold
Speaker 1: standard science will continue as we pursue our goal of
Speaker 1: putting American boots on Mars's rocky soil so over under
Speaker 1: on this one, they say that they found some sort
Speaker 1: of evidence of this and we can We're going to
Speaker 1: get more into it here the scientific community. No one
Speaker 1: is dismissing it, but no one is also staking their
Speaker 1: claim on this to say that yes, this is absolutely
Speaker 1: one percent proof of life on Mars, even though this
Speaker 1: signal couldn't have been made unless it was from some
Speaker 1: sort of living organism. But it's like, because you are
Speaker 1: then diving into the realm of what some might call
Speaker 1: koukery or quackery. No sciences or academic is really willing
Speaker 1: to put their name on this, but everybody can acknowledge
Speaker 1: that you can't. You can't sidestep it either, So I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty fascinating. Perseverance came upon chevaiah Chiava Jesus
Speaker 1: Chiava Falls in July twenty twenty four while exploring the
Speaker 1: Bright Angel Formation, a set of rocky outcrops in the
Speaker 1: northern and southern edges of Neret. The Vallis and Ancient
Speaker 1: River valley measuring a quarter mile wide, that was carved
Speaker 1: by water rushing into the Zero crater long ago. This
Speaker 1: finding is the director's oult of NASA's efforts to strategically plan,
Speaker 1: develop and execute a mission but able to deliver exactly
Speaker 1: this type of science the identification of a potential biosignature
Speaker 1: on Mars, said Nicki Fox, Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate
Speaker 1: at NASA Headquarters in Washington. With the publication of this
Speaker 1: peer reviewed result, NASA makes the data available to the
Speaker 1: wider science community to further study or to confirm or
Speaker 1: refute its biological potential. The rover science instruments found that
Speaker 1: the formation's sedimentary rocks are composed of clay and silt,
Speaker 1: which on Earth are excellent preservers of past microbial life.
Speaker 1: They are also rich in organic carbon, sulfur, oxidized iron
Speaker 1: or rust, and phosphorus. The combination of chemical compounds we
Speaker 1: found in the Bright Angel formation could have been a
Speaker 1: rich source of energy for microbial metabolisms, said the Perseverance
Speaker 1: scientist Joel Hurwitz of Stonybrook University, New York, a lead
Speaker 1: author on the paper. But just because we saw all
Speaker 1: these compelling chemical signatures in the data didn't mean we
Speaker 1: had a potential biosignature. We need to analyze what the
Speaker 1: data could mean first. To collect the data on this
Speaker 1: rock were Perseverance PixL which is a planetary ch for
Speaker 1: X ray lithrow litho chemistry, and Sherlock which is scanning
Speaker 1: habitable habitable and rather environments with raman and luminescence for
Speaker 1: organics and chemicals instruments WOW all right. While investigating Chejava
Speaker 1: Falls and arrowhead shaped rock measured three point two feet
Speaker 1: by two feet, they found what appeared to be colorful spots.
Speaker 1: These spots on the rock could have been left behind
Speaker 1: by microbial life if it had been used the raw
Speaker 1: ingredients the organic carbon the sulfur and phosphorus in the
Speaker 1: rock as an energy source. In higher resolution images, the
Speaker 1: instruments found a distinct pattern of minerals arranged into reaction fronts,
Speaker 1: which is a point of contact where chemical and physical
Speaker 1: reactions occur. The team called le Leopard spots. The spots
Speaker 1: carried the signature of two iron rich minerals, viventine vivinite
Speaker 1: rather and gregite, which is hydrated iron phosphate and iron sulfide.
Speaker 1: Vivianite is frequently found on Earth in sediments, peat bogs
Speaker 1: and around de kaying organic matter. Similarly, certain forms of
Speaker 1: microbial life on Earth can produce gregite. So again, they
Speaker 1: are all saying that this sample that was found. They're
Speaker 1: not saying this is one hundred percent proof of some
Speaker 1: sort of microbial life, but they are saying that this
Speaker 1: is some of the telltale signs that microbial life at
Speaker 1: one point in time existed on Mars. And I think
Speaker 1: that's kind of cool. Who knows, maybe there was a
Speaker 1: little bit more going on on Mars, way back before
Speaker 1: any kind of written history we have. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that they do some more research into this,
Speaker 1: and maybe they start publishing the papers, and maybe some
Speaker 1: scientists start actually hedging their bets in this direction. We
Speaker 1: shall see. Speaking of space, I think this is worth
Speaker 1: mentioning sixty million dollar orbital platform the US Space Force
Speaker 1: and gravit Gravitics develop up aircraft carrier that launches satellites
Speaker 1: directly from Earth's orbit. The United States is pioneering a
Speaker 1: revolutionary orbit aircraft carrier project in collaboration with Gravitics, aiming
Speaker 1: to transform satellite deployment and bolster national security amidst escalating
Speaker 1: global tensions. They're making a space satellite carrier. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say aircraft carrier, but that's not accurate. They're essentially
Speaker 1: making a satellite carrier group that's going to be able
Speaker 1: to just pop out satellites, and that's that's freaking wild.
Speaker 1: Sixty million dollars though, I know what you're thinking. That
Speaker 1: seems like it's a really low amount for such a drastic,
Speaker 1: you know, attempt for a project, and it is because
Speaker 1: this is actually just going to get some blueprints off
Speaker 1: the ground. So the US government is cool with spending
Speaker 1: sixty million dollars for blueprints for a potential project that
Speaker 1: will not be completed or even started under the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting that he's cutting all this funding
Speaker 1: from all these other things with DOGE, but then spending
Speaker 1: sixty million on a Star Wars esque project. I think
Speaker 1: it's cool, don't get me wrong, But also bro what anyway,
Speaker 1: let's get into it here. In a move that underscores
Speaker 1: it's commitment to maintaining space superiority, the United States is
Speaker 1: pioneering the development of an orbital aircraft carrier. This ambitious
Speaker 1: project is a collaboration between the US Space Force and Gravitics,
Speaker 1: a ford thinking startup. Funny that a tech startup. I'm
Speaker 1: just I don't know who owns it, but man, I
Speaker 1: just feel like I could have a one to three
Speaker 1: shot of guessing, you know. But anyway, The initiative is
Speaker 1: design to revolutionize the way satellites are deployed and protected,
Speaker 1: providing strategic advantages in the ever evolving domain of space
Speaker 1: amidst rising global tensions. This endeavor highlights the critical importance
Speaker 1: of space in national security and international relations, setting the
Speaker 1: stage for a new era in technology advancement and defend strategy.
Speaker 1: The vision behind the Orbital Aircraft Carrier The concept of
Speaker 1: an orbital aircraft carrier is an initiative innovative leap in
Speaker 1: satellite deployment technology. Grevitix, with funding from the US Space Force,
Speaker 1: is spearheading this sixty million dollar project. The primary aim
Speaker 1: is to facilitate the direct launch of satellites from Earth's orbit,
Speaker 1: a process that promises to be more efficient and responsive
Speaker 1: than traditional rocket launches. By eliminating the dependence on ground
Speaker 1: based launches, the US military can ensure a rapid, agile
Speaker 1: response to national security threats, which is increasingly vital in
Speaker 1: today's geopolitical climate. This initiative is not just about technological prowess.
Speaker 1: It reflects a strategic vision to maintain a robust orbital
Speaker 1: presence with potential space arms race on the horizon. Having
Speaker 1: a pre positioned platform in the orbit provides flexibility and security.
Speaker 1: The ability to deploy satellites as needed allows the US
Speaker 1: to address both immediate threats and long term strategic objectives.
