Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome everybody to another edition of the
Speaker 1: ca to Night Live. I am your host, the Caju
Speaker 1: to Night. There's a lot of things going on around
Speaker 1: the world, some things we're gonna be discussing on this
Speaker 1: evening and some of the things that are going on
Speaker 1: in DC as we speak, certain things that if you
Speaker 1: are listening to this tomorrow, might be going on. In
Speaker 1: the moment you're actually listening to this. They are saying
Speaker 1: they want the big beautiful bill signed into action on
Speaker 1: July fourth, who knows, But we're gonna talk about We're
Speaker 1: gonna break it all down here. For anybody who is
Speaker 1: listening that would like to be a part of this
Speaker 1: conversation the following week, then come please join us on
Speaker 1: the Patreon at cajen Night. Link is in the description below.
Speaker 1: There's only one tier for entry. Not trying to make
Speaker 1: it rich off of this thing any which away, but
Speaker 1: we are trying to grow this into its own inherent
Speaker 1: community so we can all share this information, share the
Speaker 1: open form debates and the educational conversations. I thoroughly enjoy
Speaker 1: my Wednesday nights with all the good. The good retinue
Speaker 1: the squires of the Round table Cajun the Knights of
Speaker 1: the Crawfish Table, right, the Knights of the Bull. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm still coming up with a name for
Speaker 1: all the followers of the Cajun Night. It is what
Speaker 1: it is anyway, let's just dive straight into it here again.
Speaker 1: For anybody who would like to see this, come join
Speaker 1: us on the Patreon. But let's go ahead and get
Speaker 1: a pop in here. A few things to start off
Speaker 1: with this evening. First off, let's talk Russia and no, no,
Speaker 1: I am not going to spend a moment to go
Speaker 1: onto a whole big spiel about the Russia Ukraine conflict.
Speaker 1: Still going, still going on, still pretty much gridlock. Some
Speaker 1: would say it's a stalemate, some would say Ukraine is dominating,
Speaker 1: some would say Russia is dominating. Look, I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: here to have that conversation tonight, all right, I'm just
Speaker 1: not who knows. But I did find it interesting that
Speaker 1: Russia captured a into Bradley and then decided to retro
Speaker 1: fit it with a thirty millimeter cannon and essentially wood
Speaker 1: screwing JB weld armor and things onto it. I thought
Speaker 1: it was a little funny and also a little ingenuitive,
Speaker 1: so let's check it out here. Russia creates a battlefield
Speaker 1: Frankenstein fitting captured into Bradley with its own thirty millimeter cannon.
Speaker 1: A surprise twist on the ongoing battle for the armored
Speaker 1: superiority has emerged in Russia, where a US applied to
Speaker 1: Ukraine m too Bradley infantry fighting vehicle has been photographed
Speaker 1: fitted with a Russian made thirty millimeter to a seven
Speaker 1: to two cannon, justs bite previous claims that a West
Speaker 1: Western tanks and IFVs are overrated and essentially useless. Those
Speaker 1: are Russia's words, not ours. They say that these infantry
Speaker 1: vehicles are useless and why would you need them? But
Speaker 1: then they retro fit one with a cannon again a
Speaker 1: little I'm a little impressed. It also looks like a
Speaker 1: coad Hagar abortion gone a ride to an to Bradley.
Speaker 1: I guess it's about perspective, right. Beauty is in the
Speaker 1: eye of the beholder. It's just my own taste. The
Speaker 1: modification involves replacing the Bradley's original twenty five millimeter bush
Speaker 1: Master chain gun with a two a seventy two auto cannon,
Speaker 1: raising fresh questions about Russia's intentions and the fate of
Speaker 1: the Western supplied equipment. According to the defense media outlet
Speaker 1: The War Zone on June twenty eighth, the photo, whose origin,
Speaker 1: location and date remain unclear, appears to show the modified
Speaker 1: Bradley at a depot housing other Western armor sies from Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So this says, remember this Ukrainian M two Bradley unleashing
Speaker 1: twenty five millimeter rounds on a ten ninety m tank
Speaker 1: and classic battlefield encounter. If we're able to watch this,
Speaker 1: I think it's great because the Russians have gone on
Speaker 1: and on about how superior their tanks are. Meanwhile, a
Speaker 1: basic infantry fighting vehicle is able to take it out,
Speaker 1: but let's take it. Yeah, well lower the volume one
Speaker 1: that one. I did like the beat. I'm be honest,
Speaker 1: I did like the beat. And also for anybody who
Speaker 1: doesn't know, yeah, that's what a twenty five millimeter chain
Speaker 1: gun can do. And then they just replace that with
Speaker 1: a thirty millimeter cannon, which, don't get me wrong, thirty
Speaker 1: mike mike is nothing to sneeze at. But also I
Speaker 1: like the bush Master chain gun better. It's it's very effective.
Speaker 1: It's very effective anyway. Anyway, while It's unknown whether the
Speaker 1: vehicle is meant for operational use, weapons trials or simply propaganda.
Speaker 1: The War Zones notes that this isn't the first time
Speaker 1: Russian forces have tinkered with captured NATO gear. This is
Speaker 1: from bush Master to two A seventy two. The two
Speaker 1: A seventy two cannon now mounts it on the bradley,
Speaker 1: is typically found on Russian BTR eighty two A armored
Speaker 1: personnel carriers, and is a lighter variant of the two
Speaker 1: A forty two, which arms the BMP two BMD series
Speaker 1: vehicles and even the KA fifty two and I twenty
Speaker 1: eight attack helicopters. All right, for anybody who doesn't know
Speaker 1: what all the nomenclature is vehicles, Russian made vehicles, and
Speaker 1: even some Russian helicopters. There it is that's the over
Speaker 1: under on it. With a firing rate of three hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty rounds per minute and a range of nearly
Speaker 1: a mile against armor and up to one point two
Speaker 1: miles against infantry, the two to A seventy two offers
Speaker 1: a faster rate of fire than the bush Masters two
Speaker 1: hundreds round per minute, though it sacrifices some accuracy and versatility.
Speaker 1: As the war Zone points out, one plausible motive behind
Speaker 1: the swap could be ammunition logistics. This person, I get it.
Speaker 1: This makes sense to me. Russia's not got their hands
Speaker 1: on a lot of twenty five millimeter ammo, but they
Speaker 1: do have a lot of thirty millimeter AMO. That's a
Speaker 1: weapon that they play with, so it makes sense anyway.
Speaker 1: Russian troops operating captured Bradley's may struggle to supply twenty
Speaker 1: five millimeters NATO standard rounds, especially specialized armor piercing or
Speaker 1: depleted uranium SABO variants. In terms of firepower, the M
Speaker 1: two A two Bradley's twenty five millimeter M two forty
Speaker 1: two autocannon proved more accurate and more effective than the
Speaker 1: BMP three's thirty millimeters UH two A forty two and
Speaker 1: to A seventy two guns. The Bradley's rounds offered nearly
Speaker 1: double the armor penetration compared to other Russian counterparts, extending
Speaker 1: its effective cape combat range. Oh what's this one? And
Speaker 1: American made into bradley annihilated a Russian T eighty tank.
Speaker 1: All right, let's check this high out.
Speaker 2: Don't lower the volume on it now though, huh ooh.
Speaker 1: I mean that also makes sense to me that NATO
Speaker 1: would have better armor piercing capabilities on their rounds than
Speaker 1: a Russian made variant. And that's not me trying to
Speaker 1: just no, no, it just that personally makes sense. NATO
Speaker 1: has had more fighting experience in the past twenty years
Speaker 1: thirty years than Russia has, so it makes sense that
Speaker 1: the weapons capabilities are a little more up to snow.
Speaker 1: But again, it also makes sense to me why they
Speaker 1: would swap it out for a thirty millimeter cannon for
Speaker 1: their own logistics. I just I think it's fugly. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's not just the gun, it's everything else
Speaker 1: they did to the Bradley. The study also noted the
Speaker 1: Bradley's operational advantages better internal ergonomics, easier maintenance, and improved
Speaker 1: crew access between compartments. One Russian soldier, quoted in official
Speaker 1: footage even claimed to prefer the BMP two thirty millimeter
Speaker 1: gun to the Bushmaster Shocker. I know. In addition, capturing
Speaker 1: NATO hardware is often displayed at exhibitions across Russia, and
Speaker 1: mounting a familiar Russian weapon on an American IFV could
Speaker 1: be a symbolic gesture designed for parades or displays rather
Speaker 1: than combat. If that's the case, then fine, okay they do.
Speaker 1: They love their military parades in countries like this, and
Speaker 1: I know people are going to get super mad. Dude
Speaker 1: in America have one just like putin. No, No, the
Speaker 1: United States Army was celebrating their two hundred and fiftieth birthday.
Speaker 1: It was just luck of the draw that had happened
Speaker 1: to be on Donald Trump's birthday. That had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with it. That was not him trying to be
Speaker 1: dictator esque by having a military parade on his birthday.
Speaker 1: That that just happened to shake out that way. But
Speaker 1: I understand why certain haters are gonna hate on that.
Speaker 1: But neither here nor there, let's go. In addition, captured
Speaker 1: NATO Harware already said that design for parades or display
Speaker 1: rather than combat. After all, this wouldn't be the first
Speaker 1: time that the Kremlin has modified captured Western armor for show.
Speaker 1: One M one a one Abrams tank previously displayed in Russia,
Speaker 1: had its damaged barrel reattached upside down. Yeah, I remember
Speaker 1: seeing that there was a whole There was a whole thing.
Speaker 1: It was that, and I think it was a Russian
Speaker 1: or not. I'm sorry. A German made tank that they
Speaker 1: also had on display, and it was like a whole
Speaker 1: thing to bring crowds in. Everybody was taking pictures with it,
Speaker 1: and you could also tell that it was kind of
Speaker 1: thrown back together to look a certain way and it
Speaker 1: was not accurate. But okay. Russia's use of captured Bradley's.
