Speaker 1: Get ready.
Speaker 2: And so the fourth day, if you will, of September
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, allegedly according to that thing we call
Speaker 2: a calendar. This is the Ocelly effect. So I'm coming
Speaker 2: back for a part two broadcast, and we're not going
Speaker 2: to discuss what I talked about in the first part,
Speaker 2: although I'll try and release both podcasts simultaneously later on tonight.
Speaker 2: This is more of something that somebody did actually request
Speaker 2: was a supporter of the show, and I once again
Speaker 2: want to thank Jimmy James, and our friend Danny, and
Speaker 2: our friend Chris and b Pete and a few other
Speaker 2: people who actually do support what it is I do,
Speaker 2: whether they agree with me or not, which I find
Speaker 2: extremely ethical on their part because they might find some
Speaker 2: value in some of the analysis I do that gets
Speaker 2: them to consider maybe something outside of their comfort zone.
Speaker 2: Not too much, because remember it's America, and I know
Speaker 2: most of you don't want to hear these issues or
Speaker 2: the news or an actual analysis because the prefabricated, preconceived
Speaker 2: prescription that is given to you by the various corporate
Speaker 2: entities and the allegedly independent that are well backed, well broadcast,
Speaker 2: well produced, and all that are much easier to consume
Speaker 2: because they are designed for your already conditioned palate to accept. Anyway,
Speaker 2: onto it. Let's look at the news from the past
Speaker 2: week to ten days, and why because I haven't done
Speaker 2: a news show and it's time to examine a few things. Like,
Speaker 2: if you're keeping score at home, there was a robin
Speaker 2: with no batman. That's right, one of one of the
Speaker 2: many many mass shootings that occurs in America. And I
Speaker 2: don't even want to dive too deeply into it because
Speaker 2: it is literally a weaponized grab bag now, a real incident.
Speaker 2: I don't say it's fabricated. I'm not a Sandy Hooker,
Speaker 2: I'm not aj but I am going to tell you
Speaker 2: that these things are also useful to the propaganda generators
Speaker 2: out there. And if you don't know that, I look,
Speaker 2: I don't know what to tell you. Welcome to planet Earth.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know the initial reaction special report Minnesota
Speaker 2: school shooter had a video manifesto and acted alone. They
Speaker 2: had that out within hours before any ethical, ethical examination
Speaker 2: investigation could have been conducted regarding these things, right, the
Speaker 2: inunction shooter, the nunciation shooter, whatever, new video, but it
Speaker 2: shows the annunciations school shooter at a gun shop days
Speaker 2: before the attack. They had, you know, within a few
Speaker 2: days they had video of the guy, which, by the way,
Speaker 2: they were allegedly a trans shooter who revealed in his
Speaker 2: journal that he was quote tired of being trans and
Speaker 2: wished to quote never brainwashed himself. Use your own judgment
Speaker 2: as to what this sounds like the school shooter's Nazi
Speaker 2: salutes and quote erratic and quote behavior revealed by an
Speaker 2: ex friend. Of course, they go to the ex friends
Speaker 2: and the neighbors and such, and he was a quiet boy,
Speaker 2: and he was a quiet person, and all that did
Speaker 2: Robin Westman's transition in quote drugs fuel the minus Minneapolis shooting.
Speaker 2: RFK Junior blames antidepressants pro runder way SSRIs changing brain chemistry. Indeed,
Speaker 2: they do change behave. Whether you want to accept that
Speaker 2: or not, that's up to you. But that's sort of
Speaker 2: the premise under which they're sold to us. Anyway, what
Speaker 2: are we looking at at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: Robin Westman, the Minnesota shooter, posted manifesto video on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Footage surfaces online, and I'm going to give you the
Speaker 2: links to all these stories that follow through on a
Speaker 2: great many of these things. But what did I want
Speaker 2: to do. I wanted to dig a little deeper and
Speaker 2: take a look at the context and why this grab
Speaker 2: bag of strange where the left and the right could
Speaker 2: easily adapt this entire scenario and this tragedy to guess
Speaker 2: what they're talking points one way or another. It is
Speaker 2: a one size fits all for the left right paradigm.
Speaker 2: You now have a white male from some people's perspective
Speaker 2: that shot up another place. Yawn, of course, and God,
Speaker 2: and now we'll talk about the type of gun, and
Speaker 2: we'll talk about the fact that this person had a
Speaker 2: problem and this was immediately in the immediate aftermath, within minutes,
Speaker 2: being described by the media as a hate crime against Catholics.
Speaker 2: Is it a hate crime against Catholics or is it
Speaker 2: a personal vendetta? And what is the difference? Again, if
Speaker 2: you're keeping score at home, this whole circumstance is revolting, disgusting,
Speaker 2: and something that should have never happened. Absolutely, And if
Speaker 2: you have any other viewpoint on that, then you probably
Speaker 2: need to shut this off now, because if you feel
Speaker 2: it's justified for children to be murdered, or you think
Speaker 2: it's good for the Catholic Church, to be attacked, even
Speaker 2: if you hate the Catholic Church, and even if it
Speaker 2: was filled with pedophile priests, it's not something that could
Speaker 2: be justified or excused or understood because they're trands and
Speaker 2: they're confused, and they were persecuted by the Catholics. Or
Speaker 2: maybe it's because they were trans They were already a
Speaker 2: dehumanizing factor. They were already problematic because they were twisted
Speaker 2: individual twisted by the left ideology that made them identify,
Speaker 2: you know, from going from Robert to Robin, like I say, Robin,
Speaker 2: no batman. But what is the real story here and
Speaker 2: what is the context? Why is this being amplified? Well,
Speaker 2: I'll tell you why because as I go and I
Speaker 2: collect the data about mass shootings just in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five as of September. First, let me tell you a
Speaker 2: little something about American mass shootings. There have already been
Speaker 2: three hundred and forty eight, clearly making it easy for
Speaker 2: us to surpass more than one per day. So at
Speaker 2: least once a day there is a mass shooting event.
Speaker 2: What is a mass shooting event? A circumstance where a
Speaker 2: shooter goes into an area with a population in it
Speaker 2: and kills what at least two people or one people
Speaker 2: and wounds at least three others something like that. These
Speaker 2: are loose definitions, but either way, if you have at
Speaker 2: least one fatality and a handful of casualties, injuries, etc.
Speaker 2: Caused by the shooter or by the circumstance of the shooting,
Speaker 2: you have a mass shooting. By the numbers, this is
Speaker 2: what exists. Three hundred and forty eight of them have
Speaker 2: occurred from January one to September one. We're looking at
Speaker 2: shootings per day. The average as it stands in America,
Speaker 2: just the United States one point four to one per day,
Speaker 2: so close to one and a half, but not quite.
Speaker 2: The amount of people killed in these mass shootings thus
Speaker 2: far has been relatively low. Three hundred and ninety six
Speaker 2: for three hundred and forty eight, for just a little
Speaker 2: more than one per mass shooting has been killed in
Speaker 2: each mass shooting, however, fourteen and forty eight were wounded
Speaker 2: according to statistics, and who knows how many have been traumatized.