Speaker 1: This project positions the United States at the cutting edge
Speaker 1: of space technology, reinforcing its commitment to maintain leadership in
Speaker 1: this critical area. Now Darmount enhancing space security and superiority,
Speaker 1: The orbital aircraft carrier by Gravitics is designed to offer
Speaker 1: a secure environment for satellites, protecting them from the harsh
Speaker 1: conditions of space. This unpressurized setup ensures the safety of
Speaker 1: satellite batteries and sensitive electronics, which is crucial in an
Speaker 1: era where electronic warfare and cyber threats are prevalent. By
Speaker 1: providing a shielded environment, the carrier enhances the US's space
Speaker 1: security capabilities significantly. Additionally, the carrier's ability to conceal satellites
Speaker 1: from adversaries offers a tactical advantage. As Gravitics CEO Colin Dowan. Damn,
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny that that was actually one of
Speaker 1: the three names that came to mind. This development is
Speaker 1: a game changer in aligning with the Space force sus
Speaker 1: mission of achieving orbital dominance. The project not only strengthens
Speaker 1: military capabilities, but also sets a precedent for future technological
Speaker 1: advancements in space exploration. Such advancements could redefine how nations
Speaker 1: approach space security and defense. They do talk about some
Speaker 1: public and private partnerships here. Gravidics, alongside Axiom Space, is
Speaker 1: developing both defence and commercial solutions, including a pressurized space module.
Speaker 1: This dual approach highlights the growth importance of collaborative effort
Speaker 1: between private companies and government entities in advancing space technology. Well,
Speaker 1: you know you would see that whenever you have a
Speaker 1: bunch of tech bros getting real close and tight in
Speaker 1: DC right now. Interesting that these tech startups are going
Speaker 1: to start getting crazy government contracts for space tech. I
Speaker 1: could see this the future of space exploration. Here, the
Speaker 1: emergence of technologies like the orbital aircraft carrier marks the
Speaker 1: beginning of a new era in space exploration. This said
Speaker 1: advancement has the potential to transform security, surveillance, and communication paradigms,
Speaker 1: impacting both military operations and private sector involvement, as the
Speaker 1: US Space Force and companies like Gravitic to prepare for
Speaker 1: the future challenges. The implications of these innovations are vast
Speaker 1: as the United States continues to push the boundaries of
Speaker 1: space technology. The collaboration between the US Space Force and
Speaker 1: gravid it signifies a promising step forward between the US
Speaker 1: Space Force and griv excuse me, but by redefining satellite
Speaker 1: deployment and enhancing space security. The orbital aircraft carrier project
Speaker 1: is said to have a lasting impact on national defense
Speaker 1: and aternational relations. Like we said earlier, all right, so anyway,
Speaker 1: I just think that's cool. You know, maybe is it
Speaker 1: a little bit wasteful as far as the money's concerned. Potentially? Maybe?
Speaker 1: Is it also still really really cool that we're gonna
Speaker 1: have an aircraft carrier that launches satellites just out there
Speaker 1: in space. Yes, I think that's rather awesome. But you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a big proponent of spending more money on the military,
Speaker 1: and I gotta say I really do like the Space Force.
Speaker 1: I think that's just the coolest thing ever that we
Speaker 1: actually have an entire apartment of the military designated for
Speaker 1: space now for defensive purposes, yes, but also just in general.
Speaker 1: And again, I don't know how many of you have
Speaker 1: looked into what the Guardian's dress blue uniforms look like.
Speaker 1: They are only second to the Marine Corps dress blues.
Speaker 1: I know I'm a little biased in that opinion, but
Speaker 1: I think everybody, hands down could agree that the Marine
Speaker 1: Corps dress blues are the sexiest uniform that the US
Speaker 1: military has to offer. Right below that is the Space
Speaker 1: Force Guardians dress blue uniforms. Just my hot take, and
Speaker 1: I stand on that. But anyway, Sam, go ahead.
Speaker 11: So does this mean that we can we can actually
Speaker 11: have like space pirates psych in Star Wars? Because if so,
Speaker 11: I'm down to fuck up some clankers in space bubble.
Speaker 1: You know, it's very interesting that you bring up clankers.
Speaker 1: We will be talking about a clanker that is currently
Speaker 1: a under head of state in Albania. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: to your point though about space pirates and things. This
Speaker 1: does at least give the possibility that that is a
Speaker 1: real thing that could happen.
Speaker 13: Yes.
Speaker 11: Also, I can't help but to think that when we
Speaker 11: branch off, when a sect of humans go to Mars.
Speaker 4: It's inevitable if you.
Speaker 11: Believe that that spaces uh in fact will are not
Speaker 11: faking gay. I personally believe that we are never gonna
Speaker 11: leave this fucking ball. But just to go along with
Speaker 11: the hypothetics, if say a sect of human goes to
Speaker 11: Mars in a couple hundred years, they're full fledged Martians.
Speaker 11: Now where the other things where sister, Plants where sister
Speaker 11: at that point where different tribes. Probably we've probably adapted
Speaker 11: in different ways, but we're still quote unquote humans with.
Speaker 13: Others and everything.
Speaker 17: But that was then I cannot help but to think
Speaker 17: that it's going to be an interplanetary war and everything,
Speaker 17: and we fuck up each other because one it could
Speaker 17: Earth would be seen as, oh, there's the true home plant.
Speaker 4: They have all the whistlers, they have everything. Well, we're
Speaker 4: just a walker race sent in exile. They could be
Speaker 4: viewed as like that too.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: There's tons of theories as far as like how they
Speaker 1: would colonize Mars. I have heard it proposed, and I
Speaker 1: don't know how accurate this is, but there is a
Speaker 1: proposal to say that they would treat Mars like the
Speaker 1: English at one point treated Australia and basically send only
Speaker 1: criminals there and then.
Speaker 4: I mean that would be effective, but could be But
Speaker 4: then that.
Speaker 11: That's eugenic son of itself quote unquote, you could be
Speaker 11: deemed as argued as that.
Speaker 1: I mean maybe, But Australia's doing pretty well overall. I
Speaker 1: mean they, yeah, they're still part of the British Commonwealth
Speaker 1: and things, but they the criminals that went to Australia
Speaker 1: and exile essentially, and we're sent there to colonize and
Speaker 1: to populate Australia. Australia is doing pretty okay on the
Speaker 1: global stage right now. They have their issues, of course,
Speaker 1: but overall, if that was to happen and the criminals
Speaker 1: actually turned to Mars into a destination, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not like there's no historic precedence for something like that.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Royce, I'll see your hand too.
Speaker 4: Funny thing.
Speaker 16: So, first of all, as far as Australia, I don't
Speaker 16: believe any felons are allowed to visit there, which is
Speaker 16: fairly which is very ironic since they were going to
Speaker 16: say prison colony, but now you're a fella, now shall
Speaker 16: not go to Australia, which is.
Speaker 1: Very iron I'm not sure if it's all felons or
Speaker 1: if it I think it depends on what the felony is. Right,
Speaker 1: So like if you if your felony was a nonviolent
Speaker 1: crime and not a drug related crime, I think you
Speaker 1: might be okay. Like if you did jail time for
Speaker 1: like income tax evasion, I don't think I'll show you
Speaker 1: has an issue with you. I could be wrong and
Speaker 1: maybe it is a blanket policy, but go ahead.
Speaker 10: I would have to look into it.
Speaker 16: But it's just that was regardless of whether it's a
Speaker 16: major or a minor crime, which is fairly, fairly ironic.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 16: Second, as far as the Mars conversation, randomly, there.
Speaker 10: Is a fantastic series of books with the.
Speaker 16: Beginning one called Red Rising, which is essentially about the
Speaker 16: colonization of Mars.
Speaker 10: And then you actually have a.
Speaker 16: Cast system depending on what's what color your skin is.
Speaker 16: It's like the very very low the reds all the
Speaker 16: way up to the golds, which are like the cream
Speaker 16: of the crop. It's it's a sci fi series, but
Speaker 16: it's also a great, great series.