Speaker 1: There is documented evidence that Russia has returned some captured
Speaker 1: Bradley's to working order, fitted them with ad hoc armor,
Speaker 1: and deploying them on the battlefield. One video shows a
Speaker 1: Russian unit from the Center Army Group operating such a
Speaker 1: vehicle after mind damage had been repaired. Soldiers praise the
Speaker 1: vehicle's armor, internal space, and fire control systems. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: makes sense. Let's see here. This is a video of
Speaker 1: Ukrainian MTA two Bradley reportedly saved from a lancet strike
Speaker 1: by its advanced brat dynamics protection. Who this should be
Speaker 1: interesting and for anybody who's just watching or just listening
Speaker 1: to this, this is one of the ones you want
Speaker 1: to be on the Patreon to see this thing. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, well, that was dope. You saw the big explosion,
Speaker 1: but the Bradley is still intact. That's the Lancet armor. Basically,
Speaker 1: it shoots out a rocket to hit rocket in the
Speaker 1: air before it hits them. It's brilliant in my opinion.
Speaker 1: Uh Still, it's unlikely that Russia could maintain a fleet
Speaker 1: of Bradley's in any meaningful way. The War Zone notes
Speaker 1: that while over three hundred M two A two to
Speaker 1: ods Bradley's have been sent to Ukraine since April twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, only a fraction have been captured. According to Oryx,
Speaker 1: a respected open source monitoring group, at least twelve Bradley's
Speaker 1: have been seized, though many more have been damaged or
Speaker 1: abandoned in the battlefield. So there's another one where they're
Speaker 1: taking pictures in front of it. So I get it
Speaker 1: into Bradley's also, or yeah, into Bradley I think they've
Speaker 1: meant to say Bradley on that one. Also is criticized
Speaker 1: by the head of Russia State Defense conglomerate Russteck serge
Speaker 1: A kem Mesov. Chemosov kept yeah, Russian dude. He claimed
Speaker 1: that the vehicle lacks off road performance and amphibious capability,
Speaker 1: a notable difference compared to Russian IFVs Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: it struggles off road and gets stuck in black soil.
Speaker 1: He claims, nearly all Bradley's delivered to Ukraine have been destroyed.
Speaker 1: That's not accurate to the reports that we've been getting
Speaker 1: from the open sources. But I mean sure. Russia's weapon
Speaker 1: chief calls challenger to a cooking pot, says the ten
Speaker 1: ninety m outperforms Abrams and leopard or leopard. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: that's just categorically incorrect. I'm sorry. And again that's not
Speaker 1: just because I'm all about American turnk and no like. Seriously,
Speaker 1: the ten ninety is not even in the same conversation
Speaker 1: as the abrams are the Leopard? But okay. Indeed, Ukrainian
Speaker 1: forces have published video evidence showing Bradley's absorbing multiple hits
Speaker 1: and surviving drone or mine attacks. In one clip, a
Speaker 1: Bradley is seen engaging a Russian ten ninety tank a
Speaker 1: close range with its bushmashes. They're cannon demonstrating both resilience
Speaker 1: and offensive capabilities. So let's talk about this. Is this
Speaker 1: a tactical experiment or a pr stunt? While the retrofit
Speaker 1: may hint at battlefield experimentation or reverse engineering the war zone.
Speaker 1: The war Zone emphasizes that the most likely scenario is propaganda.
Speaker 1: The Bradley's heavy armor and survivability make it valuable even
Speaker 1: in limited numbers, but the logistical hurdles to sustain capture
Speaker 1: vehicles with American systems remains steep. Yeah, that also makes
Speaker 1: sense to me too. While you see certain armor on
Speaker 1: the sides that look like they've been JB welded into place,
Speaker 1: I can only imagine what the internals look like as
Speaker 1: far as the engine is concerned. But this would make
Speaker 1: sense whenever you're not getting replacement parts. If something breaks
Speaker 1: on this vic like, that's simply not gonna happen. So
Speaker 1: you may do with what you got. You, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. You duct tape it and you hope
Speaker 1: and you dream, and you zip tie it to get
Speaker 1: it running, and eventually it's gonna come crashing down on you.
Speaker 1: But at least while you can ride it like you
Speaker 1: stole it, I mean, after it, you know, do the
Speaker 1: Ricky Bobby thing. I get it. Earlier, a video emerged
Speaker 1: online showing what appears to be a scene from a
Speaker 1: battlefield near Sokill Village in the dunn Esque region. A
Speaker 1: Ukrainian M two A two ods SA Bradley infantry fighting
Speaker 1: vehicle is shown surrounded by the wreckage of five Russian
Speaker 1: BTR eighty two armored personnel carriers and two buggies. Now,
Speaker 1: again we don't know the validity of that video. Did
Speaker 1: they get taken out by other means and then the
Speaker 1: Bradley just kind of rolled up into the middle of
Speaker 1: it for the photo op. It's very possible, okay, But yeah,
Speaker 1: so this is it. This is the Frankenstein Bradley that
Speaker 1: they have right now. And again, maybe I'm just being
Speaker 1: hyper critical of it, and it's gonna be used just
Speaker 1: for parades and propaganda. Okay, I get it. You want
Speaker 1: to show off a war trophy. If they're trying to
Speaker 1: use that for frontline battle, I don't know how long
Speaker 1: it's gonna be able to be used. I understand the
Speaker 1: swap from the twenty five chain gun to the thirty millimeter.
Speaker 1: I just personally think the chain gun is better. That's
Speaker 1: just me that the armor is way better. But that's
Speaker 1: just Jacob speaking on behalf of Jacob. I'm not exactly
Speaker 1: a weapons expert when it comes to this, but when
Speaker 1: I found out that they had frank and molded this
Speaker 1: thing together. I figure we could talk about it on
Speaker 1: the Cajun night now while we are still talking international conversations.
Speaker 1: Brazil's justices cleared the road for a tech platform liability,
Speaker 1: while Congress stalls in gridlock. All right, so Brazil essentially
Speaker 1: just passed a new governance for anything to basically control
Speaker 1: big tech. And yes, of course with this AI is
Speaker 1: a part of it, but it's not only AI. It's
Speaker 1: basically trying to limit how big big tech is allowed
Speaker 1: to get. And it's it's also kind of remnant of
Speaker 1: the situation we had in America not too terribly long, right,
Speaker 1: you had that. I think it was a fourteen year
Speaker 1: old kid who had downloaded a Denarius Targarian mod to
Speaker 1: his chat GPT and the AI told him to off himself.
Speaker 1: And the company was trying to say that, well, the
Speaker 1: AI has freedom of speech, don't we. We're in America.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't hold the company liable for what
Speaker 1: the AI did. That's not how this works. And then
Speaker 1: the I think it was Florida, I think it was Florida.
Speaker 1: The state body of Florida pretty much said no, no,
Speaker 1: The company is absolutely liable, and his blood is on
Speaker 1: y'all's hands, and it was a whole thing. It's not
Speaker 1: the same one to one translation to what's going on
Speaker 1: in Brazil, but it's got the same flavoring, you know,
Speaker 1: it's got the same remnants to it, and I think
Speaker 1: it's worth talking about. So let's get into it here.
Speaker 1: With lawmakers conflicted about regulation versus innovation, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: stepped in raising the pressure on legislators, AI startups and
Speaker 1: big tech firms and raising doubts about judicial oversights. Also,
Speaker 1: I like their lady Liberty. I think she looks cool
Speaker 1: in Brazil. I know ours has got the scales and
Speaker 1: the sword and all that. This one's pretty dope too,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying anyway. So this is coming from Rio
Speaker 1: de Gennaro. Brazil's Supreme Court ruling that expands the civil
Speaker 1: liability of tech platforms for third party content is reshaping
Speaker 1: the interpretation of the Article nineteen of the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four Marco Civil Day Internet, the country's landmark Internet Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights. The decision underscores the growing rift between the
Speaker 1: judiciary and Congress in setting digital regulation policy under the
Speaker 1: precedent's set Thursday. Platforms can be held liable in a
Speaker 1: variety of situations even without a court order, depending on
Speaker 1: the nature of the content. The case was prompted by
Speaker 1: lawsuits from users who claim harm when platforms failed to
Speaker 1: remove offensive material even following direct complaints. The ruling establishes
Speaker 1: four liability regimes. Court order. Court orders remain necessary for
Speaker 1: content related to defamation or similar offenses. Crimes such as
Speaker 1: incitements to violence or hate speech may trigger liability upon
Speaker 1: simple notification. Structural negligence applies in cases of systemic failure,
Speaker 1: and sponsors for AI generated contacts, content such as chatbots
Speaker 1: automatically generates platform liability. So, just so we're clear here,
Speaker 1: sponsored or AI generated content such as chatbots automatically generates
Speaker 1: platform liability. I like that platforms are now required to
Speaker 1: maintain the legal representative in Brazil's, implement self regulatory mechanisms,
Speaker 1: publish transparency reports, and remove identical content previously ruled unlawful
Speaker 1: by Brazilian courts. The Supreme Court took something that was
Speaker 1: simple and direct and that may be deserved review by lawmakers,
Speaker 1: maybe deserved review by lawmakers, excuse me, and turned into
Speaker 1: something complex and even hard to grasp, said mister our Kegas,
Speaker 1: researcher at the Rio de Gennaro based Institute for Technology
Speaker 1: and Sociology or Society or its REO, in a statement
Speaker 1: obtained by Paulo. The Brazilian Chamber for Digital Economy, which
Speaker 1: represents companies like Meta, Google, Amazon, Kwi, Mercado, Livrey and
Speaker 1: TikTok Civilize the criticize the ruling, warning that it creates
Speaker 1: legal uncertainty, raises moderation costs, and encourages preventative censorship to
Speaker 1: of legitimate posts. I'd to tell my glasses off. It's
Speaker 1: starting to get jumbled up in here. The companies expect
Speaker 1: a wave of lawsuits and intend to lobby Congress to
Speaker 1: pass new legislation that could override the court's interpretation. The
Speaker 1: ruling comes amid legislative inaction in Congress. Digital regulations have
Speaker 1: been a partisan battlefield, particularly around freedom of speech. Build
Speaker 1: twenty six thirty in twenty twenty, aimed at regulating platforms
Speaker 1: and combating disinformation, was shelved in the Lower House after
Speaker 1: strong opposition from right wing and far right parties such
Speaker 1: as pl Novo Republicanos, which labeled the proposal as a
Speaker 1: threat to free expression. Meanwhile, Build twenty three thirty eight
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three, which sets general rules for AI governance,
Speaker 1: passed the Senate and is now under review and special
Speaker 1: committee in the lower House. The proposal, inspired by EU's
Speaker 1: risk based approach, has drawn criticism for potentially stifling innovation
Speaker 1: through the overly strict requirements. Alejandro Pacheco de Silva, I
Speaker 1: know I got that silver part right, a law professor
Speaker 1: at a Jesus christ Fondasieo Fandaseo Getulio Vargas and San
Speaker 1: Paulo Okay and the coordinator of the institute's Center for
Speaker 1: Teaching and Research on Innovation, noted that Article nineteen differs
Speaker 1: significantly from Section two thirty of the US Communications Decency Act.