Speaker 2: But here's another echo that nobody seems to be able
Speaker 2: to wrap their minds around or quantify into a statistical
Speaker 2: number how many people have been traumatized or steered by
Speaker 2: this politically or socially. And I do mean how many
Speaker 2: people have been placed into a position of fear based
Speaker 2: on what it is they've been informed about and what
Speaker 2: it is they haven't been informed about regarding mass shootings.
Speaker 2: How many people have changed their behaviors in daily life
Speaker 2: due to this. How many people are literally scared all
Speaker 2: the time for either their children or others. You know,
Speaker 2: because schools are a common target, so are targets a
Speaker 2: common target. But grocery stores and any place where people
Speaker 2: get together, and any group of people that could attract hate,
Speaker 2: either personal or political reasons, all seem to bring this
Speaker 2: on and disproportionately in America. Why because we have at
Speaker 2: least one gun for every human being in the country,
Speaker 2: some say, but I don't think so, because even when
Speaker 2: you can statistically line it up and you don't have
Speaker 2: necessarily three hundred and somewhdd million people like you do
Speaker 2: in some other smaller countries, you may still have nearly
Speaker 2: one gun per person in the population and still not
Speaker 2: this inordinate high amount, this high frequency, if you will,
Speaker 2: of mass shootings. What is it that's doing it? Mental
Speaker 2: health as a catch all is not a good enough explanation.
Speaker 2: It's too general, it's too wide open, and statistically it's
Speaker 2: not proven unless you want to say that anybody that
Speaker 2: does this proves their ill health mentally by simply committing
Speaker 2: this act. But by that logic, every crime of violence
Speaker 2: could be seen as proof of mental instability, and that's
Speaker 2: not necessarily true. Plus, it would cause a lot of
Speaker 2: less people to be punished for their actions who were
Speaker 2: willfully and completely cognitively aware of what it was they
Speaker 2: were doing, the consequences, the damage done, and to be
Speaker 2: non compassmentous in so many cases would cause responsibility to
Speaker 2: be shifted from the individuals who've done these things. Now,
Speaker 2: they could have been driven from a you know, a
Speaker 2: group place into individual acts of violence. I mean, that
Speaker 2: does happen, but there are other things to consider. And meanwhile,
Speaker 2: there was a mass shooting, you know, within a day
Speaker 2: of it in the same state that I think at
Speaker 2: a higher level of fatalities, but it wasn't children, It
Speaker 2: wasn't as extreme in the what bleeds leads paradigm as
Speaker 2: the Annunciation Church there. Anyway, consider why it is these
Speaker 2: things are driven at you and exemplified, highlighted or amplified
Speaker 2: in the media. Sphere, whether it be social or mass,
Speaker 2: because both the social and mass casualties that occur from
Speaker 2: these things are considerable, significant, and relevant to one another.
Speaker 2: That stands for the media, the casualty events and the
Speaker 2: dysfunction that we find ourselves wrapped in in this place
Speaker 2: we used to call America. Anyway, there's a lot more
Speaker 2: news to consider, and if you weren't keeping score at
Speaker 2: home with that, you're really going to hate the numerical values.
Speaker 2: I'm going to lay on you for other things. I mean,
Speaker 2: most people have demanded propaganda feeds from social and other
Speaker 2: media continuously, the clown show in the USA, abandoning critical
Speaker 2: thinkers to suffer either the MAGA cult or some say
Speaker 2: even more nefarious new and improved mk ultra slim fast
Speaker 2: left coded ignorance of logical results. I mean, here we go.
Speaker 2: It's like, Hey, you're on a skyscraper and you can
Speaker 2: either jump or burn in the fire behind you. These
Speaker 2: are not acceptable either or selections in my mind. But again,
Speaker 2: the participation trophy culture, the self inflicted intellectual self harm
Speaker 2: from the Dunning Kruger effect, which I discussed the other
Speaker 2: discussed the other day and was disgusted by the fluoride
Speaker 2: the success of master disinformation programs described by William J.
Speaker 2: Casey in nineteen eighty one in the infamous quote, will
Speaker 2: know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American
Speaker 2: public beliefs is false? Not quite, mister Casey, but damn close.
Speaker 2: Quick side note, By the way, John Travolta is still
Speaker 2: not dead, despite the fact that there have been many
Speaker 2: false reports of his death since twenty twenty three. As
Speaker 2: much as I can track, and indeed, you know, Jet
Speaker 2: Tribolta died some time ago, but as far as I know,
Speaker 2: John Travolta is still alive. And even though I've had
Speaker 2: to encounter YouTube videos giving him tribute for his passing,
Speaker 2: people don't understand that this hasn't actually happened. Another piece
Speaker 2: of fairly good news, in my opinion, is that Florida
Speaker 2: is going to end vaccine mandates for children as states
Speaker 2: Central you know Surgeon General likens them to slavery. I
Speaker 2: think that's progress. But there's other points of interest in
Speaker 2: the information sphere, in the news that don't necessarily get
Speaker 2: accented very well, that don't necessarily get presented or amplified
Speaker 2: very well, And hopefully that's why you tuned into me.
Speaker 2: By the way, another thing about those mass shootings in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, just for the record, okay, and just
Speaker 2: as of September first, I mean, there was a mass
Speaker 2: shooting in Fort Worth on September first. There was yet
Speaker 2: another mass shooting in the Bronx and New York on
Speaker 2: September first. The first mass shooting actually doesn't have a
Speaker 2: qualified death, but does have first four injured in fort Worth.
Speaker 2: In the Bronx and New York on the first of September,
Speaker 2: there was one dead, four injured. Chicago, Illinois, the favorite
Speaker 2: whipping post of the Conservatives, there was zero dead and
Speaker 2: five injured on the first. And hey, if we go
Speaker 2: back into August, we can start looking at Cincinnati, Ohio
Speaker 2: with four dead and nobody else injured. Chicago again, zero dead,
Speaker 2: four injured. Jackson, Mississippi on the thirtieth. Let's see, yeah,
Speaker 2: the thirtieth of August. Yes, indeed, let's see two dead
Speaker 2: and two injured, and on and on and on. Minneapolis, Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm only going back to say it's the
Speaker 2: twenty second and not even getting to the event where
Speaker 2: we could talk about exactly what happened there. You know,
Speaker 2: at the Annunciation Church. And there are many many mass
Speaker 2: shootings that have occurred since and right before that were
Speaker 2: not identified. And I mean you have juvenile victims. You
Speaker 2: have you know, because you might say, well it's only children,
Speaker 2: Well there's victims family, there's a whole family fatality. There's
Speaker 2: many juvenile victims. Two children were killed in Minneapolis on
Speaker 2: the twenty seventh. We know that. Let's see victim fatalities.
Speaker 2: A twenty seven year old was killed in Chicago. Let's
Speaker 2: see who else victim fatalities, you know. I mean, it
Speaker 2: is on and on and on. And to tell you
Speaker 2: the truth, one of the most effective trackers on this
Speaker 2: is actually mass shooting tracker dot site. They've got a
Speaker 2: pretty good rundown and a continuous ticker on what's occurred
Speaker 2: the many, many, many mass shootings just in the past month,
Speaker 2: if you want to look at them. Lots and lots
Speaker 2: of juvenile victims, some cases no fatalities, some cases multiple
Speaker 2: many injuries, some cases only one death, some cases, like
Speaker 2: I said, no death. It's all over the map. But
Speaker 2: there are constant events where somebody fires a lot of
Speaker 2: shots into a crowd. And they're not all great marksmen.