Speaker 1: Wow, I'm gonna have to look into that. Sam, your
Speaker 1: hands raised? What's up?
Speaker 4: He was talking?
Speaker 11: He was talking about if I forget the point, but
Speaker 11: about the them going across the thing I got, I
Speaker 11: can't help but to think that if we do go
Speaker 11: up and we do try to colonize it and it's
Speaker 11: called a penal colony for a prison a word, it's
Speaker 11: a bunch of felons.
Speaker 4: But nou Yeah Australia.
Speaker 11: Uh you that the usso's, Uh that Jay and Jimmy
Speaker 11: Usso and their cousin Jacob, they were they actually had
Speaker 11: a pool w W had to do a lot of
Speaker 11: hoops and everything just to get the the Simons to
Speaker 11: be able to go international. Just not just from America
Speaker 11: loopholes and everything, because I'll have felonies and everything, but
Speaker 11: because the USO's both have DUIs and everything, they couldn't go.
Speaker 4: They they couldn't.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 11: They had a hard time getting in Australia. They had
Speaker 11: a hard time.
Speaker 4: Getting into Canada.
Speaker 18: And it's the reason why is of the Australia is
Speaker 18: because they don't want They already have enough problems as
Speaker 18: it is with the own people down there, and just
Speaker 18: the fucking wildlife wants to kill them.
Speaker 13: That's where the devil went to fucking play.
Speaker 4: Oh then it's that they already have a hard time
Speaker 4: with that.
Speaker 11: They don't want to have it just dombasses to come
Speaker 11: from over from America that likes to get part turned
Speaker 11: up and funck shit up.
Speaker 4: And I say that as a blanket.
Speaker 11: Toma crop for all Americans, because you get jack Nant,
Speaker 11: you get Jim Beam and me and Hank Williams on
Speaker 11: I'm gonna do some wild ship.
Speaker 4: I can't help it.
Speaker 1: I mean, like I said, I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: all felonies or some or whatever, but I didn't know
Speaker 1: about that. But with the USOS, I don't really pay
Speaker 1: much attention to the w.
Speaker 11: W oh he's in them as an example, but that
Speaker 11: it actually happens because Australia it's pretty much a blanket
Speaker 11: part policy.
Speaker 4: Gotcha, maisearch?
Speaker 1: Very good, Very well. Okay, moving on to the next conversation.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Russia. The war in Ukraine is still
Speaker 1: going on. The two week Special Military Operation is rapidly
Speaker 1: approaching its three year anniversary, and Russia is running out
Speaker 1: of ammunition. I know, shocking, But now Russia is they're
Speaker 1: going to say offering to buy back their S four
Speaker 1: hundred air defense rockets from Turkey that they sold them
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. They are begging in borderline, demanding them back.
Speaker 1: Let's learn a little bit about this together, shall we?
Speaker 19: All right, and our next story is about Turkey now.
Speaker 19: Reports suggests that Russia has approached Turkey with the proposal
Speaker 19: to buy back the S four hundred air defense systems
Speaker 19: it's sold to Anchor in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: The reason inventory shortages.
Speaker 19: And increasing demand from third countries. The story was first
Speaker 19: reported with Anchora open to the plan as it seeks
Speaker 19: to circumvent US sanctions. This even as Anchor is yet
Speaker 19: to officially confirm this. Ukrainian military news Side Military said
Speaker 19: that there is positive attitude towards Moscow's offer as well
Speaker 19: among Turkish officials. The S four hundred it's a long
Speaker 19: range surface to air missile defense system which was developed
Speaker 19: by Russia. It can track and target aircraft drone missiles
Speaker 19: up to four hundred kilometers away. Moscow has used it
Speaker 19: to strengthen its own air defenses, especially in areas bordering
Speaker 19: NATO countries. It is battle tested and is considered one
Speaker 19: of the most advanced air defense platforms in the world.
Speaker 19: This request comes as Turke, which is a NATO member,
Speaker 19: has been developing its own air defense system, called the
Speaker 19: Steel Dome. This will reduce Turkey's reliance on Russian technology. Now,
Speaker 19: Russia appears to be in short supply of its own
Speaker 19: domesily made and supplied S four hundreds, and is reportedly
Speaker 19: considering buying back these S four hundred systems, which had
Speaker 19: sold to tur K back in twenty seventeen. These were
Speaker 19: delivered in twenty nineteen for two point five billion dollars
Speaker 19: following its unsuccessful attempts to buy US Patriot systems. Although
Speaker 19: Turkish present recheptap Erdua announced the systems would be fully
Speaker 19: operational by April twenty twenty, Anchor still does not actively
Speaker 19: use them. They were never integrated into NATO, their missiles
Speaker 19: are already halfway through their shelf life, and maintenance costs
Speaker 19: pose a burden for Anchor at this time. At that time,
Speaker 19: the deal had resulted in a spat with the US
Speaker 19: as well, and saw Ancor being excluded from the F
Speaker 19: thirty five program and the imposition of sanctions that followed. Now,
Speaker 19: at a time when NATO unity is being tested, getting
Speaker 19: rid of the S.
Speaker 1: Four hundred would make it easier.
Speaker 19: For Turkey to resume talks of the United States, and
Speaker 19: that's for the F sixteen fighter jets and to seekree
Speaker 19: admission into the F thirty five program as well. So
Speaker 19: this is not the first time the fate of TURKEY'SES
Speaker 19: four hundreds has surfaced internationally. In twenty twenty three, the
Speaker 19: then Foreign Minister maybe Lukovasulu.
Speaker 1: Had said that the US has asked.
Speaker 19: Ankra to send the S four hundreds to Ukraine, a
Speaker 19: proposal that Ankra strongly rejected. For Russia, the interest is simple.
Speaker 19: It is to replenish its own stockpile. With increasing Ukraine
Speaker 19: drawn attacks as well as growing demand for these systems,
Speaker 19: it shouldn't come as a surprise that Russia would want
Speaker 19: it back at this point.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that was the overall breakdown of it. But
Speaker 1: we're going to get back into it here. So for
Speaker 1: two point five billion dollars, right, Turkey made this order
Speaker 1: to Russia for these weapons systems, and they are battle tested.
Speaker 1: That is a correct statement. How well they actually function.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can look at how well the war
Speaker 1: is going and have that conversation, but neither here nor
Speaker 1: there and now, because because of their inventory issues and
Speaker 1: their inability to keep up with demands, Russia is asking
Speaker 1: to buy them back, and Turkey is kind of on
Speaker 1: the side of selling them back to them because maintenance
Speaker 1: costs alone are about to become a financial burden that
Speaker 1: they don't want. And at this point they've probably been
Speaker 1: able to reverse engineer this system and make something of
Speaker 1: their own, because, like she said, Turkey's in the process
Speaker 1: of developing their iron dome or steel dome or whatever
Speaker 1: they're gonna call it. It's basically the same concept that
Speaker 1: Trump is saying, with America having a golden dome, Israel
Speaker 1: has their iron dome. Turkey is trying to do something
Speaker 1: of a very similar nature. Now, Turkey is NATO's resonant
Speaker 1: bad boy, right Nobody fully trusts Turkey, but they also
Speaker 1: see them as a necessary evil for a whole list
Speaker 1: of reasons that we don't have time to get into
Speaker 1: right now. There's a lot of pros and a lot
Speaker 1: of cons when it comes to Turkey, always has been,
Speaker 1: always will be. When Turkey made this deal to buy
Speaker 1: Russian weapons, most NATO was really mad at them for this,
Speaker 1: but this was before the Ukrainian conversation was going down,
Speaker 1: so they really had no leg to stand on as
Speaker 1: far as that goes. They tried buying US Patriots systems,
Speaker 1: but we were not willing to sell them to Turkey
Speaker 1: because well they're Turkey and we don't fully trust them,
Speaker 1: so we didn't want them to have some of our
Speaker 1: most premier tech in the military defense conversation, so they
Speaker 1: went to Russia. Now Russia cannot keep up with demands.