Speaker 1: Instead of require ing platforms to act upon notice, Brazil's
Speaker 1: law gave courts the sole authority to determine whether content
Speaker 1: was illegal, shielding platforms from liability until a judicial decision
Speaker 1: Wow Okay. This judicial gatekeeping was originally seen as a
Speaker 1: safeguard against censorship and a way to protect freedom of
Speaker 1: speed of expression, but according to Silva, the rise of
Speaker 1: AI and algorithmic amplifications has shifted the role of platforms
Speaker 1: from neutral hosts to active curators of online content. I
Speaker 1: gotta say I agree. I agree with this one hundred percent,
Speaker 1: absolutely has What the Supreme Court is saying is that
Speaker 1: Article nineteen does not violate free speech. Silva said, Justice
Speaker 1: Moraus often says in Brazil democracy. In Brazilian democracy, we
Speaker 1: have freedom of expression, not freedom to attack our Kai
Speaker 1: Gus sees the ruling as a turning point in the
Speaker 1: deteriorating regulatory landscape. Brazil wants a global pioneer with its
Speaker 1: Internet Bill of Rights, has since lost ground by failing
Speaker 1: to update its framework and increasingly relying on fragmented court
Speaker 1: decisions or imported models like the EUS. Brazil needs to
Speaker 1: recover the regulatory DNA it had during Marcos Seville, the
Speaker 1: Marco's civil era. I guess that's civil and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you pronounce it in English, but maybe that's like CV.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't speak Portuguese. Francisco Cruz, a
Speaker 1: lawyer and director of the Salpolo based Internet Lab, said
Speaker 1: the outcome would likely have been different had Congress acted sooner.
Speaker 1: No one wanted the Supreme Court to take this on,
Speaker 1: not even the Supreme Court. He said. The Judiciary, he argued,
Speaker 1: lacks the tools to enforce complex policies and cannot create
Speaker 1: a create a dedicated regulatory body. What the court did
Speaker 1: show What the Court did shows the debate can't stay
Speaker 1: frozen and added, just as congressional and action pushed the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to act, the Court's move will now pressure
Speaker 1: Congress to respond. All right, So kind of long story
Speaker 1: short on this Brazil bill is going out of their
Speaker 1: way to try to put regulations on not just the
Speaker 1: Internet as a whole, but definitely more towards AI. I'm
Speaker 1: a fan of this, I am. Anybody who's listened to
Speaker 1: me for more than an hour understands that I am
Speaker 1: just simply not a fan of AI. I don't use it,
Speaker 1: I don't enjoy that it exists in any way, shape
Speaker 1: or form. But Brazil is also seeing it for the
Speaker 1: dangers that it could actually cause, and up until recently
Speaker 1: they have kind of modeled their approach similar to how
Speaker 1: the EU has done. But that's not always going to
Speaker 1: work out, especially with the way that AI is advancing
Speaker 1: way more rapid than anybody can pass legislation to try
Speaker 1: to limit by the time the Board of Directors or
Speaker 1: by the time the congressman, and the centers all get
Speaker 1: to the table to have a conversation about it. The
Speaker 1: thing they're trying to talk about is probably already months
Speaker 1: ahead of what they were trying to initially discuss. So
Speaker 1: at least they're taking steps in the right direction. And
Speaker 1: they're saying that, No, the platform and the company is
Speaker 1: going to be liable for whatever the AI does. It's
Speaker 1: not a free and independent entity that has freedom of
Speaker 1: speech inherently in and of itself. The company's liable for
Speaker 1: what the AI says. I like it. Now, let's move
Speaker 1: on to the next order of business. As we are
Speaker 1: still staying international. NATO allies agreed to boost defense spending
Speaker 1: to a five percent at the Hague summit. Now, Trump
Speaker 1: was talking about this. He wanted all NATO countries to
Speaker 1: increase their defense spending by five percent. We just talked
Speaker 1: about this a couple of weeks ago. He was pushing
Speaker 1: for it. That being said, a lot of countries have
Speaker 1: issues even meeting the two percent three percent that was required.
Speaker 1: I know it's actually two percent. I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: even if these countries wanted to try to reach three percent,
Speaker 1: that was going to put a couple of them in
Speaker 1: a financial hurt locker. Now, NATO allies have agreed to
Speaker 1: boost their defense to five percent, and I am not
Speaker 1: a hundred percent sure if this is how it went down,
Speaker 1: but from what I could tell, Trump pretty much said,
Speaker 1: if you cannot even attempt to match where we are
Speaker 1: at with our defense spending, we'll just leave. Like it's
Speaker 1: very clear that America does not need NATO. NATO needs America.
Speaker 1: And I'm not again, this is not me trying to
Speaker 1: beat my American chest. This is just facts and figures
Speaker 1: on paper. They have America. It's not a secret. America
Speaker 1: has pulled the lion's share of the duty as far
Speaker 1: as NATO's armed forces are concerned, or military or weapons capabilities,
Speaker 1: or naval assets or air assets or what name your topic.
Speaker 1: And America's pretty much run the roost on it for
Speaker 1: a while. So and I understand the reason why not
Speaker 1: just Trump, but why most people with brains would want
Speaker 1: NATO to have more defense spending, especially especially America. But okay,
Speaker 1: if we're footing the bill for the majority of the
Speaker 1: military operations, it would behoove us to have stronger allies.
Speaker 1: That just makes sense to me, right, If I'm trying
Speaker 1: to find another example of this. If we were let's
Speaker 1: say it's a it's a police precinct. Okay, it's this
Speaker 1: county's sheriff's office, or this parish's sheriff's office, or however,
Speaker 1: you live out there right cool, and you have a
Speaker 1: top notch department, right, one of the best SWATT teams
Speaker 1: in the state, some of the best logistics, some of
Speaker 1: the best training, all of this, and on occasion, a
Speaker 1: big event might go down in your AO and you
Speaker 1: might need to call on some local you know, friends,
Speaker 1: some local cops from other precincts and other counties and
Speaker 1: other cities to come to your town to help, you know,
Speaker 1: not just crowd control, but security, getting people from A
Speaker 1: to B whatever the case is. Big events happen like
Speaker 1: this all the time. But the neighboring counties and precincts
Speaker 1: have what some might call If you if your department
Speaker 1: would be like an A plus on the grading scale
Speaker 1: and most of your people that you could call upon
Speaker 1: might maybe be around a C minus, that's that's not
Speaker 1: a good look. And if you really need some support,
Speaker 1: you don't want to call on the C. Students just
Speaker 1: gonna throw this out, So that being said, with NATO
Speaker 1: being stronger as a whole, not only is that good
Speaker 1: for America, but that's good for the world in my opinion. Now,
Speaker 1: I understand that NATO should have been taken down as
Speaker 1: soon as the Soviet Union felt That was the whole
Speaker 1: point of NATO's standing up, was to go against the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO should have
Speaker 1: gone by the wayside. And or when Russia tried to
Speaker 1: join NATO, they should have let them that. That would
Speaker 1: have been a solid move, a show of good faith
Speaker 1: and olive branch. Turning a new leave name, your expression
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. It would have been great. Didn't happen. It
Speaker 1: didn't happen. But I'm just saying, if NATO is going
Speaker 1: to be this global superpower conglomerates like they're wanting it
Speaker 1: to be, then yeah, I think all the NATO countries
Speaker 1: should step up to the plate and open their wallets
Speaker 1: and spend the money on their military that they should.
Speaker 1: But I mean, let's be honest, I'm I'm a big
Speaker 1: supporter of over spending on your military. You know, the
Speaker 1: whole Speak softly, but carry a big stick. I think
Speaker 1: like you should carry one of the biggest sticks in
Speaker 1: the game if you're going to carry one. I know,
Speaker 1: unpopular opinion, but you know it is what it is, Tony,
Speaker 1: I see your brother. Come on.
Speaker 3: I bet Locke and Raytheon and General Dynamics appreciate this.
Speaker 3: And there's a few European companies that'll make money off
Speaker 3: of this too, But I really doubt they'll actually hit
Speaker 3: five percent. They'll probably hit like three percent or something.
Speaker 4: What do you think, Well, first of all, you are
Speaker 4: on the money figuratively and literally Lockheed Martin and Boeing
Speaker 4: and RTX formerly Raytheon, and a couple other ones from
Speaker 4: around the world.
Speaker 1: Oh they are happy. Oh, this is business, is a
Speaker 1: booming and they are stoked. Right, And that's good, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: everybody making money. Now. I don't believe that this is
Speaker 1: going to take effect immediately, and we're gonna read in
Speaker 1: this article, but I want to say it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be achieved by twenty thirty or twenty thirty five something
Speaker 1: like that, where the NATO countries will the ones that
Speaker 1: have agreed to it will be at five percent. But
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be honest here, how many of these
Speaker 1: countries are supposed to be at two percent and can't
Speaker 1: even meet that. Will they double their spending. Let's say
Speaker 1: got a country out there that's showing like a one
Speaker 1: point eight of their GDP on their military and in
Speaker 1: five ten years they go from a one point eight
Speaker 1: to four A three A three, Right, that would be
Speaker 1: huge for them and all these things. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not like they're gonna get kicked out of NATO over it.
Speaker 1: I know they threatened that a lot, but it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Right, they might inch up close to it, but
Speaker 3: I don't think they'll hit it. And Europe's also got
Speaker 3: a track record of these kinds of promises, not with NATO.