Speaker 2: Apparently they don't all rack up a lot of victims.
Speaker 2: But it is a constant trend, and it is clearly
Speaker 2: an American trend. What else is a great trend in America? Well,
Speaker 2: political skulldugery, I think so, And I got to talk
Speaker 2: about that in a minute. But let's see, if I
Speaker 2: go over my list of things to discuss, we also
Speaker 2: might have forgotten even though there was a meeting just
Speaker 2: a short time ago where let's see, Trump put the
Speaker 2: onus on Europe to pressure Putin into a Ukraine conference call. Right,
Speaker 2: that was today, by the way, Zelenski was involved in this,
Speaker 2: and the envoy was involved in this, And yeah, Trump
Speaker 2: wants Europe to end the situation there. I guess he
Speaker 2: couldn't do it all on his own in twenty four hours.
Speaker 2: And I don't blame him for that, because it's a
Speaker 2: bit of a complex situation and something that's been going
Speaker 2: on as a battle for a couple of years, not
Speaker 2: something you can easily end in a couple of minutes.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not a schoolyard brawl. Just saying. But
Speaker 2: when we begin to compare, the interesting paradigm that emerges
Speaker 2: from those that say, look, I don't want to be
Speaker 2: an interventionist. And I go and I study, and I
Speaker 2: say to myself, well, here's where the United States in
Speaker 2: beans with either treasure or personnel, or political capital or
Speaker 2: various deals or whatever else. What do most people bring up?
Speaker 2: Their morality and the amount of money spent. They have
Speaker 2: a moral reason for not wanting to involve the United
Speaker 2: States and our treasury, which of course could be better
Speaker 2: spent taking care of people at home. And I get
Speaker 2: that the non interventionist ideal, But the majority of people
Speaker 2: you'll encounter are lying to you about this. They're not
Speaker 2: telling you the truth about what it is they find
Speaker 2: truly morally reprehensible. They're not telling you the truth about
Speaker 2: how it's about money and we shouldn't be involved, and
Speaker 2: it's not our business, and so on and so forth,
Speaker 2: because they can easily be swayed from one direction to another.
Speaker 2: And I took time to study the difference between the
Speaker 2: acceptable nature or the unacceptable nature of US intervention in
Speaker 2: Israel versus the acceptable or unacceptable US intervention in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: which one of these things is actually more costly. Well,
Speaker 2: I tried to create certain parameters so I could examine
Speaker 2: it and take a look at what the comparisons were,
Speaker 2: you know, forgetting about again the morality or the emotion,
Speaker 2: just taking a look at the amount of money, the
Speaker 2: amount of resource, and the amount of obligation that is
Speaker 2: implied just by agreement, not necessarily by you know, moral
Speaker 2: turpitude or whatever. Point is this when it comes to
Speaker 2: Ukraine and people saying, look, we shouldn't be involved, and
Speaker 2: you know, screw them, and besides that they're corrupt country
Speaker 2: and all these other judgments. Get them to remove the
Speaker 2: emotional and the judgmental part of it and talk about
Speaker 2: the brass tax right either side, by the way, whether
Speaker 2: they think Russia is the great white hope of the
Speaker 2: world and they are more moral than us and Putin's
Speaker 2: a great guy, or they think that Ukraine is you know,
Speaker 2: an absolutely free nation that we should support because they
Speaker 2: are a democracy like us. I don't want to hear
Speaker 2: about the emotional reaction. Let's talk about the agreements and
Speaker 2: the cost because these things are what are relevant and
Speaker 2: often left completely out of the emotional exchanges about this.
Speaker 2: And I made notes and I'm going to share them
Speaker 2: in the show notes here for this podcast, and hopefully
Speaker 2: you guys will follow through on some of these things,
Speaker 2: but they're very partial, scatterbrain kind of notes where I
Speaker 2: decide to analyze something, not just read a news story
Speaker 2: and agree or disagree and let my own opinion be
Speaker 2: the driving force behind things, but come up with an
Speaker 2: objective way to measure results, actions, costs, and the agreements. Anyways,
Speaker 2: when I compare contrast Israel versus Ukraine's support allies and
Speaker 2: alleged agreements, I come across something in nineteen ninety four
Speaker 2: where the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom in exchange
Speaker 2: for Ukraine's nuclear arsenal. Okay, the signatories provided security assurances,
Speaker 2: including guarantees of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The contingent
Speaker 2: there was that they would be helped or defended, and
Speaker 2: that was the bargaining chip to get them to surrender
Speaker 2: a nuclear arsenal which they still had in their possession.
Speaker 2: With the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine received financial assistance
Speaker 2: and compensation for dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure. Okay, And
Speaker 2: when I take a look at the amount of aid
Speaker 2: given to Ukraine in the past, I don't know. Let's see,
Speaker 2: you know, in recent times, let's say, right, and in
Speaker 2: the recent actions. By the time we get to August
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five, from the beginning of the conflict
Speaker 2: with Russia, where some people say they invaded, some people
Speaker 2: say they continued and they entered the eastern part of
Speaker 2: Ukraine and the live fire started there. Not going even
Speaker 2: back to the crimea incident, separating it the recent action,
Speaker 2: the special military action that Putin describes as not a war.
Speaker 2: But this is what this is anyway, three hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty billion dollars as best I can observe and get
Speaker 2: from public sources, you know, things that are not necessarily classified,
Speaker 2: hidden in black ops, et cetera. Three hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: billion by August of twenty twenty five from the beginning
Speaker 2: of the conflict. One hundred and seventy five billion is
Speaker 2: usaid at this point, So one hundred and seventy five
Speaker 2: billion dollars one way or another, almost any way you
Speaker 2: slice it. In security assistance. All that stuff is what
Speaker 2: has been spent on the Ukraine conflict by the US.
Speaker 2: When we have an agreement in place that look, if
Speaker 2: you give up your nukes, will help you defend your
Speaker 2: territorial integrity, sovereignty. All of that whatever that means to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: This is the agreement we gave them. They remain independent,
Speaker 2: they keep their territory, and we're supposed to help them
Speaker 2: do that. Along with signatories from the United Kingdom right,
Speaker 2: and Russia signed onto this too. Anyway, this was the
Speaker 2: assurance for surrendering the military arsenal and dismantle the infrastructure
Speaker 2: for it. That's the public agreement, right And like I said,
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy five billions since the beginning of
Speaker 2: this stage of that conflict where the invasion of the
Speaker 2: East happened. There's a lot of different ways to measure
Speaker 2: this and look at it, but I've done the best
Speaker 2: I can to come up with that number. When I
Speaker 2: look at the current campaign against Palestine and Israel now
Speaker 2: we're switching to I easily see a bunch of line
Speaker 2: items which are difficult to quantify in some cases. You know,
Speaker 2: you got to consider a bunch of things. There was
Speaker 2: security assistance, there was you know, actions in neighboring countries
Speaker 2: to assure the integrity of the borders of Israel, okay,
Speaker 2: and the borders of the area of conflict, you know.