Speaker 1: Not only that, they just pushed back the order to
Speaker 1: India by two years. I think that India just made
Speaker 1: and they may even talk about in this article. I
Speaker 1: think they just made a I want to say it
Speaker 1: was like either thirteen billion or thirty five billion. I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm getting something wrong here. They made a
Speaker 1: big deal to buy some S four hundreds from Russia
Speaker 1: and that was supposed to be ready for them in
Speaker 1: the next three years, and Russia just pushed that order
Speaker 1: back another two So it's gonna be about five years
Speaker 1: before India gets the order that they already paid for.
Speaker 1: So let's just dive in, shall we. This is from
Speaker 1: Newsweek Face with Military equipment Shortages. Russia wants to buy
Speaker 1: back air defense systems it sold NATO member Turkey over
Speaker 1: half a decade ago, it has reported. Turkish media said
Speaker 1: Moscow had approached Ankara or Ankora with as proposal to
Speaker 1: buy back the S four hundred systems delivered in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: and a deal that caused ruckus in the NATO Alliance
Speaker 1: and prompted the US to expel Turkey from its F
Speaker 1: thirty five fighter jet program. So that was the deal.
Speaker 1: We were about to sell Turkey some F thirty five's.
Speaker 1: Now they were gonna be nerved a bit fine, but
Speaker 1: that's still a thing. Not many nations have a F
Speaker 1: thirty five in their air wing, right. We don't sell
Speaker 1: that to just anybody. And Turkey had finally gotten to
Speaker 1: a point to where we were kind of cool with
Speaker 1: them having some of our tech. Now the US has said,
Speaker 1: never mind, you ain't getting no F thirty five's. Granted
Speaker 1: that's not the most premier. The F twenty two would
Speaker 1: be the most premier air killing machine that we have
Speaker 1: in our arsenal. Problem is that has not been tested
Speaker 1: yet because there hasn't been a threat that warrants an
Speaker 1: F twenty two to come out of the hangar to intercept.
Speaker 1: But the F thirty five is the one that really
Speaker 1: sees most of the action as far as that goes
Speaker 1: these days. And then we decided, never mind, Turkey. If
Speaker 1: you're gonna make a deal with Russia right now as
Speaker 1: they are doing this shit to Ukraine and we as
Speaker 1: a NATO alliance need to stick together. You're not getting
Speaker 1: any F thirty fives, so you can do your own
Speaker 1: deal in that. Moving on here, it says Russia wants
Speaker 1: the systems back, and Turkish officials are open to the idea,
Speaker 1: according to reports which have not been confirmed by Ankara
Speaker 1: or Moscow. Not gonna try to pronounce that name, but
Speaker 1: a analyst with the Istanbul based boss Fororus Observed told
Speaker 1: Newsweek Tuesday they should have never been purchased wyat matters.
Speaker 1: In twenty seventeen, Turkey signed a two point five billion
Speaker 1: dollars deal with Russia for two two S four hundred
Speaker 1: Triumph systems, which were delivered two years later. Following on
Speaker 1: Car's frustration with the US and NATO over the refusal
Speaker 1: to sell the Patriot systems the Russian military in a
Speaker 1: NATO I'm sorry, a Russian system in a NATO country
Speaker 1: dented the US Turkey defense ties, and Washington removed on
Speaker 1: Kara from its F thirty five fighter jet program and
Speaker 1: imposed a countering America's adversaries through Sanctions Act Sanction Katsa,
Speaker 1: as it's known. Moscow is seeking to replenish equipment lost
Speaker 1: to Ukraine, and Akara is developing its own indigenous air
Speaker 1: defense systems, the Steel Dome. This deal could potentially reset
Speaker 1: relations between on Kara and Washington. As a result, Turkish
Speaker 1: media outlet Nephis reported that Russia had approached Turkey with
Speaker 1: a proposal to repurchase the S four hundred air defense
Speaker 1: system in it's sold to Onkara. The S four hundred
Speaker 1: Triumph is a missile launcher and multi layered mobile fortress
Speaker 1: designed for use against aircraft, drones, crewise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
Speaker 1: Having Moscow's flagship long range air defense system on NATO
Speaker 1: territory caused unease in the Alliance amid fears they could
Speaker 1: compromise the F thirty five fighter jets, and so Washington
Speaker 1: responded with sanctions. Turkish President Irdowin I'm gonna say, I
Speaker 1: don't know how to pronounce his first name, said the
Speaker 1: systems would be fully operational by twenty twenty, but they
Speaker 1: are still not used and high maintenance costs have made
Speaker 1: them a burden for Onkara. Issik told Newsweek that these
Speaker 1: systems were incompatible with Turkey's radar systems and that their
Speaker 1: purchase was an unfortunate decision. Military e, a Ukrainian military
Speaker 1: news website, reported that Turkish officials had expressed a positive
Speaker 1: attitude towards Moscow's proposal Onkara. Selling the systems back to
Speaker 1: Russia would ease its talks with Washington for F sixteen
Speaker 1: jets and its attempts to be readmitted to the F
Speaker 1: thirty five program. Meanwhile, Russia, which does not have S
Speaker 1: four hundreds in reserve, well, I mean they did at
Speaker 1: one point, you know, would benefit from boosting stocks lost
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. The deal would also help Russia struggle to
Speaker 1: meet its commitments to other S four hundred buyers, such
Speaker 1: as India. Turkey Today reported the news comes as Turkey
Speaker 1: is developing its own steel dome system, with Isak saying
Speaker 1: that the Turkish government places great importance on developing technologies domestically. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, we could get into what the people are saying,
Speaker 1: but honestly, we could pretty much already guess. Russia is
Speaker 1: in the hurt locker as far as keeping up with
Speaker 1: their demand on the war that they started, and they
Speaker 1: are trying to buy back anything that they can to
Speaker 1: try to keep the fight alive. You know, hey, Turkey
Speaker 1: probably will sell it back because extra change is good,
Speaker 1: and they again have probably already reverse engineered these things
Speaker 1: to have an indigit air defense system, so for them,
Speaker 1: it's really no skin off their nose. They pretty much
Speaker 1: hailed it on loan for a while. Royce, what you.
Speaker 16: Got just something smart ass and stupid.
Speaker 10: I think Turkey wasted a perfectly good opportunity to call
Speaker 10: it the Thanksgiving Dome.
Speaker 1: The you know, I when I was a kid, I
Speaker 1: was curious if there were turkeys in Turkey and maybe
Speaker 1: that's what the name came from. There are but it's not.
Speaker 1: But I agree that could have been clearly of the
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving Dome. But America is one of the only nations
Speaker 1: that really celebrates that, and Turkey does not like us
Speaker 1: at all. They see us as a necessarily necessary evil
Speaker 1: as much as we do. But yeah, I'm witch you,
Speaker 1: that would have been pretty funny.
Speaker 11: What you got, Sam, Turkey is the mad hitting stamp
Speaker 11: child of this fucked up merriage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. Like they're the one nation in NATO
Speaker 1: that no NATO country likes. But they all deal with,
Speaker 1: because there have been a few times historically speaking where
Speaker 1: they have come through in very clutch situations. But then
Speaker 1: they go off and do their own ship anyway on
Speaker 1: the back end. So it's like they don't screw any
Speaker 1: NATO country over, but they are certainly not in keeping
Speaker 1: with what's best for NATO as a whole by any means.
Speaker 11: They're the remnants of the Autumn Empire.