Speaker 3: But I'm thinking about the climate goals that they had
Speaker 3: ten or twenty years ago. Yeah, they were saying that
Speaker 3: they were going to cut their CO two to half
Speaker 3: of nineteen ninety levels by twenty twenty. I forget the
Speaker 3: exact benchmarks, but they didn't even get close. It's just
Speaker 3: a lot of a lot of words in hot air.
Speaker 3: But you know, on this thing, Yeah, I bet they'll
Speaker 3: increase military spending a little bit and the defense companies
Speaker 3: will be happy, But yeah, I don't think they'll I
Speaker 3: think I think they'll hit more like three.
Speaker 1: It's very possible. I mean, it depends on the country, right.
Speaker 1: Some of these countries have a little bit more to
Speaker 1: throw that way. Some of these countries are barely scraping
Speaker 1: by to even attempt to hit the two percent mark.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what to really make of it.
Speaker 1: I but I stand by my statement. I think that
Speaker 1: our allies, America's allies, having stronger military might is only
Speaker 1: good for everybody. That's you know. I know, I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be a warmonger here. That's that's all I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say. But it makes sense. Right. If we're
Speaker 1: all on the same team and we're all operating at
Speaker 1: the same level of intensity, it just seems like the
Speaker 1: machine would run better. I could be so wrong, but
Speaker 1: let's read it in here. This is from Paris. Here,
Speaker 1: NATO allies agreed to boost defense spinning to five percent
Speaker 1: GDP NATO Secretary General Mark Root or Route Routie, I
Speaker 1: don't know, said after a vote on the thirty two
Speaker 1: member countries on Wednesday at a summit in the Hague.
Speaker 1: As part of the agreement, the allies committed to investing
Speaker 1: at least three point five percent of GDP on core
Speaker 1: defense requirements, up from the current target of two percent.
Speaker 1: Root said as a press conference following two days of meetings.
Speaker 1: The Native Secretary General credited United States President Donald Trump
Speaker 1: for the results, saying the spending increases wouldn't have happened
Speaker 1: without him. Now, before we read anymore, if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 1: the five percent overall, Yeah, it's like a three point
Speaker 1: five on the core defense requirements. But the rest of
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be on critical infrastructure upgrades. We've talked
Speaker 1: about this before. Europe's power grid is not every country,
Speaker 1: not every country, but a few is not as optimal
Speaker 1: as it could be. Some of these roads are beyond
Speaker 1: in disrepair. And I know I live in Louisiana, and
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, you know, calling a spade a spade
Speaker 1: here in pot and Kettle. I get it. I get it.
Speaker 1: But that being said, there is a lot of critical
Speaker 1: infrastructure that could be used for defensive purposes. That is
Speaker 1: very subpart this moment. So let's keep reading. But I
Speaker 1: want to say there was a percentage of this GDP
Speaker 1: overall that's going to increase europe infrastructure as a whole.
Speaker 1: But let's keep going I want to get ahead of myself.
Speaker 1: Trump has repeatedly criticized European NATO members and Canada obviously
Speaker 1: for not spending enough on defense, suggesting the US might
Speaker 1: not honor the alliance's mutual defense commitments for allies that
Speaker 1: don't step up. As recent as two years ago, most
Speaker 1: NATO countries had failed to meet a two percent spending
Speaker 1: target agreed at a summit in Wales in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: All allies are united in the understanding that we need
Speaker 1: to step up to stay safe, Ruth said. European allies
Speaker 1: in Canada will do more of the heavy lifting, equalizing
Speaker 1: their spending and taking greater responsibility for our shared security.
Speaker 1: Root and Trump had been clear that the United States
Speaker 1: is committed to NATO, and affirmed it again today with
Speaker 1: in no uncertain terms, while at the same time making
Speaker 1: clear that the country expects Europe and Canada to contribute more.
Speaker 1: He said, NATO's Article five mutual defense clause is absolutely clear,
Speaker 1: but the Alliance doesn't provide details on what will trigger
Speaker 1: it to avoid helping adversaries. In a press conference before
Speaker 1: heading back to Washington, Trump struck a conciliary tone as
Speaker 1: he sought to harvest praise for the spending boost. This
Speaker 1: is a direct quote from Trump. He said, I came
Speaker 1: here thinking it's something I'm supposed to be doing. The
Speaker 1: summit preceded proceedings had changed his mind, and he as
Speaker 1: he absorbed individual messages of patriotism from Alliance members representatives.
Speaker 1: It's not a ripoff, he told reporters, reversing his long
Speaker 1: hailed grievance, at least for the moment, that Europeans were
Speaker 1: taking advantage of the United States will help them protect
Speaker 1: their country. The US has been asking for its allies
Speaker 1: to lift defense spending since the nineteen fifties, and the
Speaker 1: agreed reached the agreement reached in the Hague will make
Speaker 1: the Alliance more stable, according to Root, He said, there
Speaker 1: is a need to bolster NATO in the face of
Speaker 1: a threatening Russia, as well as an impressive military build
Speaker 1: up by China. Okay, the rushing point, dude, If Russia's
Speaker 1: not breaking through Ukraine this two week special military operation,
Speaker 1: we're going on three and a half years at this time,
Speaker 1: Europe is not an inherent danger of Russia doing shit.
Speaker 1: Let's be real here now, China having a military build up, Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with what they're saying, but at the
Speaker 1: same time, China is worried about their Belt and Road
Speaker 1: initiative and securing that. I don't believe that Europe is
Speaker 1: in any danger of China doing anything to them. I
Speaker 1: could be so wrong here, but it just it makes
Speaker 1: more sense to me that China would be trying to
Speaker 1: build up so that it could maybe set up outposts
Speaker 1: along the BTR like this makes more sense to me.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Russia's root said Russia is a short term
Speaker 1: and long term menace to the Alliance, with intelligence suggesting
Speaker 1: the country could be ready to attack NATO in the
Speaker 1: next three two seven years. Highly unlikely. Look at the
Speaker 1: number of military aged males in Russia that are no
Speaker 1: longer in play. Three to seven years to build back
Speaker 1: even if they were to call it quits right now,
Speaker 1: if they were to reach a ceasefire agreement, they go home.
Speaker 1: Whatever the case is, three to seven years to build
Speaker 1: back a force that could possibly do some damage to
Speaker 1: a formidable NATO European country. I'm I'm sorry, homie, what
Speaker 1: world are you living in? But okay, the Russian threat
Speaker 1: is there and we need to make sure to be
Speaker 1: able to defend ourselves. With Trump having demanded NATO allies
Speaker 1: to spend five percent of GDP on defense, the agreement
Speaker 1: in the Hague is a bit of a workaround, with
Speaker 1: three point five for core defense tasks and an additional
Speaker 1: one point five on measures that support defense and security,
Speaker 1: for example, investment in infrastructure and cyber defense. Okay, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's Greg, that's correg These decisions will have a profound
Speaker 1: impact on our ability to do what NATO founded was
Speaker 1: founded to do, deter and defend. Ruth said, US spending
Speaker 1: on core defenses around the required level already, and it's
Speaker 1: spending on infrastructure, cyber and hybrid threat and developing the
Speaker 1: defense industrial base puts the country more or less at
Speaker 1: five percent. According to Root, the NATO leader said Trump
Speaker 1: was totally right that Europe and Canada were not providing
Speaker 1: the alliance what they should, and I agree with that fully.
Speaker 1: Trump said in a press conference with Root before the
Speaker 1: vote that the agreement to increase spending was a great
Speaker 1: victory for everybody, I think, and we will be equalized
Speaker 1: very shortly, and that's the way it has to be.
Speaker 1: And it's going to be a lot of money too,
Speaker 1: a lot of defense. Rout said more money will fund
Speaker 1: air defense, ammunition, drones, tanks, and troops. He said NATO
Speaker 1: needs to expand defense industrial capacity. I was gonna say capability.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. NATO needs to expand defense industrial capacity and
Speaker 1: on both sides of the Atlantic, which could potentially create
Speaker 1: millions of new jobs across the Alliance. I mean maybe, yeah,
Speaker 1: if you incentivize people to join the military, and if
Speaker 1: you're military industrial complex in your country, is like creating
Speaker 1: enough weapons to fund, like to supply the demand that
Speaker 1: has now been made. Okay, I don't see that going
Speaker 1: for the entirety of Europe. There's a few companies I
Speaker 1: could think of that will benefit heavily from this, even
Speaker 1: some European companies. But I feel like that might have
Speaker 1: been a bit of a bold statement to say out loud, Tony,
Speaker 1: what's your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Three words? Broken window fallacy. That's all.
Speaker 1: Break this down for me, Broken window fallacy.
Speaker 3: Oh well, this was Frederick Bastiat's theory about two hundred
Speaker 3: years ago that breaking windows may create some economic activity
Speaker 3: for window makers, but it's a net loss for everybody else.
Speaker 3: And the broader points is that military spending might be
Speaker 3: good for arms companies and their suppliers and a certain
Speaker 3: group of people, but it comes at the expense of
Speaker 3: other goods and services for everybody else. It's called the
Speaker 3: broken window fallacy. So yeah, people who advocate military spending
Speaker 3: always point out to oh, yeah, it's gonna benefit, it's
Speaker 3: gonna create jobs. It will create jobs, but it will
Speaker 3: be at the expense of other jobs.
Speaker 1: I mean I hear that. I don't. I don't see
Speaker 1: what they're talking about with the creating of jobs. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna increase your numbers of troops, sure it'll
Speaker 1: it'll create more jobs. But like, the recruiting offices are
Speaker 1: open right now, and I can't think of the last
Speaker 1: time I heard of them turning someone away. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: that's a bit of a misnomer. I actually know people
Speaker 1: that were turned away from the recruiting offices when they
Speaker 1: were trying to join while we were in the middle
Speaker 1: of two different wars and things. Fine, but as far
Speaker 1: as the European nations, their standards are not American standards.
Speaker 1: As far as troop mobility is concerned, it's not like
Speaker 1: they got a line wrapped around the building in France
Speaker 1: for people that are just like begging to join the
Speaker 1: French Army or the Spanish Army or the Italian army.
Speaker 1: It's some of these countries do. Some of these countries
Speaker 1: absolutely do, and they have found a way to incentivize
Speaker 1: their you know, young men and women to join. But
Speaker 1: that's also that is not a standard by any means.