Speaker 2: And then Operation Midnight Hammer, which is the bombing right
Speaker 2: of Iran. And when you've got you know, a single
Speaker 2: strike involving a fourteen GBU DASH fifty seven bomb on
Speaker 2: Iranian nuclear sites, fourteen of those costs six point six
Speaker 2: billion dollars, with individuals successful hits costing one hundred and
Speaker 2: fifteen million apiece. Okay, estimates you know, because of again
Speaker 2: classified cost command and control resources, excluding you know, determinations
Speaker 2: of other infrastructure costs which might already be endemic of
Speaker 2: other circumstances and might have joint usefulness. I'm talking about
Speaker 2: dedicated resources, right, fourteen guided bomb units, massive ordinance penetrators,
Speaker 2: right MOP, the thirty thousand pounds or fifteen kilogram bunker
Speaker 2: buster bombs, right, carried by the B two and all that,
Speaker 2: and you got to work with declassified cost estimates, and
Speaker 2: conservatively that operation alone had to run about eight point
Speaker 2: three billion dollars. Now that doesn't include the Israeli controlled weapons,
Speaker 2: which were an assorted equipment, logistics, human resources that may
Speaker 2: or may not have been paid for by the United
Speaker 2: States previously that were involved with the Israeli support of
Speaker 2: this operation. That's another situation. I'm talking about direct fresh contributions, right.
Speaker 2: And there was also a supplemental package passed like almost
Speaker 2: as an emergency by the US Congress, where they gave
Speaker 2: twenty six point three eight billion dollars total in support
Speaker 2: to Israel, also to reimburse US military operations and provide
Speaker 2: humanitarian aid. Five point two billion for replenishing and expanding
Speaker 2: Israel's missile and rocket defense systems, including the Iron Dome,
Speaker 2: David Sling, and the Iron Beam okay. Four point four
Speaker 2: billion to replenish US stockpiles of defense articles and services
Speaker 2: provided to Israel, three point five billion for advanced weapons systems,
Speaker 2: one billion to enhance artillery and critical NISIS production conditional aid.
Speaker 2: In February of twenty twenty four, the US issued a
Speaker 2: memo requiring recipients of US military aid to provide assurances
Speaker 2: that they would use the weapons in line with international law.
Speaker 2: While the Administration found quote a reasonable it reasonable to
Speaker 2: assess that Israel had acted inconsistently with these obligations, in
Speaker 2: some cases, it asserted Israel's assurances as credible because they
Speaker 2: assured us they had even though we had evidence to
Speaker 2: the contrary. You know, different informations collected by Trump and
Speaker 2: Biden White House fact sheets okay reveal a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of interesting costs here, different border support costs, you know,
Speaker 2: equipment transfers, the cost of just doing that, not just
Speaker 2: the equipment, but the cost of actually transferring it. You
Speaker 2: got a low ball estimate on that conflict at about
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty three billion dollars since that October
Speaker 2: seventh ignition point. So again, let's go back to the
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy five billion in Ukraine. So you
Speaker 2: have two conflicts that I know. It sounds like, what
Speaker 2: is it? Ten twelve? Let's see. Now, let's do the
Speaker 2: math real fast. Yeah, just real fast here, So seventy right, okay,
Speaker 2: so twelve billion dollar discrepancy. Let's see one five to
Speaker 2: three versus let me just make sure about this because
Speaker 2: you know, you gotta be careful when you're gonna tell
Speaker 2: people numbers because they will correct you. Seventy five to
Speaker 2: fifty three, okay, So a twenty billion dollar approximate discrepancy
Speaker 2: when we're talking about massive numbers like that that could
Speaker 2: easily disappear into critical assets that publicly we don't even
Speaker 2: know about, which will also be incurred costs here because
Speaker 2: nobody's talking about any of the costs of advanced scouting
Speaker 2: or logistical information recon in advance of operations, a twenty
Speaker 2: billion dollar discrepancy and military t ters in operations over
Speaker 2: the course of two years each a piece easily he
Speaker 2: could be swallowed into either one of these things. So
Speaker 2: you could have, you know, a bit of a margin
Speaker 2: of barrere based on the fact that there's facts that
Speaker 2: are as yet unknown to the public. And I'm not
Speaker 2: an insider anyway, taking a look at what the CFR
Speaker 2: has had to say about this, taking a look at
Speaker 2: what various you know, mouthpieces in you know, various political circles,
Speaker 2: media circles, etc. Had to say about this. Has anybody
Speaker 2: made that cost comparison or tried to remove the agreements,
Speaker 2: you know, tried to actually bring them out and say,
Speaker 2: you know, we have agreements here, we have agreements with
Speaker 2: Israel as well, and we have conditions we placed upon
Speaker 2: them that we've turned around and ignored, even when that
Speaker 2: should be to their detriment when it comes to Israel.
Speaker 2: A lot more scrutiny on Ukraine. So is it the
Speaker 2: emotional reaction is the flip of a coin? Is it
Speaker 2: that we like Vladimir Putin better than we do hamas
Speaker 2: weird comparison, but is that where we're at. So the
Speaker 2: people that tell you that it's about cost and intervention
Speaker 2: and all that, figure out how fast they're lying to
Speaker 2: you when they try try to cover their emotional and
Speaker 2: discriminatory prejudices as the primary movers in these cases, not
Speaker 2: the numerical values, not the amount of treasure is spent,
Speaker 2: not the amount of risk, not the fact that it
Speaker 2: will incur blowback from others in a region or across
Speaker 2: the world, or how it is it looks when we
Speaker 2: don't stand up to some and we stand up to
Speaker 2: others on behalf of alleged allies. And don't forget Ukraine
Speaker 2: was supposed to be an ally of ours one way
Speaker 2: or another. I know they're very corrupt, and Israel's another
Speaker 2: place that's rather corrupt. I mean, they keep trying to
Speaker 2: remove the guy who's in charge of the government. Now,
Speaker 2: they've tried to, you know, get him out of their
Speaker 2: for corruption several times. But due to the fact that
Speaker 2: they're engaged in a war right now, nobody can move.
Speaker 2: Take a look at their current Prime minister and various
Speaker 2: other people that are in control of the government being
Speaker 2: brought up constantly on corruption charges. Actually, over the past
Speaker 2: few years, is Zolensky suffering from the same problem. What
Speaker 2: level of corruption causes you to not have an ally
Speaker 2: anymore or to embrace an ally? These are questions nobody
Speaker 2: wants to ask, because their mind was made up long
Speaker 2: before the conflict was loosed. It doesn't matter how many
Speaker 2: bodies pile up. It doesn't matter how many children who
Speaker 2: didn't ask to be involved in a conflict, whether it's
Speaker 2: in you or it's in Palestine, are murdered because they
Speaker 2: don't care about that. They don't care about the death,
Speaker 2: they don't care about the cost. They don't care about
Speaker 2: US intervention. It's just the prejudice driving whether they support
Speaker 2: or demonize either side of those two equations. I don't
Speaker 2: know how else to explain it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
Speaker 2: I'm crazy. You think about it. I'm gonna take a
Speaker 2: quick break in my voice rest for a second, and
Speaker 2: try and blow through some more news and some more
Speaker 2: analysis before I'm done with this particular podcast. Here on
Speaker 2: a Thor's Day, stick Around and Get shod.