Speaker 4: They were, they were the Axe, they were the Axis
Speaker 4: powers in World War One.
Speaker 1: Yep, it's very true. It's very true. The Ottoman Empire
Speaker 1: which is now Turkey.
Speaker 11: So I mean they actually, uh, the Ottoman Empire, fun fact,
Speaker 11: was the last uh. They were some of the last
Speaker 11: people to stop doing the slave trade, which actually there
Speaker 11: are more slaves today and it's still being practiced over
Speaker 11: in the Middle East, but there's more slaves today, around
Speaker 11: forty million slaves today. That that's four times the amount
Speaker 11: at the height of the Roman Empire.
Speaker 4: Yeah, half of them is sex slaves.
Speaker 1: That's very true. Mauritania, which is an African country, is
Speaker 1: the only country left that actually has like full on
Speaker 1: slavery and they're not shy about it. If you look
Speaker 1: at them up they will say that they outlawed slavery
Speaker 1: a couple of decades ago. It's not that's not very accurate.
Speaker 1: They may have changed the laws a bit to where
Speaker 1: you can't outright by slaves, but you can still own
Speaker 1: them and breed them and like not sell them, but
Speaker 1: like trade them. And it's it's very very messy. And
Speaker 1: that's an African nation. But yeah, a lot of Arab
Speaker 1: countries do in fact have slave trades still to this day.
Speaker 1: And like you said, over half is for sex slavery.
Speaker 1: And I also found this out recently. Korea. You wouldn't
Speaker 1: think of Korea as being a bastion for slavery, but
Speaker 1: Korea actually has the August unbroken chain of slave ownership
Speaker 1: in history, an unbroken chain of fifteen hundred years, over
Speaker 1: fifteen hundred years of them owning, buying, selling human slaves
Speaker 1: chattel slavery. You wouldn't think of that when you think
Speaker 1: of Korea, not North Korea, I mean just like the
Speaker 1: Korean peninsula as a whole. But that is absolutely a fact.
Speaker 1: I just found that out like last week. I thought
Speaker 1: that was interesting. But anyway, all right, moving back onto
Speaker 1: the Russian conversation, as they are seriously in the hurt
Speaker 1: locker for weapons. This I thought was really funny. Russia
Speaker 1: sends a t ninety ms tank from an exhibition to
Speaker 1: the front line. So essentially there was a military exposition
Speaker 1: or exposit exhibition jeezus that was being held in the
Speaker 1: United Arab Emirates right, and Russia sent a teen ninety
Speaker 1: ms that was like one of their more premier tanks,
Speaker 1: and it was on display at the International Defense Exhibition
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five. The tank, painted initially a desert
Speaker 1: camouflage for IDA ex twenty twenty five, was returned to Russia,
Speaker 1: repainted in standard army green and sent to combat. According
Speaker 1: to sources, the vehicle we first presented abroad was upgraded
Speaker 1: with the significant experience gained during the special military operation
Speaker 1: they still call it that. It was transferred to our
Speaker 1: troops and almost the same configuration as presented at the
Speaker 1: exhibition in the UAE. The only change was the color
Speaker 1: from the exhibition desert camouflage to the standard army green.
Speaker 1: The company said, so Russia's not even shy about the
Speaker 1: fact that they were running so low on equipment and
Speaker 1: munitions and all these things that even their floor model
Speaker 1: They're only one floor model that they let go for
Speaker 1: an exhibition event. They had to call back so it
Speaker 1: could be sent to the front lines. That is embarrassing.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, as Russia keeps saying that they can
Speaker 1: totally keep up with demand and they're not seeing any
Speaker 1: real struggles, and all these things all evidence to the
Speaker 1: contrary on that the ts developed by Era vogonvod Yup
Speaker 1: is a modernized export version of the T ninety, featuring
Speaker 1: enhanced protection, improved optics, and increased firepower. Defence Blog noted
Speaker 1: that using the same vehicle for both demonstration and combat
Speaker 1: is unusual in the defense industry, where show models are
Speaker 1: typically reserved for foreign buyers. Yeah, a bit unhusual, bro,
Speaker 1: But anyway, anyway, enough dunking on Russia. They do it
Speaker 1: to themselves a lot. But I just thought it was funny.
Speaker 1: They're trying to buy back their own weapons from Turkey
Speaker 1: because they're running out. They have none left, and they
Speaker 1: have lost so many tanks that they are calling up
Speaker 1: not only their reserves, but even the floor model that
Speaker 1: was only meant to be used for exhibition. I think
Speaker 1: that's funny. All right, Now, let's get into this wild,
Speaker 1: wild conversation that's going down in Albania. Albania just appointed
Speaker 1: the world's first AI minister. Now, in America, when we
Speaker 1: hear a minister, we usually think this is of a
Speaker 1: certain religion. But please keep in mind that a lot
Speaker 1: of other nations don't have a secretary of defense. They
Speaker 1: have a minister of defense. They don't have a secretary
Speaker 1: of state. They have a minister of state. Right, That's
Speaker 1: why you see mod and Mos and Moe and all
Speaker 1: these single minister of the economy and all these things
Speaker 1: when it comes to foreign nations. So Albania just appointed
Speaker 1: their first AI, essentially secretary of a department of their government.
Speaker 1: The future is now, let's learn more together and.
Speaker 20: Tonight in the future of everything from whether and natural
Speaker 20: disaster monitoring to policy advising and clerical automation. Artificial intelligence
Speaker 20: is quietly re shaping how governments operate. But while most
Speaker 20: countries are keeping AI behind the scenes, one nation just
Speaker 20: gave it a seat at the table.
Speaker 1: So we got an AI minister, like a human minister
Speaker 1: for AI in your country right now, like an actual
Speaker 1: AI as a minister.
Speaker 7: Our AI overlords are here right now, and they're in Albania.
Speaker 19: She's going to be in charge of public procurements.
Speaker 13: I'm trying to stamp out corruption.
Speaker 12: It doesn't have an ego, It makes your mistakes, doesn't
Speaker 12: take a salary.
Speaker 8: That's the future we're living in.
Speaker 1: A minister clanker, He don't you dare say that that's
Speaker 1: our minister you're talking about.
Speaker 20: And Garrett Devink joins US now tech reporter for the
Speaker 20: Washington Post. Uh So, Garrett, what exactly does this AI
Speaker 20: minister do and what sort of decisions ultimately are we
Speaker 20: expecting it to make?
Speaker 8: I mean answer.
Speaker 21: So, Albania, they have announced that they now have this
Speaker 21: AI minister who will be in charge of procurement. So
Speaker 21: you know, this is something in a lot of countries,
Speaker 21: including Albania, has been, you know, a place where corruption
Speaker 21: has happened. When governments spend money, sometimes the deal goes
Speaker 21: to someone who might have you know, a cousin and
Speaker 21: a brother in the government.
Speaker 8: And so Nia Grubin said, if we just put.
Speaker 21: An AI in charge of all that, we won't have
Speaker 21: that kind of corruption anymore.
Speaker 8: But you know, it's unclear exactly how this is going
Speaker 8: to work.
Speaker 21: I don't think that this AI is in charge of
Speaker 21: the public treasury going to be actually signing the checks.
Speaker 21: So I do think that, you know, corruption could still
Speaker 21: be a problem here, regardless of the AI branding around it.
Speaker 20: So in terms of how this would work, right, and
Speaker 20: there's the potential that some of this is maybe I
Speaker 20: don't know, I don't know if gimmick is the right word,
Speaker 20: but maybe there is a messaging effort here as well.
Speaker 20: That often is the case in politics, right, But in theory,
Speaker 20: if this were to be really moving forward in a
Speaker 20: serious fashion and something were to go wrong, who would
Speaker 20: be responsible? Is there going to be a person who
Speaker 20: actually oversees this and or is working day to day
Speaker 20: on how it deals within plan?