Speaker 1: I mean, hell, in America right now, recruiting numbers are down,
Speaker 1: except for the Navy last year, which, if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 1: it was still remnants from the Maverick movie. I think
Speaker 1: their recruiting numbers they met their quota. The Marines have
Speaker 1: had no issue meeting their quota, but I mean we're
Speaker 1: the smallest branch. Do that makes sense? The Army and
Speaker 1: the Air Force and the Coast Guard, and I don't
Speaker 1: know what the Space Forces. I don't know what their
Speaker 1: quota is, but I'm assuming that they're having issues finding
Speaker 1: smart enough people to join it and become guardians. But
Speaker 1: I do know that the Army and the Coast Guard
Speaker 1: in the Air Force are having some serious problems trying
Speaker 1: to man up with just the quotas they already have
Speaker 1: in place. And we're not even in an active combat zone.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what they're talking about as far
Speaker 1: is creating more jobs in that sense, I think you're
Speaker 1: onto something here with the like i've never heard of
Speaker 1: the broken window fallacy. I'm going to be using that
Speaker 1: more often though. Yeah, you're going to create more jobs
Speaker 1: at Boeing and Lockheed and RTX, But I mean, how
Speaker 1: many of these jobs are specialized jobs? How many of
Speaker 1: these jobs can be replaced with robots and automation and
Speaker 1: therefore AI's I just don't see it being what they're
Speaker 1: talking about as far as that's.
Speaker 3: Concerned, right, Yeah, they are pretty specialized jobs. I'm related
Speaker 3: to people who worked at Lockheed, and yeah, that job
Speaker 3: is not extremely transferable. He was working on missiles and
Speaker 3: satellites and stuff, and there's not really private companies that
Speaker 3: do that until now, I guess with space X, but
Speaker 3: he's been retired for a while. There's another. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 3: really glad to make you and the listeners aware of
Speaker 3: the broken window fallacy. The name of the guy was
Speaker 3: Frederick Bastiat and he was in France about two hundred
Speaker 3: years ago. Another great, you know, restatement of the same
Speaker 3: thing was Dwight Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech. If you've
Speaker 3: ever heard of that. I'm sure he was borrowing from
Speaker 3: the Cross of Gold speech from William Jennings Bryan maybe
Speaker 3: sixty years later. But this Dwight Eisenhower made the exact
Speaker 3: same observation, and he was trying to push America back
Speaker 3: into a peacetime economy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was trying to warn everybody about the military
Speaker 1: industrial complex that was taking root. And this is the
Speaker 1: guy who is a general who just got done with
Speaker 1: a Second World War, and he saw the war machine.
Speaker 1: And I don't mean that for a euphemistic statement. I
Speaker 1: mean that like the actual machine of the logistics and
Speaker 1: everything that goes into a wartime economy. He saw what
Speaker 1: America was gearing up to become, and he was trying
Speaker 1: to warn us to not go that route. But I mean,
Speaker 1: of course, that's that's what America does. It's like the
Speaker 1: only thing we do really well, So I get it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he could remember a time before the World Wars,
Speaker 3: which nobody today can remember. And in his speech he
Speaker 3: was making the same point, which is that, yeah, B
Speaker 3: fifty two bomber costs a certain amount of money, but
Speaker 3: let's translate that into things like schools and school buses
Speaker 3: and roads and things like that, and that's the kind
Speaker 3: of thing that we have to forego in order to
Speaker 3: have the B fifty two for example. Yeah, yeah, that's
Speaker 3: all I can help myself.
Speaker 1: Again, No, brother, I appreciate your insight. I always do.
Speaker 1: Let's keep going here. It says we need quality and quantity.
Speaker 1: The Secretary General said, we need to innovate and we
Speaker 1: need to act fast. Again, I don't see what the
Speaker 1: rush is on this. I agree that the Allies need
Speaker 1: to spend more on their military. I'm with you, but
Speaker 1: I don't know why we're like all of a sudden setting.
Speaker 1: I guess because you have to set a deadline or
Speaker 1: else nothing's going to get done. I get that, but
Speaker 1: there's no need to light a fire under anybody's ass
Speaker 1: right now. I just I don't see the thing. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm just not in the loop on this, but anyway,
Speaker 1: Some countries, including Spain and well Jium, have questioned the
Speaker 1: three point five percent target, and Roots said Spain estimates
Speaker 1: that it can reach its capability targets while spending two
Speaker 1: point one percent of GDP on defense. The Secretary General
Speaker 1: said Allies will report on how they will reach the
Speaker 1: capability targets, and NATO will any way have a review
Speaker 1: of all of this in twenty twenty nine. Okay, so
Speaker 1: they were trying to get it done before twenty thirty.
Speaker 1: Spain has consistently been at or near the bottom of
Speaker 1: military spending in NATO, last year, ranking last with an
Speaker 1: estimated one point three percent of GDP spent on defense. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: this is just okay. In his post summit press conference,
Speaker 1: Trump blasted Spain for seeking an exception to the five
Speaker 1: percent spending goal. He suggested trying to recoup the national
Speaker 1: funding difference by skewing US trade with Madrid in Washington's favor.
Speaker 1: Trump be Trump, and doesn't he. NATO allies have pledged
Speaker 1: more than three thirty five billion euros, which would be
Speaker 1: forty one billion dollars for Ukraine so far this year
Speaker 1: to help the country fend off the Russian invasion, according
Speaker 1: to Root, who said he expects total EID and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five to surpass last year's pledge support of more
Speaker 1: than fifty billion euro Wow. Okay, so yeah, like I said,
Speaker 1: I'm happy that we are you could say strong arming
Speaker 1: are allies to actually step up to the plate. I'm
Speaker 1: not mad at this, but also it's it's what's the
Speaker 1: what's the intent. I want to believe that it is
Speaker 1: for stronger allies, makes the organization as a whole stronger.
Speaker 1: This I'm good with putting a timeline on it, I
Speaker 1: understand because if you just said you have to do this,
Speaker 1: they'll just kind of say, yeah, yeah, we'll handle it
Speaker 1: with the next administration, or we'll handle it after this
Speaker 1: or after this. You have to give a deadline in
Speaker 1: order for the job to get done. I understand that
Speaker 1: as well. But I also think that that's going to
Speaker 1: be quite a stretch for countries just like Spain and Belgium,
Speaker 1: and I don't know what kind of jobs they're expecting
Speaker 1: for it to create. I hope for the best on this,
Speaker 1: but we shall see. Now, speaking of Trump, this one
Speaker 1: I thought was pretty hilarious. Paramount settles with President Trump
Speaker 1: for sixteen million dollars. I don't know if y'all heard
Speaker 1: about this, but this is great. Let's listen.
Speaker 5: In tonight, a sixteen million dollar settlement Paramount the parent
Speaker 5: company of CBS, announcing it will pay President Trump's legal
Speaker 5: fees and give money to his future presidential library. The
Speaker 5: president sued CBS over this interview with Vice President Kamala
Speaker 5: Harris on Sixty Minutes during last year's presidential campaign.
Speaker 6: We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for
Speaker 6: the United States to be clear about where we stand
Speaker 6: on the need for this war to end.
Speaker 5: The suit accusing the Show of manipulating the editing in
Speaker 5: Harris's favor, I claim CBS News deny. In June sixty
Speaker 5: Minutes anchor Scott Pelley was asked what effect a settlement
Speaker 5: and apology would have will be very damaging to CBS
Speaker 5: to Paramount to the reputation of those companies. Paramount is
Speaker 5: not issuing an apology, but says it has agreed to
Speaker 5: release written transcripts of future Sixty Minutes interviews with presidential candidates.
Speaker 5: The Trump legal team calling the settlement another win for
Speaker 5: the American people, holding the media accountable for their wrongdoing
Speaker 5: and deceit.
Speaker 7: The announcement concepts. Paramount is looking to merge with Skydance Media,
Speaker 7: a deal with eight billion dollars. It has been stuck
Speaker 7: waiting for SEC approval for nearly a year. Paramount previously
Speaker 7: saying the lawsuit is unrelated to the sky Dance merger and.
Speaker 5: The FCC approval process. Following a string of lawsuits this year,
Speaker 5: media companies and social media platforms have reached settlements with
Speaker 5: the president worth more than sixty million dollars.
Speaker 1: Okay, real quick, ho, god, we need to read this one.
Speaker 1: So SEE has settled for sixteen million, ABC owned by Disney,
Speaker 1: is settling for fifteen million, X owned by Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: has settled with Trump for ten million, and Meta, owned
Speaker 1: by Zuckerberg, has settled with Trump for twenty five million dollars.
Speaker 1: So pretty much, Trump has taken the media as a whole,
Speaker 1: social and press to court here and has come out
Speaker 1: sixty million to the good because he can now show
Speaker 1: and prove how they were skewing certain interviews and certain
Speaker 1: polls and certain algorithms to make something out to be
Speaker 1: what it wasn't. And if anybody doesn't know about the
Speaker 1: Kamala Harrison interview that's being questioned at this time, basically,
Speaker 1: the Kamala was she is rather very dumb. She's very dumb.
Speaker 1: She's a very dumb human being. You know. They say
Speaker 1: that she was the America drunk ant for most of
Speaker 1: the election and the debates, which I myself agree with.
Speaker 1: I have called her a whore for many a month,
Speaker 1: and I will continue to do so because you know,
Speaker 1: I believe in calling a spade is paid. But neither
Speaker 1: here nor there. She this interview with CBS. Basically he
Speaker 1: would ask her a very hard hitting question, quote unquote
Speaker 1: hard hitting question, and she would give a very I
Speaker 1: don't know what you're talking about kind of answer because
Speaker 1: she has no clue what's actually going on. So then
Speaker 1: he would stop and pretty much softball pitch her the
Speaker 1: question in a way to where she knew what like
Speaker 1: the response should be, and then they did cheap editing
Speaker 1: tricks to make it look like that was her immediate
Speaker 1: response to the question. When it was asking all these things.
Speaker 1: They went on for a while saying that they did
Speaker 1: not do this, and now they have to acknowledge that, yes,
Speaker 1: they did, to the tune of sixteen million dollars. They
Speaker 1: have to acknowledge that that's exactly what they did. So
Speaker 1: if anybody is unaware out there, Yes, the press lies.