Speaker 1: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 1: tree transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency
Speaker 1: in the context of The Times and reveals never before
Speaker 1: published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would
Speaker 1: not have been assassinated if he had been president two
Speaker 1: hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context
Speaker 1: of the Cold War and the rise of the national
Speaker 1: security state. Before World War II, the United States was
Speaker 1: a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became
Speaker 1: an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only
Speaker 1: wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short
Speaker 1: range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that
Speaker 1: they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers.
Speaker 1: Their invasion could have led to a Third World War,
Speaker 1: and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War
Speaker 1: State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you
Speaker 1: what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The
Speaker 1: Warstate dot com, Oh Chili dot.
Speaker 3: Com, conversation ja affect the conversation silence, broken, connection of devastation,
Speaker 3: valolation to conversation, has all the effects.
Speaker 2: To conversation and falls bring no shine straight.
Speaker 4: Yeah, radio nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 5: You know what uranium is, right?
Speaker 6: I think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots
Speaker 6: of you know what uranium is, right, Bad things things
Speaker 6: are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 6: You know what uranium is, right, I've been nuclear holocaust,
Speaker 6: Nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 4: You know what uranium is right, level like.
Speaker 2: Through calm sage.
Speaker 7: Here through.
Speaker 2: The use expressed like coller stools there anyone else who
Speaker 2: happens to get on the air to Jelly dot com
Speaker 2: do not necessarily reflect the views little Jelly dot com
Speaker 2: or and we are not responsible for any stupidity which
Speaker 2: might ensue. Thank you, Cole.
Speaker 5: Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that
Speaker 5: an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninjas to
Speaker 5: take down the illuminati.
Speaker 4: Oh that's interesting, yeah in the clatoon.
Speaker 5: Yeah did that ever work out too good?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 5: It didn't, did it? But here on o'celly dot com
Speaker 5: radio network, things work out a bit better, don't they
Speaker 5: much better?
Speaker 4: Much media is clear and understanding about the programs, the
Speaker 4: programs much clearer, getting live people into it. They really
Speaker 4: have a good conversation going much better, so much better scene.
Speaker 5: I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen
Speaker 5: to the radio network.
Speaker 4: I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and
Speaker 4: I like that idea.
Speaker 8: Oh, Shelley dot com, do you like history, real history
Speaker 8: that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam
Speaker 8: War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia by
Speaker 8: author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll
Speaker 8: open your eyes to events that led up to this.
Speaker 8: Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in
Speaker 8: Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get
Speaker 8: your copy today at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 9: Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson, Through conversation, as.
Speaker 2: I continue to do my level best to not just
Speaker 2: let my prejudices drive what it is I'm assembling and
Speaker 2: trying to independent analysis of what is being propagandized out
Speaker 2: there directly. Man, oh man, it is difficult, gotta tell you.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to go to the New York Post
Speaker 2: here and yes, indeed there will be many many links
Speaker 2: in the show notes to describe all of what it
Speaker 2: is I've discussed here tonight, where it is I've gotten
Speaker 2: some of the information, but not all of it, because
Speaker 2: quite frankly, I read hundreds of pages before I do
Speaker 2: any one of these shows. I examine a lot of
Speaker 2: different things and don't necessarily bring up every single point
Speaker 2: because I'm not a parrot, and I try to make
Speaker 2: composites of the available information, the available realities, the observable
Speaker 2: to try and give you guys something a little different
Speaker 2: than the script reading morons. But occasionally I've got to
Speaker 2: read off of something, So I'm going to go to
Speaker 2: the New York Post and something they published yesterday on
Speaker 2: the third, Okay, because I was planning on doing this
Speaker 2: show on the third, and my voice is barely holding up,
Speaker 2: So I apologize for the bad sound and all that,
Speaker 2: but I'm doing the best I can here and hopefully
Speaker 2: this helps you anyway. What I find fascinating is this
Speaker 2: New York City may or run because New York City
Speaker 2: is a significant part of America. It is one of
Speaker 2: those things that is seen internationally, as you know, one
Speaker 2: of the exemplars of like American society and all that.
Speaker 2: And I know it's a deep blue liberal area for
Speaker 2: a lot of people, but trust me, not everybody in
Speaker 2: New York is so liberal. Plenty of rich people they
Speaker 2: are very conservative, but the majority of people that live
Speaker 2: there end up being on what the democratic side of things.
Speaker 2: And I think the manipulation in the mayoral race that's
Speaker 2: occurring right now in broad daylight would be taken differently
Speaker 2: if a different party were doing it. But it's fascinating nonetheless,
Speaker 2: and is again a great example of American politics and
Speaker 2: how things really work. So here's the headline, Eric Adams
Speaker 2: white House and talks over Trump admin job as pressure
Speaker 2: mounts for NYC mayoral candidates to sink Zoran mad Mamdani
Speaker 2: whatever his name is. Sources and they just say sources.
Speaker 2: I love that. Yeah. The New York Post, by the way,
Speaker 2: super conservative, generally speaking, tabloid headlines Rupert Murdoch's media empires
Speaker 2: part of them that goes along with Fox News. So
Speaker 2: reading directly from that, and I'm going to tell you
Speaker 2: what's missing from their article. But anyhow, the White House officials,
Speaker 2: top excuse me, top White House officials are in talks
Speaker 2: over a potential job for Eric Adams in President Trump's administration,
Speaker 2: as pressure mounts for mayoral candidates to drop out and
Speaker 2: clear the lane for the strongest challenger against socialist Madonni.
Speaker 2: The Post has learned the conversations about a potential plum
Speaker 2: gig for Adams, including an ambassadorship, have been taking place
Speaker 2: among high level Trump officials, as polling shows the mayor
Speaker 2: in fourth place in the approaching November election. Sources said
Speaker 2: Adams landing a job and the Trump administration would arguably
Speaker 2: benefit Governor Andrew Cuomo, who's increasingly seen as the best
Speaker 2: anti Madonnie candidate, at least in a head to head race. Okay,
Speaker 2: let me pause from the article. Is this, Eric Adams
Speaker 2: has done some unpopular stuff. He is definitely not a Democrat,
Speaker 2: even though he's listed as one. He's a former cop,
Speaker 2: and he's definitely all about supporting the establishment and the
Speaker 2: power of the police state, whether you like it or not.
Speaker 2: Whether he's weirdly liberal on certain things or not. That's
Speaker 2: who he is. Not super popular. Once they figured out
Speaker 2: who they selected in the mayoral election last time, they
Speaker 2: would have been better off with a guy like Sliva,
Speaker 2: who at least has a street level understanding of certain things,
Speaker 2: even though he's got the unrealistic Republican idea. And by
Speaker 2: the way, he is a candidate still, but he is
Speaker 2: kind of in the way. This is how they could
Speaker 2: bleed off votes from semi legitimate you know, voting pools
Speaker 2: where people want reasonable solutions, not socialism. So you got
Speaker 2: to come up with one reasonable candidate to face the
Speaker 2: socialist because Adams has now done enough damage and the
Speaker 2: past couple of mayors, not just the liberal ones, but
Speaker 2: the conservative ones even have turned around and created such
Speaker 2: a circumstance in New York. It's not because oh it's
Speaker 2: high crime and it's crazy. It's not that bad compared
Speaker 2: to many, many different time periods since I've been alive.