Speaker 21: Yeah, I mean I would hope that people of Albania
Speaker 21: would hold their human politicians responsible for anything that goes wrong.
Speaker 21: I do think there's a really interesting question here, which
Speaker 21: is can we use technology more and more in government
Speaker 21: to kind of make things go faster and to be
Speaker 21: more fair.
Speaker 8: And people have been making this argument for a long.
Speaker 21: Time that if you sort of set up technical systems
Speaker 21: that can evaluate things that you know, maybe are transparent,
Speaker 21: that are sort of arm's length from actual people doing
Speaker 21: that evaluation, doing that decision making. Then that kind of
Speaker 21: you know, holds out this hope of you know, maybe
Speaker 21: a more technocratic, fair form of government. But of course
Speaker 21: the devil is sort of in the details. And I
Speaker 21: don't necessarily think either that the technology is there yet.
Speaker 21: You can't take even the most advanced AI model that
Speaker 21: we have right now and say, hey, go, you know,
Speaker 21: make this complicated decision for an entire country. You can
Speaker 21: say you want to do it, but the technology is
Speaker 21: not quite there yet, and so people still need to
Speaker 21: be involved in making the final decision and kind of
Speaker 21: tweaking the AI And of course that's where you have
Speaker 21: you know, human error, human bias, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 20: It is fascinating stuff and certainly something a lot of
Speaker 20: us will be watching.
Speaker 1: Garrett, Yeah, you bet your ass we'll be watching it now.
Speaker 1: This is from a Balkan insight. Let's read a little
Speaker 1: bit about this. Without legal frameworks and safeguards, the decision
Speaker 1: to appoint an AI entity as a minister entrusted with
Speaker 1: sensitive tasks is ambitious but fraught with danger. Albania drew
Speaker 1: international attention last week when Prime Minister Eddie Rama announced
Speaker 1: that an AI entity named Diala Dayala I don't know
Speaker 1: would join his cabinet. The government presented this as a
Speaker 1: way to reduce human discretion in sensitive areas such as
Speaker 1: public procurement, speed up decision making, and signal that Albania
Speaker 1: is serious about digital governance. Is serious about digital governance
Speaker 1: all right. But whether Diella becomes a milestone or a
Speaker 1: misstep will depend less on her algorithms and more on
Speaker 1: the legal frameworks, institutional safeguards and state capacities that give
Speaker 1: this initiative substance. As someone who has worked for years
Speaker 1: on digital transformation, I welcome the ambition, but ambition without
Speaker 1: architecture collapses quickly. AI can indeed make a difference in Albania,
Speaker 1: but not as a minister. Its value lies in well
Speaker 1: designed systems that strengthen procurement, recruitment and administration, making processes
Speaker 1: more consistent, transparent and accountable, provided they are supported by
Speaker 1: institutions with real checks and balances. Albania's path towards digital
Speaker 1: government has been ambitious but uneven. The e Albania Portal
Speaker 1: was first launched in twenty thirteen by the National Agency
Speaker 1: for Information Society Akhi Akhi. I don't know how they
Speaker 1: pronounce it as a modest platform with a limited number
Speaker 1: of services. It's expansion accelerated after twenty seventeen, when digitalization
Speaker 1: became a central government priority. By twenty twenty, the government
Speaker 1: announced that nearly all services would move online, and in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two it declared that ninety five percent of
Speaker 1: public services were available exclusively through e Albania. This was
Speaker 1: presented as a major milestone, positioning Albania as a regional
Speaker 1: leader in digital service delivery, reducing opportunities for petty corruption,
Speaker 1: and increasing administrative efficiency. Yet progress has been fragile. In
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two cyber attack, which disrupted government services
Speaker 1: for days, revealed the vulnerabilities and brutal impact of state
Speaker 1: invested cyber attacks. Wait a minute, you mean that if
Speaker 1: it's online, it can be hacked. I thought this was
Speaker 1: a way to sidestep corruption, not invite it in through
Speaker 1: the back door. But all right, with uneven data governance
Speaker 1: and insufficient cybersecurity capacity to handle such major attacks, Albania's
Speaker 1: digital state was shown to rest on thin institutional foundations.
Speaker 1: So it's corruption, just with more steps. What had been
Speaker 1: celebrated as a breakthrough also demonstrated the dangers of pursuing
Speaker 1: digitalization faster than governance and security systems could adapt, or
Speaker 1: at least to equal the investment with security by default
Speaker 1: approach in mind. Since then, the government has invested in
Speaker 1: new cybersecurity strategies, policies and infrastructure, signaling greater awareness of
Speaker 1: digital risks. But the leap into AI requires far deeper safeguards,
Speaker 1: governance and accountability than those applied so far. It is
Speaker 1: into this fragile ecosystem that Dilla was introduced. So she
Speaker 1: started out as a virtual assistant. Presented as the next
Speaker 1: step in Albania's digital transformation, Diella began not as a minister,
Speaker 1: but as a virtual assistant with E Albania. In her
Speaker 1: first version, Della one point zero functions as a text
Speaker 1: based chatbot. Does that sound familiar to anybody? Citizens type
Speaker 1: Russians and Diella directed them to the right service. This
Speaker 1: lowered barriers for people who found E Albania's menus confusing
Speaker 1: and marked the first step in giving digital services a
Speaker 1: conversational interface. A few months later, Diella two point zero
Speaker 1: was introduced, with voice interaction and a visual avatar in
Speaker 1: traditional Albanian dress. Citizens could now speak to her listen
Speaker 1: to her responses and experience a more human like interaction.
Speaker 1: By mid twenty twenty five, government figures cited by Reuters
Speaker 1: and Al Jazeera showed that Diella had already facilitated more
Speaker 1: than thirty six thousand documents and nearly one thousand services.
Speaker 1: Yet these outputs were always generated by E Albania's back end.
Speaker 1: D'alla's contribution was to make access easier, not make the
Speaker 1: decisions herself. I love how they were referring to an
Speaker 1: AI model as herself, but all right behind d'yala's stans. Akshi,
Speaker 1: a central body driving Albania's digital transformation and reporting directly
Speaker 1: to the Prime Minister over the past decade, actually has
Speaker 1: consolidated much of the state's digital infrastructure into the Albania,
Speaker 1: bringing together services, data and registration from ministries, line agencies,
Speaker 1: and wider central administration. For DEELLA acually designs the workflows
Speaker 1: and scripts that determine how the system responds to citizens,
Speaker 1: integrating content from across the government. Microsoft's language models provide
Speaker 1: the natural language processing, enabling Deella to understand and respond
Speaker 1: in conversational Albanian. What uses what users experience as AI
Speaker 1: intelligence is therefore not autonomous reasoning, but the output of
Speaker 1: a system built on pre programmed rules, centralized government data,
Speaker 1: and external technology, integrated by action. While this centralization has
Speaker 1: developed a delivered efficiency and created a single gateway for citizens,
Speaker 1: it has also raised questions about concentration, accountability, and resilience
Speaker 1: as the system expands into more sensitive areas like public procurement.
Speaker 1: So Fardella has been useful, but a limited tool. The
Speaker 1: greatest risk she posed was a misdirection, or was misdirecting
Speaker 1: a citizen to the wrong menu and inconvenience, but not
Speaker 1: a matter of governance. That change in September of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five when Prime Minister announced that Diella would no
Speaker 1: longer be framed simply as a virtual assistant, but he
Speaker 1: elevated to the role of a minister entrusted with one
Speaker 1: of the most sensitive and politically charged areas of state power,
Speaker 1: public procurement. So I'm just throwing this out here. If
Speaker 1: we're if we're gonna really have the conversation about AI
Speaker 1: being sentient and oh, well, you're telling me that the
Speaker 1: AI is going to rule the world in all these things.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it's gonna start in Albania. But
Speaker 1: I'm saying that if this has any real possibility of happening,
Speaker 1: and this model does well in the role as some
Speaker 1: sort of a public figure, that's gonna be a problem
Speaker 1: because there's gonna be more and more countries they're going
Speaker 1: to lean that way. And again, this is a very
Speaker 1: slippery slope, a very very slippery slope. Let's see it
Speaker 1: says regulations can't wait. The ambiguity surrounding Dala's status risks
Speaker 1: eroding public trust in AI. Experts and oppositional figures point
Speaker 1: to the lack of constitutional or legal basis, while citizens
Speaker 1: are left unsure whether this is genuine reform or political theater.