Speaker 1: And if you think you're bullying journalists hard enough, you're wrong.
Speaker 1: You can bully harder. I know you can. I believe
Speaker 1: in you. Let's keep listening.
Speaker 5: In January, ABC News agreed to pay fifteen million dollars
Speaker 5: over on air comments made by George Stephanopflis. The terms
Speaker 5: similar to CBS, though in that case, ABC News did
Speaker 5: issue a statement of regret. Stephanie Gosk, NBC News.
Speaker 1: New York, very good things, very funny things. You know,
Speaker 1: I didn't know that this was going on. As I
Speaker 1: was doing my little putting together my notes and things
Speaker 1: for this episode. I found that and I just I
Speaker 1: was flabbergasted by this. CBS absolutely or paramount I should
Speaker 1: say absolutely had to acknowledge that they tilted certain things
Speaker 1: that were released in order to make Trump look bad
Speaker 1: and Kamala look better. In which that's the thing. We
Speaker 1: all know that this is going on to be going on.
Speaker 1: For them to lose a court case over it, y'all,
Speaker 1: this had to be egregious, Like it's it's mind blowing
Speaker 1: to me. But anyway, now, speaking of Trump, we talked
Speaker 1: a little bit about the NATO stuff, we talked a
Speaker 1: little bit about his victories in court. Now let's talk
Speaker 1: about something that is going down with the big beautiful bill. Okay,
Speaker 1: So a portion of the bill was basically going to
Speaker 1: cut the legs out from under the NFA. Okay, the
Speaker 1: National Firearm Association. I was so happy about this. This
Speaker 1: was amazing. It was so close to where you would
Speaker 1: be able to buy a suppressor and not have to
Speaker 1: register it, which I believe we should be able to do.
Speaker 1: It was going to take away the registration of SBRs
Speaker 1: or short barrel rifles and salt off shotguns. It was
Speaker 1: about to be more freedom for the two way community,
Speaker 1: of which I probably am a member of. I enjoy guns.
Speaker 1: I think everybody should carry that being said, the Big
Speaker 1: Beautiful Bill moves forward with zero tax on most NFA items,
Speaker 1: and then yesterday they decided to change the language because
Speaker 1: of one human being that is not elected and can
Speaker 1: and should be fired. But we'll talk about that in
Speaker 1: a bit. With the deletion of the Popular Hearing Protection
Speaker 1: Act and Short Act Short being anything like sprs and
Speaker 1: things like that provisions from HR one on Friday, Republican
Speaker 1: lawmakers switched to a backup plan heading into this weekend.
Speaker 1: The old section seven zero four to three six, elimination
Speaker 1: of tax on certain devices under the National Firearms Act,
Speaker 1: was deleted from HR one, better known as One Big
Speaker 1: Beautiful Bill, by the ostensibly nonpartisan Senate proletarian at the
Speaker 1: urging of Democrats on Capitol Hill. While Dems and the
Speaker 1: anti gun groups chess bumped and celebrated. Pro two A
Speaker 1: groups quickly issued a joint letter calling for the parliament
Speaker 1: parliamentarian to either be overruled or for the NFA taxes
Speaker 1: on suppressors and short barrel firearms to be leased by
Speaker 1: at least two excuse me, NFA taxes on suppressors and
Speaker 1: short barrel firearms to at least be zeroed out. The
Speaker 1: statement and this is actually the direct quote June twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. The American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America,
Speaker 1: Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifles Association, National
Speaker 1: Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, and Fair Trade Group strongly
Speaker 1: disagree with the weaponized procedural maneuvering used by the unelected
Speaker 1: parliamentarian to block the removal of suppressors and short barrel
Speaker 1: firearms from the NFA tax scheme in the One Big
Speaker 1: Beautiful Bill, unless the Senate chooses to overrule her egregious
Speaker 1: decisions or the majority leaders removes the the existing parliamentarian,
Speaker 1: which is well within their rights, which it is, which
Speaker 1: it is the parliamentary into which they're talking about right now.
Speaker 1: This woman has been in this position. She's not elected.
Speaker 1: She can be fired tomorrow. It is well within their
Speaker 1: rights to remove her from her job, and they're just not.
Speaker 1: I don't know why, but anyway, immediate action must be
Speaker 1: taken to ensure law abiding Americans are able to exercise
Speaker 1: their Second Amendment rights without the Dredconian NFA tax. I agree,
Speaker 1: though not the full tax repeal it should have been,
Speaker 1: there is still an opportunity to use well established precedent
Speaker 1: to lower the NFA's unconstitutional excise tax on suppressors and
Speaker 1: short barrel firearms. Two zero dollars or organizations stand united
Speaker 1: on behalf of millions of law abiding gun owners in
Speaker 1: calling on Congress to immediately make this revision. This is
Speaker 1: a critical step in our fight against the unconstitutional NFA
Speaker 1: tax scheme and for the rights of all Americans they're preaching.
Speaker 1: They're preaching right now. If y'all are not aware of this.
Speaker 1: By Sunday, when at least nine hundred and forty page
Speaker 1: texts of HR one was released by the Republican Control
Speaker 1: Budget Committee, Section seven zero four to three six had
Speaker 1: been restored but read much differently than in previous versions.
Speaker 1: While the new language drops both making and transfer taxes
Speaker 1: on suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and aow's
Speaker 1: which is any other weapon, AOW any other weapon. It's
Speaker 1: very broad brushstrokes with these types of things when it
Speaker 1: comes to guns in it keeps them under NFA control
Speaker 1: and regulation. In short, punintended like being a contestant on
Speaker 1: a game show and instead of winning the jackpot earned
Speaker 1: fair and square, being sent off with the home edition
Speaker 1: of the game as a parting gift. So here's the
Speaker 1: new language, and I'm not going to read all of it,
Speaker 1: but we could at least touch on it for a second.
Speaker 1: Here the reduction of Transfer and manufacturing tax for certain devices.
Speaker 1: Transfer tax is amended to read as follows rate. There
Speaker 1: shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred, a
Speaker 1: transferred a tax at the rate of two hundred dollars
Speaker 1: for each firearm transferred in the case of a machine
Speaker 1: gun or destructive device, and a zero dollar tax for
Speaker 1: any firearm transferred which is not described in paragraph one
Speaker 1: Making tax Section five A two one A is amended
Speaker 1: to read as follows rate. There shall be levied, collected,
Speaker 1: and paid upon the making of a firearm, a tax
Speaker 1: at the rate of two hundred dollars for each firearm
Speaker 1: made in the case of a machine gun or a
Speaker 1: destructive device, and zero for any firearm made which is
Speaker 1: not described in paragraph one. Conforming amendment is amended by
Speaker 1: adding at the end of the following, for purposes of
Speaker 1: the preceding sentence, any firearm described in section five eight
Speaker 1: one two shall be deemed to be a firearm on
Speaker 1: which the tax provided by Section five eight one one
Speaker 1: has been paid effective date. The amendments made by this
Speaker 1: section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than ninety
Speaker 1: days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Speaker 1: All right, so let's just break this down a little bit.
Speaker 1: They were about to make it to where you didn't
Speaker 1: have to have a tax imposed upon you for buying
Speaker 1: a suppressor or making a short barrel, or any of
Speaker 1: these types of things. It was about to be legal
Speaker 1: for you to do with your guns, which you so chose.
Speaker 1: I like this now when it comes to the term
Speaker 1: machine gun. I understand this is a hot button topic
Speaker 1: for some people. Some people are four civilians owning machine guns.
Speaker 1: I myself am. Some people are against it, and I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to have a whole two way debate here tonight,
Speaker 1: although we definitely can. It is what it is. There
Speaker 1: is a way for a regular civilian to own a
Speaker 1: machine gun, whether it was pre eighties or was eighty six,
Speaker 1: Either eighty six or eighty four when that bill was passed,
Speaker 1: there is ways for a civilian to legally own a
Speaker 1: machine gun. There is some hoops you have to jump through,
Speaker 1: some paperwork, you have to file, some background checks you
Speaker 1: have to do, and that's fine. That's fine. I don't
Speaker 1: like that, but it's fine. What take what we can get.
Speaker 1: But now they basically have made it to where everybody
Speaker 1: was super excited about this, and now there's a tax impost.
Speaker 1: So what could we do about this? We could fire
Speaker 1: the parliamentarian that put it in place, but let's talk
Speaker 1: about it here. While the sound of free tax stamps
Speaker 1: for everything but machine guns and destructive devices feels like
Speaker 1: a big win of sorts, it still falls short of
Speaker 1: the promised NFA reform of the Hearing Protection and Short
Speaker 1: Acts for the record. The hearing protection that would be
Speaker 1: for suppressors, for anybody who actually does a fair amount
Speaker 1: of shooting. Dude, I'm telling you, having a suppressor on
Speaker 1: your weapon, especially if you're going to go for a
Speaker 1: rain day, your ears will thank you in about twenty years.
Speaker 1: Let's just be real here. The reason why I am
Speaker 1: deaf right now is because ear protection was not something
Speaker 1: that was allowed in certain cases for us. But if
Speaker 1: you're going to blow through a thousand rounds in a day,
Speaker 1: and you might do that once a month, once every
Speaker 1: six months, and again, if you're not somebody who even
Speaker 1: wants a suppressor, then this doesn't apply to you. So
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter for you personally, But for the rest
Speaker 1: of us that enjoy shooting and wants to use suppressors,
Speaker 1: we have to go through all these extra steps. We
Speaker 1: have to register the suppressor as its own device, separate
Speaker 1: from the gun its own device, which registering weapons is
Speaker 1: also mind blowing to me anyway, Neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: Let's say further, as the mechanisms to tax such items
Speaker 1: remains on the books, a future simple reconciliation bill by
Speaker 1: a Democrat control Congress could just bump the taxes back
Speaker 1: up and significantly increase them. US Representative Andrew Clyde a
Speaker 1: Georgia Republican a FFL holder has been a driving force
Speaker 1: behind the scenes in the debate to get the reforms
Speaker 1: into HR one. He cautioned that the fight isn't over.