Speaker 2: But that's not the point. The point is that the
Speaker 2: living the quality of life for people trying to survive
Speaker 2: in that city is down, so they're going to look
Speaker 2: for a radical solution, and compared to Adams, either one
Speaker 2: of these guys is a radical solution, but there is
Speaker 2: a risk that socialists could be elected to a very
Speaker 2: large and powerful city economically speaking, socially speaking, etc. Who
Speaker 2: the hell really wants that outside of the people in
Speaker 2: the city who are just begging for anything. This is
Speaker 2: how outsiders get selected into positions, and it seems like
Speaker 2: it's realistically chosen by the public, but it's because of
Speaker 2: the manipulation of the menu in the first place. And
Speaker 2: this is an open manipulation of the menu, which I
Speaker 2: don't necessarily disagree with. This is how political strategy is done.
Speaker 2: And quite frankly, if you can lure somebody away with
Speaker 2: a better job and get them out of the race,
Speaker 2: that's a whole lot more of a legitimate way than
Speaker 2: blackmailing them or simply paying them off to you know,
Speaker 2: take a dive, which could also be in the works,
Speaker 2: but we're not being told about that, and has happened
Speaker 2: in the Northeast before I've seen it. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: couldn't necessarily prove it all the way, because if we could,
Speaker 2: there would have been a lot more sensational stories against
Speaker 2: certain people that became mainstream people of interest. You know,
Speaker 2: Governor Christy in New Jersey, corrupt as all hell, and
Speaker 2: not nearly as corrupt as many of his Democratic predecessors,
Speaker 2: but still corrupt as all hell, but taking as legitimate
Speaker 2: and taking as two vanilla in a time where upheaval
Speaker 2: was required in this country. Anyway. The point is that
Speaker 2: Adams is a terrible failure of a mayor, and so
Speaker 2: was his previous you know counterparts who had been liberal,
Speaker 2: conservative whatever, allegedly, but in theory and in practice they
Speaker 2: were not necessarily the same thing. In theory, this guy
Speaker 2: should have been, you know, liberal and kind of unique
Speaker 2: in his way of thinking, but in practice he might
Speaker 2: as well be a more realistic GOP candidate than Curtis Slee,
Speaker 2: who was the leader of the Guardian Angels and all that. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Sleeve was not even going to get a mentioned in
Speaker 2: this article probably, and I haven't even read the whole
Speaker 2: thing yet, but I'm reading it with you. Let's get
Speaker 2: back to this. I think in this in quotes, I
Speaker 2: think Adams would be able to craft a position and
Speaker 2: a portfolio that's to his liking. A source close to
Speaker 2: the Trump administration said, I've heard the Adams team wants it.
Speaker 2: In quotes. Another source close to the White House said, now,
Speaker 2: who the hell are these sources close to the White House?
Speaker 2: Obviously I'm not talking from the article, but isn't that
Speaker 2: interesting close to the White House? That could be a
Speaker 2: lot of people, or it could be nobody because they
Speaker 2: just learned that this is in motion and nobody wants
Speaker 2: to confirm it. And here we are with the unnamed
Speaker 2: sources again. Anyway, who am I to question the New
Speaker 2: York Posts journalistic integrity except for the fact that at
Speaker 2: one time. I did write background pieces for them. Anyhow,
Speaker 2: a source in the mayor's orbit confirmed his team has
Speaker 2: pushed him to take the federal golden parachute, but Adam
Speaker 2: seemingly hasn't bought in. Now again pulling away from the article,
Speaker 2: this isn't the first time the Trump administration has tried
Speaker 2: to recruit Eric Adams into a position with the Trump
Speaker 2: administration for different reasons. They tried to say, look, we'll
Speaker 2: get your corruption problem to go away if you just
Speaker 2: come and help us out. That didn't work out so well.
Speaker 2: That was publicly done. This is being floated out there
Speaker 2: to see how people respond to it. And to me,
Speaker 2: this is actually a logical, strategic, intelligent move here. So
Speaker 2: I don't think Trump designed it, but his people are
Speaker 2: working on it. Anyway, I have a job. I'm running
Speaker 2: for reelection in quotes, I'm still doing that and I'm
Speaker 2: looking forward to getting re elected and quote, Adams told
Speaker 2: reporters when asked about the discussions during an unrelated press
Speaker 2: conference Wednesday. The back room talks came as the scandal scored.
Speaker 2: Adams independent reelection bid did not only appears dooone, but
Speaker 2: is only likely to erase Madamie's path. Okay, ease Madamie's
Speaker 2: path the victory among a crowd field of four mayoral contenders.
Speaker 2: See that's the problem. Among Democratic style voters, Adams may
Speaker 2: still have some sway. He is the mayor after always recognizable.
Speaker 2: Madamie is coming from the left, so he's going to
Speaker 2: be able to consume part of the left voter block.
Speaker 2: And Cuomo, who you know, is the runner up for
Speaker 2: the Democratic primary, right another runner up, a better runner
Speaker 2: up in fact, is also eating all off of the left.
Speaker 2: So you've got three leftist possibilities and a seemingly non
Speaker 2: existent possibility when it comes to Sliwa. So wild card
Speaker 2: of Madamie being such an agent of change, if you will,
Speaker 2: means that he could very likely take it. And that's
Speaker 2: kind of messed up.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: If you were dealing with this twenty thirty forty years ago,
Speaker 2: somebody would step in and tell Cuomo, look, step aside, Adams. Listen,
Speaker 2: nobody's going to reelect you, dude. Get out, Go take
Speaker 2: a job doing something, Get out so that we can have,
Speaker 2: you know, a left wing alternative running from the Independent
Speaker 2: who can actually cash it in. Adams would be the
Speaker 2: first one to be asked out, and yes, somebody would
Speaker 2: give him a job, a corporate job, something. Somebody with
Speaker 2: sway somewhere should offer him a job to get him
Speaker 2: the hell out of there, because he's an obstruction now
Speaker 2: to getting anything other than a socialist candidate selected in
Speaker 2: New York City, which will not well for almost anybody
Speaker 2: except you know, some initially, some people will make some
Speaker 2: gains because there will suddenly be a level playing field
Speaker 2: in certain ways. But he's not going to be able
Speaker 2: to effectively even you know, put into action half of
Speaker 2: the things that he's going to try to put into action.
Speaker 2: He's going to make a mess of things one way
Speaker 2: or another, no matter what his intent is or no
Speaker 2: matter how solid he feels as though the socialist movement
Speaker 2: could go in New York City. He's going to do damage.
Speaker 2: And then who's going to get blamed for it? Probably
Speaker 2: not him, because that's not the culture we live in
Speaker 2: right now, where people take responsibility for the disasters they create,
Speaker 2: and the egos of these people that realize that they're
Speaker 2: about to ross Perot to hell out of the establishment left.