Speaker 1: If trust is lost at the outset, the societal impact
Speaker 1: could be profound, depending on Albania's AI divide between those
Speaker 1: who embrace the technology and those who reject it outright.
Speaker 1: To avoid this outcome, regulation cannot wait to avoid that outcome.
Speaker 1: We can't wait on rules. That's crazy. The forthcoming National
Speaker 1: AI Strategy twenty twenty five to twenty thirty should be
Speaker 1: used to clearly define the della's role, establish a multi
Speaker 1: stakehold or a multi stakeholder working group to prepare the
Speaker 1: transposition of the EU AIPP and ensure alignment with existing legislation.
Speaker 1: One concrete step would be the creation of a National
Speaker 1: Center for AI Excellence. Such a center could act as
Speaker 1: the institutional home for AI governance, drafting regulations and guidelines,
Speaker 1: coordinating research, and developing prototypes to serve not only governments,
Speaker 1: but also businesses and society. It would also provide a
Speaker 1: platform to test AI applications and controlled sandboxes before scaling them,
Speaker 1: ensuring innovation proceeds with accountability. Looking ahead, the ambition should
Speaker 1: be moved should be to move toward an ecosystem of
Speaker 1: interoperable AI systems. Multi agent platforms could support ministries, monitor implica,
Speaker 1: implement implementation of strategies, and communicate with one another while
Speaker 1: reporting on human officials or reporting two human officials. Allegedly,
Speaker 1: this kind of AI bureaucracy could make governments more agile
Speaker 1: and responsive, but only if embedded in strong over and
Speaker 1: guided by clear ethical and legal standards. Again, they literally
Speaker 1: just said that we can't wait on rules, so as
Speaker 1: they would be talking about how this will be great
Speaker 1: as long as it's you know, got strong oversight and
Speaker 1: guided by ethical and legal standards. They're also saying that
Speaker 1: we don't have time for all that she's in office
Speaker 1: now and to keep referring to her as as she
Speaker 1: but anyway before was assuming direct responsibility for procurement, Dialla
Speaker 1: could play a more strategic role in coordination, aligning government
Speaker 1: strategies and action plans, assisting with budget reviews, and helping
Speaker 1: respond to national emergencies through better data integration. Procurement could
Speaker 1: follow once the infrastructure skills and governmance capability to handle
Speaker 1: such a high risk function are firmly in place. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I very much agree with that sentiment. Finally, two critical
Speaker 1: risks must be addressed. AI sovereignty is essential. Wow. Reliance
Speaker 1: on external providers without full control creates long term vulnerability,
Speaker 1: and data integrity is paramount. Training diallity on procurement records
Speaker 1: already tainted by corruption would risk reproducing the very practices
Speaker 1: the system is meant to eliminate. Yeah, that's a whole
Speaker 1: other concern that honestly I didn't even consider, But it's
Speaker 1: very accurate. Only with clean, verifiable data and full sovereignty
Speaker 1: over AI components can Albania hope to create a system
Speaker 1: that is genuinely incorruptible. So we shall see how this
Speaker 1: shakes out. I promise you I will be keeping my
Speaker 1: finger on the pulse for the first AI overlord that
Speaker 1: the planet Earth has ever actually seen. But you know,
Speaker 1: with the way the world is going right now, and
Speaker 1: the way that the people are more and more becoming dependent,
Speaker 1: honestly is the correct word for it, the way that
Speaker 1: they're becoming more and more dependent on AI chatbots, I
Speaker 1: am I'm not surprised that this is happening. I am
Speaker 1: not happy that it's happening. It's just, Oh, we live
Speaker 1: in wild times, y'all. I don't even know how else
Speaker 1: to say it. So, our resident Jewish correspondent has in
Speaker 1: fact sent us this interesting little tidbit that needs to
Speaker 1: be talked about here. A Texas company makes major breakthrough
Speaker 1: in the extinction of Dodo bird three hundred years after
Speaker 1: it roamed Earth. Yeah, like you just said, it's kind
Speaker 1: of a revamp up the whole dire wolf conversation, right,
Speaker 1: which they didn't actually recreate a dire wolf. They took
Speaker 1: some DNA from a dire wolf bone, they spliced it,
Speaker 1: and it's more like a hybrid type of timberwolf crossover
Speaker 1: that has some direwolf DNA I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: what they're going to do here, but that's interesting. Apparently
Speaker 1: the Dodo bird was like a major food source for
Speaker 1: the explorers way back in the day, and you know,
Speaker 1: if they were to bring that back, that could just
Speaker 1: replace the chicken as far as our our normal poultry
Speaker 1: on the dinner table goes. I mean, that's interesting. Let's see.
Speaker 1: Scientists at a Texas based company made a major breakthrough
Speaker 1: towards reviving the Dodo bird nearly three hundred years after extinction.
Speaker 1: Colossal Bioscience is announced on Wednesday the researchers had for
Speaker 1: the first time, successfully grown pigeon primordial germ cells, the
Speaker 1: precursor cells to sperm and eggs. Our Avan teams breakthrough
Speaker 1: in delivering cultural conditions that allow pigeons primordial germ cells
Speaker 1: to survive long term in a significant advancement for Dodo
Speaker 1: d extinction. Wow, Colossal CEO and co founder Ben Lamb
Speaker 1: said in a press release, there's a picture of him
Speaker 1: right there with this major breakthrough. Wow, it's crazy. This
Speaker 1: progresses high. This progress highlights how Colossal's investments in de
Speaker 1: extinction technology is driving discovery and developing tools for both
Speaker 1: our de extinction and conservation et conservation efforts. The company's
Speaker 1: Avian Genetic group described this as a pivotal step towards
Speaker 1: back bringing back the flightless bird, which lasts from the
Speaker 1: earth in sixteen sixty two on the island of Mauritius
Speaker 1: and which has become synonymous with the phenomenon of extinction.
Speaker 1: The first cell culture recipe was for chicken pgc's and
Speaker 1: was publishing only twenty years ago, said Anna keat Avian
Speaker 1: Species director said in the release. Unfortunately, that recipe has
Speaker 1: not worked on any other bird species tested, even closely
Speaker 1: related species like quail. Colossal's discovery of a recipe for
Speaker 1: pigeons dramatically expands Avian reproductive technologies and is the foundation
Speaker 1: for our Dodo work on screen. Right now, we have
Speaker 1: a I'm not sure if this is like an actual
Speaker 1: recreation or if that's an AI image or what, but okay,
Speaker 1: fair enough. Colossal, who already boasts high profile investors, actors
Speaker 1: like Chris him Worth, Nicholas Braun and activist influencer Paris Hilton,
Speaker 1: is attempting to raise one hundred and twenty million more
Speaker 1: dollars to achieve the de extinction of the dodo and
Speaker 1: several other long gone species. The wooly mammoth, the Tasmanian tiger,
Speaker 1: the dire wolf, and the South Island giant giant moa
Speaker 1: are all in Colossal sites for species revival. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't need to bring back the dire wolf. I'm
Speaker 1: down with the Tasmanian tiger, I'm down with the wooly mammoth,
Speaker 1: down with the Dodo bird. We do not need to
Speaker 1: bring back the dire wolf. But okay, I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: sure it would look cool, but like, we don't need
Speaker 1: to bring back an apex predator among apex predators. Just
Speaker 1: throwing it out. Back in July, Colossal announced that they
Speaker 1: were teaming up with the Lord of the Rings director
Speaker 1: Peter Jackson to bring back the moa, which is native
Speaker 1: to the author's home are archers. I think it might
Speaker 1: be a mistype home of New Zealand. The company claimed
Speaker 1: to have revived the thirteen thousand a year extinct dire
Speaker 1: wolf in April by mixing ancient DNA harvested from a
Speaker 1: thirteen thousand year old tooth and a seventy two thousand
Speaker 1: year old skull with DNA from a contemporary gray wolf
Speaker 1: Colossal has previously projected that they would be able to
Speaker 1: produce wooly mammoth calves by the year twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 8: Wow.