Speaker 1: Of course, I want the NFA registration eliminated as it
Speaker 1: is inseparably linked to the tax. That's why I fought
Speaker 1: tirelessly for months, said Clyde. Yet we can't pass up
Speaker 1: on an opportunity to end the ninety one year old
Speaker 1: unconstitutional taxation under the draconian NFA. This rewrite is another
Speaker 1: shot at this provision. It's not perfect, but it's a
Speaker 1: far better. But it's far better than getting zero two
Speaker 1: A victories. I will say that it might be a
Speaker 1: small lowercase W, still a W. I understand that, but
Speaker 1: it's not as much of a W that it was
Speaker 1: supposed to be. And it can still be fixed. We
Speaker 1: still have time. But anyway, Clyde said, the move, should
Speaker 1: it be successful and make it a law, could set
Speaker 1: the stage for a more groundbreaking legal change. This is
Speaker 1: him speaking again. He said, I strongly believe eliminating the
Speaker 1: tax provides a highly credible basis to challenge the NFA
Speaker 1: registration in court because with the taxation repeal, there is
Speaker 1: no longer a foundation for the registration. The registration database
Speaker 1: is the method used by the government to account for
Speaker 1: the tax paid on each firearm by the serial number
Speaker 1: of the firearm. That's why they are inseparably linked. No tax,
Speaker 1: no foundation for a registration database. I love this. I
Speaker 1: love this. I think the taxation is theft for the
Speaker 1: most part, especially when it's something that's a God given right. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the Senate narrowly passed a fifty one to forty nine
Speaker 1: procedural vote to hold a debate on HR one on Sunday,
Speaker 1: which will unfold on Monday, following a move by Democrats
Speaker 1: to force the entire bill to be read prior to
Speaker 1: moving forward. Then there will come a series of proposed
Speaker 1: amendments from both sides that could see section seven zero
Speaker 1: four to three six, the one in question here changed further.
Speaker 1: Once past by the Senate, the bill would still require
Speaker 1: House concurrence due to all the changes since it left
Speaker 1: that body. Republicans hope to have the measure on President
Speaker 1: Trump's desk by July fourth. They're really pushing for this
Speaker 1: to be on and signed by July fourth. That's like,
Speaker 1: you know, for the for the day of it all
Speaker 1: and I get that. Man, I really, I really really
Speaker 1: really want this to pass. I want suppressors to be
Speaker 1: legal for everybody. I think it's just for the betterment.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, especially hunting. It's all about hunting.
Speaker 1: If I'm hunting in the woods and I shoot my rifle,
Speaker 1: now the entire woods knows where I am. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean people, I mean the other animals that I'm
Speaker 1: trying to hunt. A suppressor is not going to take
Speaker 1: away all of the blast, and it's not going to
Speaker 1: take all of the sound away, but it would drastically
Speaker 1: help the rest of my days hunt. Just throwing this out,
Speaker 1: this is just speaking on behalf of the rednecks out there.
Speaker 1: But anyway, all right, moving on to this next bit.
Speaker 1: As we're still talking about Trump's let's talk about the
Speaker 1: House Republicans raised towards a final vote on Trump's tax bill,
Speaker 1: daring critics to oppose again. This is a flex, some
Speaker 1: might say, one of the most flexes that have ever happened.
Speaker 1: But let's hear more about this big, beautiful bill as
Speaker 1: it's coming through here very soon.
Speaker 6: Let's talk and tonight, Republicans are still working to gain
Speaker 6: support for President Trump's signature tax cuts and spending bill,
Speaker 6: known as the Big Beautiful Bill. The President wants to
Speaker 6: sign it on the fourth of July.
Speaker 1: Monica Alba reports on the debate happening right now on
Speaker 1: the House floor.
Speaker 8: As Republicans, we're touting the benefits of President Trump's signature
Speaker 8: tax and spending bill on the House floor.
Speaker 9: Historic tax relief for working families, massive investments to secure
Speaker 9: our nation's borders, capturing generational savings.
Speaker 8: The President himself working behind the scenes, meeting with at
Speaker 8: the White House, trying to please Republicans who say the
Speaker 8: Senate version spends too much.
Speaker 10: The overall deficit number is not good to bear, I think.
Speaker 8: It got worse, and trying to calm other Republicans fears
Speaker 8: that cuts to social programs go too far.
Speaker 3: Those meetings are having a big impact. Members are moving
Speaker 3: to Yes, Donald Trump is the best closer in the business,
Speaker 3: and we're going to get it done.
Speaker 8: Democrats amping up the pressure on potential holdouts.
Speaker 4: That's all we need are four Republicans to join us
Speaker 4: and support of their constituents.
Speaker 11: So allat a time when most households are struggling to
Speaker 11: afford the basics, Republicans have a clear message for American families,
Speaker 11: you don't matter.
Speaker 8: The Senate pass version extends the twenty seventeen Trump tax cuts,
Speaker 8: slashes funding for medicaid in food stamps, and increases funding
Speaker 8: for border security and the military. The non partisan Congressional
Speaker 8: Budget Office estimates it will add more than three trillion
Speaker 8: dollars to the national debt.
Speaker 1: Real quick, hold on, I just wanted to read that list. Okay,
Speaker 1: So nine hundred and thirty billion dollars in cuts to medicaid,
Speaker 1: two hundred and eighty five billion dollars in cuts to snap,
Speaker 1: a one hundred and fifty seven billion dollar boost to
Speaker 1: military spending, one hundred and fifty billion dollar increase for
Speaker 1: immigration enforcement, four hundred and eighty eight billion dollars in
Speaker 1: cuts to clean energy credits. That's a debate. I don't
Speaker 1: think that clean energy credits actually makes clean energy happen.
Speaker 1: That kicks the can down the road and allows these
Speaker 1: facilities to still produce the same toxic fumes they've been doing,
Speaker 1: but now they paid their extortion fee, so it's not
Speaker 1: a net positive. And then ten billion dollars for MARS missions.
Speaker 1: That's a thing, that is a thing that's happening right now.
Speaker 1: So for everybody out there that doesn't believe that space
Speaker 1: is real, I'm sorry. You know, apparently the government thinks so.
Speaker 1: And I know they would, wouldn't they they would? But uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: who knows. It's it's possible we'll be on Mars here soon.
Speaker 1: I don't. I have no idea what all that implies.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, that's hilarious. All right, let's keep going. Oh,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Tony.
Speaker 3: You know, I hate it when people don't annualize these numbers.
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure these numbers are not annualized because Medicaid
Speaker 3: and Medicare in total aspect checked was a little over
Speaker 3: a trillion dollars a year. So you know, nine hundred
Speaker 3: billion dollars in cuts to Medicaid that's probably spread out
Speaker 3: over like twenty or thirty years or something. But you know,
Speaker 3: it looks like a bigger number if you make it
Speaker 3: over a lot of years instead of just one. And
Speaker 3: I hate it when people don't just confine it to
Speaker 3: one year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is an extension on Trump's twenty seventeen tax cuts.
Speaker 1: So like we're already talking about nine years ago the
Speaker 1: things that he implemented, and this is like a further
Speaker 1: continuation of it. So you're right. They absolutely they throw
Speaker 1: it all together to make it look like it's happening
Speaker 1: this year, and it's like, that's that's simply not happening.
Speaker 1: I agree. Even still, I had to stop and talk
Speaker 1: about that one ten billion for MARS missions. That's great,
Speaker 1: let's keep going.
Speaker 8: Funding for border security and the military. The non partisan
Speaker 8: Congressional Budget Office estimates it will add more than three
Speaker 8: trillion dollars to the national debt and will strip healthcare
Speaker 8: coverage from more than eleven million people. Republicans are working
Speaker 8: under a President Trump imposed July fourth deadline.
Speaker 1: I feel good about where we are and where we're headed,
Speaker 1: and stay tuned.
Speaker 3: There's more conversations to be helped.
Speaker 8: The tricky part for House Republicans is they have to
Speaker 8: pass the Senate version of the bill unchanged if they
Speaker 8: want to get it to the President's desk by Friday.
Speaker 8: Any reluctant House members who want to make deals on
Speaker 8: the side would have to do that and pass it
Speaker 8: through separate legislation. Otherwise it could take additional days or
Speaker 8: even weeks for this to get across the finish line.
Speaker 8: Monica Alba, NBC News Washington.
Speaker 10: And we've also been in touch with our local lawmakers
Speaker 10: who have spent much of their day on the House
Speaker 10: floor as well.
Speaker 6: Congressman Andre Carson says Democrats are trying to get the
Speaker 6: four Republican wholes doubts to side with him, but he
Speaker 6: is not giving up on the other Republicans asking them
Speaker 6: to not pass this bill.
Speaker 12: This won't just impact those who are on Medicaid. It
Speaker 12: really impacts our entire systems. Our hospitals rely on Medicaid,
Speaker 12: Our emergency rooms rely on Medicaid to stay open. With
Speaker 12: these cuts, hospitals, especially rural hospitals, are at risk of closing.
Speaker 12: And that's my appeal to my Republican friends. If you
Speaker 12: have these hospitals close, you're going to disrupt the entire
Speaker 12: ecosystem of local communities.
Speaker 1: It's going to now.
Speaker 6: We also reached out to Republican Representative Victoria's Sparts. We
Speaker 6: have not yet heard back from her office.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's break it down. Actually, before we do that,
Speaker 1: let's get into the chat over here. Also, there ain't ooh, okay,
Speaker 1: I see links, I see things that people wanting to
Speaker 1: bring up here real quick. There's this whole Candice Owen's
Speaker 1: phone call with Trump from February. She's reposted one guy's impression. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm down everything. Everyone's arm late, Anthony. Good to see you, brother,
Speaker 1: Good glad you could join us. My dad lost a
Speaker 1: good chunk of his hearing about a year ago from
Speaker 1: a gun he used. Yeah, I'm saying. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: a suppressor would go a long way, especially if you're
Speaker 1: an older shooter or even a younger shooter. Help my son.