Speaker 2: I mean, come on, dude, you're subdividing to It's like
Speaker 2: two ross Paro's got in the race, so they could
Speaker 2: split the Republican possibility into three places instead of two
Speaker 2: during that selection when Clinton got in, I mean, imagine
Speaker 2: double Ross Parode. That's what's happening in New York City. Scary. Anyway,
Speaker 2: Cuomo didn't listen to voters rejection and also mounted an
Speaker 2: independent run, which is what I was just saying. The
Speaker 2: constellation of candidates has only helped solidify Madamie's lead in
Speaker 2: the race, with Poles showing he only really faces a
Speaker 2: light a fight in a one on one contest against Cuomo. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Trump surrogates and officials for months have been trying to
Speaker 2: get weaker candidates such as Independent Jim Walden and GOP
Speaker 2: mayoral nominee Curtis Slee would a drop out, sources said, Uh, anyway,
Speaker 2: I look that it's poor political strategy. If you want
Speaker 2: to clear the lane entirely, you clear everybody out, and
Speaker 2: you put Cuomo against Madami and then you push the
Speaker 2: common sense of Cuomo will at least not attempt to
Speaker 2: implement socialism in a singular mayoral term, which will not work.
Speaker 2: Either he'll fail to do it or it'll make a
Speaker 2: disaster one way or the other it will not be
Speaker 2: fully implemented, and it's going to do nothing but damage.
Speaker 2: Sliva could remain in the race and peel off some
Speaker 2: of the conservative left possibility, you know, but that's all
Speaker 2: he's gonna do. That's not gonna hurt Madami, you know.
Speaker 2: So the only guy that can the only people that
Speaker 2: can hurt Madami are people that are coming from the left.
Speaker 2: There's no way that you're either a Sliwa or Madamie voter.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just that simple. And Sliwa is just
Speaker 2: not a good enough speaker or intellect to properly counter
Speaker 2: or you know, create the proper strawman to even make
Speaker 2: this work. So yeah, I can see why Sleeveo would
Speaker 2: have to get out of the way. But probably the
Speaker 2: only common sense choice in this race, because like I said,
Speaker 2: the current mayor is unelectable. Sliwa is unelectable. The only
Speaker 2: common sense guy would be guess what, Andrew Cuomo and
Speaker 2: there is his comeback in a nutshell and totally supports
Speaker 2: you know, the status quo is just it works out nicely.
Speaker 2: Plus you know, he won't be wildly popular or able
Speaker 2: to work with a lot of other people because of
Speaker 2: the ick factor. So honestly, it allows the status quot
Speaker 2: to continue in New York City and possible small improvements
Speaker 2: over the Adams regime. But anybody else who is now
Speaker 2: selected out of the people that have been even remotely
Speaker 2: supported in New York City, and that look, I don't
Speaker 2: know very much about this Jim Walden, who's an independent,
Speaker 2: but I mean, all he could possibly do is bleed
Speaker 2: off what some of the more conservative voters. Well, they're
Speaker 2: clearly not going to be madamie voters either. I mean,
Speaker 2: unless you're gonna get somebody to go in there and
Speaker 2: take a dice roll before they flip a switch. I
Speaker 2: don't see how there is any other strategy. So the
Speaker 2: fact is that, yeah, this is clear and open manipulation
Speaker 2: of the voting circumstance in New York City. It's probably
Speaker 2: the only rational and positive thing that could be done
Speaker 2: in this circumstance. And this tells you something about what's
Speaker 2: wrong with the rank choice voting and how it turns
Speaker 2: out to create, you know, circumstances that almost nobody will
Speaker 2: want in hindsight, I assure you. Anyway, Sliwa had indeed
Speaker 2: refused a job offer from the administration one source set. Quote.
Speaker 2: Now they are seeing if Adams would be interested in
Speaker 2: working for the administration. The source set. Adams is in
Speaker 2: a unique position in the sense that he does share
Speaker 2: a lot of the administration's goals, especially on crime and immigration,
Speaker 2: so he could likely make a real impact, whether at
Speaker 2: home or brought. The prospect of an ambassadorship is seen
Speaker 2: as the most enticing for Adams, given his long standing
Speaker 2: plan to do international consulting work after his mayoralty. Another set, mayoralty,
Speaker 2: another source set. That's a little bit of an awkward
Speaker 2: wording there, But okay, after his you know, mayoral term,
Speaker 2: I would say, but may oralty, yikes. Anyway you can have.
Speaker 2: He can have any ambassadorship he wants. A source close
Speaker 2: to Adam boasted White House officials didn't respond to requests
Speaker 2: for comment. Mayor Adams has made it clear he will
Speaker 2: not respond to every rumor that comes up. He will
Speaker 2: remain focused, not distracted, and grind and grind for New Yorkers. Quote.
Speaker 2: Adams campaign spokesperson Todd Shapiro said in a statement, Adams
Speaker 2: hasn't hadn't okay, hasn't hadn't any discussions. I swear that's
Speaker 2: the way it's written, hasn't hadn't any discussions. God, the
Speaker 2: New York Post is atrocious. Anyway, let me correct it.
Speaker 2: Adams hasn't had any discussions with Trump, nor has he
Speaker 2: met with the President. Regarding the mayoral Shapiro said, the
Speaker 2: mayor is fully committed to winning this election. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Let's see move ahead. Although Mayor Adams has been the
Speaker 2: most pro housing mayor in New York City's history, had
Speaker 2: no time, did he ask for nor was he offered
Speaker 2: a job at HUDGE. Shapiro said, if the HUD job
Speaker 2: does open, Andrew Cuomo held that position before and can
Speaker 2: always continue where he left off. Anyway, all of this nonsense,
Speaker 2: here's the facts. Okay, again, this is actually rational. And
Speaker 2: if I had any sort of input with the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: I tell them to embrace this and outwardly state, yeah,
Speaker 2: this is what we'd like to see done, because who
Speaker 2: in their right mind in America? And I wouldn't have
Speaker 2: Trump say this, because you know it'd be automatically tainted
Speaker 2: with us sorts of prejudicial ideas and concepts and emotional reactions.
Speaker 2: I would have somebody responsible in the Republican Party say, look,
Speaker 2: we as a party, we as an administration, the collective,
Speaker 2: not just the strong man at the top, have decided
Speaker 2: this is the best idea because we don't want to
Speaker 2: see a socialist in control of a large city, a
Speaker 2: huge economy, and something that could make trouble for all
Speaker 2: of the surrounding states. If this guy's in control of
Speaker 2: a city and makes the kind of disaster that a
Speaker 2: socialist implement could throw into the machinery, the monkey wrench
Speaker 2: that he is, so for the interests of New Yorkers
Speaker 2: and America in general, yeah, damn right, we're trying to
Speaker 2: do this, and I would really put it out there
Speaker 2: that look for the good to New York, for the
Speaker 2: good of the country. Adams and Sliwa and this other fool,
Speaker 2: except you know, give him a job, let him manage McDonald's,
Speaker 2: don't matter, he's not really important. Leave him there, it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter. But Sliwa and Adams, Yeah, I would definitely
Speaker 2: give them a publicly available legal bribe to step aside
Speaker 2: for the better of the entirety of the Northeast. Is
Speaker 2: it corruption, Yeah, but that's the way this is supposed
Speaker 2: to kind of work. If they get a better job offer,
Speaker 2: they could choose not be forced out, but they could choose.