Speaker 1: I mean, as we're having these conversations about like the
Speaker 1: future is now, they're also bringing back the past. Now
Speaker 1: they're doing this. This is basically gonna become Jurassic Park
Speaker 1: given another twenty years. With these types of companies seeing
Speaker 1: success in this manner, what's stopping it? Right? And to
Speaker 1: quote Jeff Goldbloom here, So you were so focused on
Speaker 1: if you could that you never stopped to ask if
Speaker 1: you should Sam, go ahead, sir.
Speaker 11: I can't remember what animal was, but I've talked about
Speaker 11: it before. I can't think of the Diasolene. Oh well,
Speaker 11: I want to say Santhasing anyway. Oh, it's not the
Speaker 11: Tasmanian devil, but it was the Tasmanian tiger, I want
Speaker 11: to say. Anyway, Uh, that's what they believed. The was
Speaker 11: the super Copple because there was two of them. I
Speaker 11: was supposed to be sent to the boxes who and
Speaker 11: uh they were? While they were down by South America,
Speaker 11: the ship went sank.
Speaker 4: A couple of animals made it to the shore.
Speaker 11: And whatever they believe it was one of them made
Speaker 11: it to the thing, but a lot of them went
Speaker 11: down with the ship.
Speaker 13: Also.
Speaker 11: I would not I would not put it past him
Speaker 11: to bring it back. But the reason why the dodo
Speaker 11: went extinct is because they had no natural putters and
Speaker 11: they were pretty much stupid. That's why the colloquial to
Speaker 11: is he's as dumb as a dodo.
Speaker 4: Call him, you call him a dodo.
Speaker 1: So they had a very similar problem in Hawaii, right
Speaker 1: they released mongoo, mongeese, mongooses. Sure what that word is
Speaker 1: that plurals mongoose as well. Yeah, just like a moose,
Speaker 1: got you, got you. So they released hundreds, I think
Speaker 1: thousands maybe of mongoose on the islands of Hawaii in
Speaker 1: an attempt to get rid of some rodents that they
Speaker 1: had and some snakes. The problem is that the rodents
Speaker 1: that they were trying to get rid of the mice
Speaker 1: and everything. They never tested if mongoose actually like hunted mice,
Speaker 1: which they don't, and so what ended up happening was
Speaker 1: the mongoose went and started destroying the birds that would
Speaker 1: make their nest on the ground and never even touched
Speaker 1: the mice. The other side of that is the mice
Speaker 1: were nocturnal and mongoose do their business during the day,
Speaker 1: so honestly, they never really saw each other any kind
Speaker 1: of interface. And as a result, Hawaii had multiple very
Speaker 1: very indigenous important bird species become extinct because of people
Speaker 1: trying to, you know, screw around with the biome so
Speaker 1: to speak. Yeah, I'm not against the dodo bird coming
Speaker 1: back because like you said, they really have no natural
Speaker 1: predators well of the area where they lived anyway, And
Speaker 1: if you were to try to farm those I could
Speaker 1: see that being a decent profit. And apparently the eggs.
Speaker 12: Are bigger than chickens, and you'd you'd get a more
Speaker 12: of a more of a yield per egg and everything.
Speaker 12: But there's been a I used to plaise chickens I've had.
Speaker 12: It doesn't happen. It happens a lot more on the
Speaker 12: industrial level. But you can get one chicken egg that
Speaker 12: has like full yolks in it.
Speaker 1: Dog yeahs, wow, it is a thing. I've seen it happen, bro.
Speaker 1: And so I mean, I don't necessarily have them bringing
Speaker 1: have a problem with them bringing back certain species. I'm
Speaker 1: not even the Tasmanian tiger, Like, I don't really have
Speaker 1: a problem with that. It's not a tiger like you're thinking.
Speaker 1: It looks more like a cat dog. Honestly, it's like
Speaker 1: the size of a dog.
Speaker 13: Half of it has stripes, another half does it.
Speaker 12: Also, their jaw actually unhinges, and it is really dope.
Speaker 12: And like again, I am the spirit animal and I
Speaker 12: like animals.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no doubt. But in the wooly mammoth, I
Speaker 1: don't know where the hell you think you're gonna have
Speaker 1: that survive with all that hair. Maybe Siberia, maybe Alaska.
Speaker 12: There was we drove them to like while the majority
Speaker 12: mainland of wooly mammoths died out a long time ago.
Speaker 12: It was like up to like I think four to
Speaker 12: around two thousand years like past the Pyramids and everything.
Speaker 4: Oh no, they were.
Speaker 1: The wooly mammoth roam the earth when the pyramids are
Speaker 1: being built. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Yeah, and Cleopatra is closer to the McDonalds than she
Speaker 12: was to the pyramids being built.
Speaker 13: But that's that's the point. They the wooly mammoth.
Speaker 12: It was like, I want to say, like less than
Speaker 12: three thousand years ago, we actually killed the last living
Speaker 12: remnants of the wily mammoth.
Speaker 1: So see if they bring these things back. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's interesting and wild to see technology do the things
Speaker 1: that it's doing in our day and age. So thank
Speaker 1: you for sharing that with the group. Royce, that was awesome.
Speaker 1: What you gotta say.
Speaker 12: I just want to say, I love all you and
Speaker 12: can we get rid of the clanker?
Speaker 13: I don't trust it. The building's kind.
Speaker 1: Of I am happy to see that that's going down
Speaker 1: in Albania, which, yeah, if we're gonna talk about a
Speaker 1: country that is fraught with corruption and they're like that's
Speaker 1: that's like saying Serbia or Ukraine before the war and
Speaker 1: all these things, like yeah it was. This is a
Speaker 1: spot where some very bad uh under the table deals
Speaker 1: go down and always have UH. We will see how
Speaker 1: the AI shakes out in a position of power in government,
Speaker 1: because they very proudly said that they don't have time
Speaker 1: to put in the infrastructure and restrictions and governance on it.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna plug it up and let it roll.
Speaker 1: So we will see what happened, and all the members
Speaker 1: of the retinue don't worry. I am going to keep
Speaker 1: my finger on this pulse of this and we are
Speaker 1: going to talk about it in the next few weeks
Speaker 1: and months as things start to shake out. With that
Speaker 1: being said, I think we are getting ready to wrap
Speaker 1: up this episode. I would like to thank everybody as
Speaker 1: always for joining me on this excursion and again if
Speaker 1: you would like to join us every Wednesday night at
Speaker 1: nine pm Central on the Cajun Night, the link is
Speaker 1: in the description below. Only one tier for injury. We
Speaker 1: are trying to grow this into an information sharing platform,
Speaker 1: a community of people that just want to talk about
Speaker 1: the things that are going on in our world today.
Speaker 1: And I thank you again for everybody who joined me
Speaker 1: on this one. Once again, I am the Cajun Night
Speaker 1: and as always, God bless