Speaker 2: See it's difference between force and volunteerism. And the fact
Speaker 2: is it's like sex. If you didn't want it and
Speaker 2: somebody made you have it, it's rape. But if you
Speaker 2: were into it, you went for it, and the other
Speaker 2: person convince you to go for it. Sounds to me
Speaker 2: like just might be a good Saturday night. And you
Speaker 2: can make that happen in New York City by getting
Speaker 2: these two fools to step aside, because they're gonna do
Speaker 2: nothing but damage the place that they're alleging to care
Speaker 2: about enough to be in charge of. They're only going
Speaker 2: to do damage by remaining in the race to that place.
Speaker 2: Step aside for the better, for the uplift of all concern.
Speaker 2: And I think they could do it publicly. There's a
Speaker 2: way to spend this and do it right. But will
Speaker 2: they Why bother because nuance and everything else is not necessary.
Speaker 2: So either this is being floated as an idea right
Speaker 2: now and not being done, or it's being done and
Speaker 2: the New York Post acts like it has something special
Speaker 2: on its hands with these sources that are close to
Speaker 2: this and that. But the truth, truth is, this is
Speaker 2: the only way to go if you're rational and you
Speaker 2: don't want to see New York City destroyed. And for
Speaker 2: those of you that don't care in the rest of
Speaker 2: the country, I get it, you know, screw New York,
Speaker 2: but you're not going to like the crater and the
Speaker 2: aftershocks that are going to go other places from that.
Speaker 2: And also what happened to those of you that said
Speaker 2: you were patriots and you really shouldn't want to see
Speaker 2: any part of the country destroyed. I mean, I know
Speaker 2: it's fashionable to think that either California or Florida or
Speaker 2: most of the South should all sink into the ocean,
Speaker 2: depending on who you are, or maybe New York should
Speaker 2: just fall into the ocean. Or New Jersey everybody loved
Speaker 2: to whip on New Jersey for a long time. But
Speaker 2: even with their breakdancer at Town Halls. I mean, you
Speaker 2: can't say that it's a dangerous as this nonsense. Anyway,
Speaker 2: The last news story I have to cover here is
Speaker 2: real simple, and I just want to bring it quickly
Speaker 2: to your attention. As we look at the MAGA faithful
Speaker 2: cheering on the National Guard troops being deployed to Chicago.
Speaker 2: They hope, they hope, they hope, because Chicago is always
Speaker 2: the favorite whipping post of the Conservatives. What do they
Speaker 2: do crime New York murderer Chicago, Chicago. Chicago's bad, I know.
Speaker 2: But when we take a look at the numbers here,
Speaker 2: it's fascinating to me that the headquarters for New Space
Speaker 2: Command they want to send to Alabama as opposed to
Speaker 2: Colorado where it is now for interesting reasons. And if
Speaker 2: you're concerned about law and order and the murder rates
Speaker 2: and all that, it's interesting that the National Guard is
Speaker 2: being deployed to Chicago to address again the most common
Speaker 2: go to for the bad blue city, where indeed they
Speaker 2: have the thirteenth highest murder rate among states, fourteenth if
Speaker 2: you count DC as a state, by the way, but
Speaker 2: Space Command headquarters they want to move it to the
Speaker 2: third highest murder rate, fourth again if you include DC
Speaker 2: when it comes to Alabama from Colorado, which is twenty
Speaker 2: second in the US when it comes to murder rates.
Speaker 2: And I use a lot of different websites to come
Speaker 2: up with this, but it's fascinating the current murder rates.
Speaker 2: You know, the percentage of murders per one hundred thousand people,
Speaker 2: that's the ratio. Yeah, that's how it stands. Okay, Colorado
Speaker 2: at twenty two, right, Alabama at three, and Illinois where
Speaker 2: Chicago is well, you know, thirteen. Well we're going to
Speaker 2: deploy National Guard there. DC, by the way, much higher
Speaker 2: ranked and to add a much higher murder rate apparently,
Speaker 2: you know, per one hundred thousand people. But again population,
Speaker 2: you know, shifts around and all that, and you could
Speaker 2: create a different way of looking at that ratio. But
Speaker 2: the point is it's a fairly good accurate member measurement
Speaker 2: for states. And I looked at world numbers collected from
Speaker 2: outside the US numbers collected by the FBI Law Enforcement here,
Speaker 2: and there are some inconsistencies in it, and it's very interesting.
Speaker 2: But this composite that I picked up from let's see
Speaker 2: what is it called the World Population Review dot com
Speaker 2: the state rankings murder rate state by state, which I'll
Speaker 2: give you a link to in the show notes. It's
Speaker 2: interesting that they come up with a very good general
Speaker 2: way of counting where the most you know, likely murder
Speaker 2: states are. And again Chicago not doing well. They're still
Speaker 2: in the upper percentage there, but at thirteen or fourteen
Speaker 2: as opposed to the third highest state, which is Alabama.
Speaker 2: That's where they want the Space Defense headquarters to go,
Speaker 2: right next to one of the cities with the highest
Speaker 2: rate of murder except for I think one place in Louisiana,
Speaker 2: not exactly in that city, but the new Space City,
Speaker 2: USA or whatever is going to the state with one
Speaker 2: of the highest murder rates in the country. Now, is
Speaker 2: that just being blindsided by not knowing where you want
Speaker 2: to put your headquarters for Space Command in a not
Speaker 2: so law and order friendly area. Is that something you
Speaker 2: do intentionally or is that something you do because you
Speaker 2: don't realize that even though it's a deeply red state,
Speaker 2: it's also very, very heavily dangerous and a good place
Speaker 2: to get murdered again on purpose accidentally. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I guess I'll leave that for you to decide. Again.
Speaker 2: I'm just pointing out some of this stuff based on
Speaker 2: my analysis, and I've got plenty of prejudices and judgments
Speaker 2: I can add to this, but I'm trying not to,
Speaker 2: because information without bias is usually a lot more helpful,
Speaker 2: and as we discussed recently on this podcast, confirmation bias
Speaker 2: is a driving factor for way more people than you
Speaker 2: might realize, and sometimes the most brilliant people are the
Speaker 2: least confident in their expertise, while those that are extremely
Speaker 2: confident and appear to have all of their pooped together,
Speaker 2: let's say, might be indeed having it all together because
Speaker 2: they're full of crap and know very very very little.
Speaker 2: But I digress. Once again, hopefully you've learned something out
Speaker 2: of this particular podcast. And again that's two for today,
Speaker 2: and I guess I'll talk to you guys again on
Speaker 2: Friday night, if I still have any voice left whatsoever,
Speaker 2: when we do the open mic Friday Night call in
Speaker 2: with my co host b Pete.
Speaker 8: But until then, do you like history? Real history that
Speaker 8: you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 8: Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author
Speaker 8: Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open
Speaker 8: your eyes to events that led up to this. Why
Speaker 8: the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 8: Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your
Speaker 8: copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 8: by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 1: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 1: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 1: the context of The Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 1: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 1: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 1: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 1: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 1: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 1: In the decade that followed it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 1: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 1: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 1: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 1: because they were on mo by a launchers. Their invasion
Speaker 1: could have led to a Third World War, and they
Speaker 1: wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by
Speaker 1: Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President
Speaker 1: Kennedy was up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com.