Speaker 1: He does competition shooting a Granted it's only like a
Speaker 1: twenty two, so I'm not that concerned with it, and
Speaker 1: he wears ear protection, but still, and he's not gonna
Speaker 1: use a suppressor at camp for obvious reasons. But if
Speaker 1: we're practicing and he's like getting his shooting positions down,
Speaker 1: we're blowing through AMMO at the range one day. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a lost suppressor on a twenty two goes a long way.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe I'm just being ridiculous with it,
Speaker 1: but I like it. I'll never freaking live somewhere where
Speaker 1: you have to register your babies such bigots. My firearms
Speaker 1: are family. Yeah, I agree with that white boy wizard.
Speaker 1: I agree, which I mean registration that's kind of more
Speaker 1: of a suggestion, isn't it. I'm saying, Uh, let's see here. Also, ooh,
Speaker 1: the yoked yid my boy Royce just posted this one.
Speaker 1: The Diddler aka puff Daddy akap Diddy aka Sean Combs
Speaker 1: Face is twenty years in prison, but is found not
Speaker 1: guilty of the more serious crimes. Now the question is
Speaker 1: was he not guilty or was there dirt in the videos?
Speaker 1: That's interesting. Let's see here for a racketeering conspiracy, he
Speaker 1: was found not guilty. Yo, how how was he found
Speaker 1: not guilty of racketeering? That's literally what he was doing
Speaker 1: was extorting these people for his own gains. But okay, Uh,
Speaker 1: sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, found not guilty.
Speaker 1: I cool. That's dirty. That is dirty by force, maybe
Speaker 1: not by fraud, absolutely by coercion. Oh one hundred, that's
Speaker 1: what he did. Uh, found not guilty. That's mind blowing.
Speaker 1: But okay. Count three transportation to engage in prostitution, he
Speaker 1: was found guilty. Okay, So he brought in hookers from
Speaker 1: over state lines like all right, yeah, I didn't think
Speaker 1: that was even open for debate. But then again, I
Speaker 1: didn't think any of these were But all right, Count
Speaker 1: four sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. Wait, that's
Speaker 1: the same thing as count two. Oh, I guess it's
Speaker 1: different cases or different instances. Okay, found not guilty again.
Speaker 1: So I don't know how they found him not guilty
Speaker 1: of that. I mean, I understand that a willing party,
Speaker 1: somebody who is trying to do these things to better
Speaker 1: their career or whatever the case is. But I also
Speaker 1: feel like there was probably a bit of coercion there.
Speaker 1: I don't know that for a fact. But okay, and
Speaker 1: count five transportation to engage in prostitution. So that's the
Speaker 1: only thing he has found guilty on. Two counts of
Speaker 1: transportation to engage in prostitution. Wow, that's pretty mind blowing. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: didd he's going to jail for twenty years. He'll probably
Speaker 1: I don't know what you'll think, you'll think you'll get
Speaker 1: out and what like eight, he'll pay an absorbiting amount
Speaker 1: of money, good behavior, all the things. He'll be out
Speaker 1: before ten years by far. Yeah, go ahead for Royce.
Speaker 1: So I don't know the veracity of this article.
Speaker 13: However, it basically is said that with the prostitution charges,
Speaker 13: it'll probably be maybe time served, and he will almost
Speaker 13: seem like he'll probably walk, which is pretty much status
Speaker 13: quo for anybody who has a lot of power and
Speaker 13: has money, it doesn't really matter what see if they do,
Speaker 13: they just get to do really whatever they want as
Speaker 13: long as they have a great lawyer in money.
Speaker 1: And that's absolutely what he has working for him right now.
Speaker 1: So I yeah, he I don't even know as far
Speaker 1: as the time serve things. He's only been in jail
Speaker 1: for a year, give or take. And I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know what his record looks like. I know he
Speaker 1: portrays himself as a thug and all of that, I
Speaker 1: don't know what his actual like record looks like even Still, dude,
Speaker 1: we're talking at the time served of a year even two. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but then how are they coming to a twenty year
Speaker 1: sentence if he's already yeah, I don't, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 13: I think that the twenty years would have been if
Speaker 13: he would have been guilty of the racketeering and the
Speaker 13: serious charges. But since he's not guilty of that, I
Speaker 13: don't know.
Speaker 1: Still, how is he not guilty of racketeering? That's clearly
Speaker 1: what he was doing. How many careers has he built?
Speaker 1: And he used certain things as leverage over these people?
Speaker 10: What?
Speaker 1: What would you? Okay? All right, well, our justice system
Speaker 1: is broken for anybody who didn't know that, that's absolutely
Speaker 1: a part of it. Let's see whoever said money can't
Speaker 1: buy happiness never paid for a divorce before? Boy, I
Speaker 1: know it. That's right. Let's see middle one fourth from Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a meme. All right, Let's see Raven Lee has
Speaker 1: sent a article. Let's check this one out here. This
Speaker 1: is US news. The US plans to begin breeding billions
Speaker 1: of flies to fight a pest. Here is how it
Speaker 1: will work. Oh, Raven Lee, what have you shared with
Speaker 1: us this evening? All right, I'm go ahead and share
Speaker 1: the screen for everybody. Let's learn about some sort of
Speaker 1: new scientific advancements that's happening with flies. The US government
Speaker 1: is preparing to breed billions of flies and drop them
Speaker 1: from airplanes over Mexico and even southern Texas. Okay, likes
Speaker 1: as a prank. Let's read. Let's read. Okay. In this
Speaker 1: January twenty twenty four photo provided by the Panama United
Speaker 1: States Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of Cattle screw Worms, oh, okay.
Speaker 1: A worker drops a New World screwworm fly larva into
Speaker 1: a tray at a facility that breeds sterile flies in Pocona.
Speaker 1: I'm a zooming on this a little bit because my
Speaker 1: eyes are not what they once were. Children Pacora, Panama
Speaker 1: to Peaka, Kansas. The US government is preparing to breed
Speaker 1: billions of flies and dump them out of airplanes over
Speaker 1: Mexico and southern Texas to fight a flesh eating maggot.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a plot of a horror movie, but
Speaker 1: as part of the government's plan to protect the US
Speaker 1: from a bug that could devastate its beef industry, decimate wildlife,
Speaker 1: and even kill household pets. This weird science has worked
Speaker 1: well before. Okay, let's go. It's an exceptionally good technology,
Speaker 1: said Edwin Burgess, and assistant professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Florida who studies parasites and animals, particularly livestock. It's an
Speaker 1: all time great in terms of translating science to solve
Speaker 1: some kind of large problem. The targeted pest is the
Speaker 1: flesh eating larva of the New World screwworm fly. The
Speaker 1: US Department of Agriculture plans to ramp up the breeding
Speaker 1: and distribution of adult male flies, sterilizing them with radiation
Speaker 1: before releasing them. They mate with females in the wild,
Speaker 1: and the eggs laid by the females aren't fertilized and
Speaker 1: don't hatch. There are fewer larva, and overtime the fly
Speaker 1: population dies out. It is more effect is more effective
Speaker 1: and environmentally friendly than spraying the pest on or into oblivion,
Speaker 1: and it is how the US and other nations north
Speaker 1: of the Panama ere eradicated the same pest decades ago.
Speaker 1: Interesting steri flies from a factory in Panama kept the
Speaker 1: flies contained there for years, but the pest appeared in
Speaker 1: southern Mexico last year. The USDA expects a new screwworm
Speaker 1: fly factory to be up and running in southern Mexico
Speaker 1: by July twenty twenty six. It plans to open a
Speaker 1: fly distribution center in southern Texas by the end of
Speaker 1: the year so that it can import and distribute flies
Speaker 1: from Panama if necessary. Now fly feeds on live flesh,
Speaker 1: most fly larva feed on dead flesh, making the New
Speaker 1: World screw worm fly and its Old World counterpart in
Speaker 1: Asia and Africa outliers and for the American beef industry
Speaker 1: a serious threat. Females lay their eggs and wounds and
Speaker 1: sometimes exposed mucus. One thousand pounds bow vine can be
Speaker 1: dead from this in two weeks, said Michael Bailey, President
Speaker 1: elected the American Veterinary Medicine Association. WHOA yeah, you want
Speaker 1: to talk about an infestation of that hitting a massive
Speaker 1: cattle farm. That is it? It's over. Veterinarians have effective
Speaker 1: treatments for infested animals, but an infestation can still be
Speaker 1: unpleasant and cripple an animal with pain. Don Henneman, a
Speaker 1: retired West in Kansas rancher, recalled infection. Recalled infected cattle
Speaker 1: as a youngster in his family's farm. It smelled nasty, said,
Speaker 1: like rotten meat. How scientists will use the flies biology
Speaker 1: against it. The New World screwworm fly is a tropical
Speaker 1: species unable to survive in Midwestern or Great Plains winters,
Speaker 1: so it was a seasonal scourge. Still, the US and
Speaker 1: Mexico bred and released more than ninety four billion steril
Speaker 1: flies from nineteen sixty two through nineteen seventy five to
Speaker 1: eradicate the pest. According to USDA, the numbers need to
Speaker 1: be large enough that females in the wild can't help,
Speaker 1: but hook up with sterile males for mating. One biological
Speaker 1: trade gives the fly fighters a crucial wing up ah
Speaker 1: nice pun female's mate only once in their week's long
Speaker 1: adult lives. While the US wants to breed more flies.
Speaker 1: Alarmed by the flies migration north, the US Temporary League
Speaker 1: temporarily closed its southern border in May to imports of
Speaker 1: live cattle, horses, and bison, and it won't be fully
Speaker 1: open again at least until mid September. But female flies
Speaker 1: can lay their eggs and wounds on any warm blooded animal,
Speaker 1: and that includes humans. Decades ago, the US had fly
Speaker 1: factories in Florida and Texas, but they closed as the
Speaker 1: pest was eradicated. The Panama fly factory can breed up
Speaker 1: to one hundred and seventeen million a week wow, but
Speaker 1: the USDA wants the capacity to breed at least four
Speaker 1: hundred million a week good God. It plans to spend
Speaker 1: eight point five million on the Texas site and twenty
Speaker 1: one million to convert a facility in southern Mexico for
Speaker 1: breeding sterile fruit flies into one four screwworm flies, Okay,
Speaker 1: how to raise hundreds of millions of flies? In one sense,
Speaker 1: raising a large colony of flies is relatively easy, said
Speaker 1: Cassandra olds And, assistant professor of an entomology at Kansas
Speaker 1: State University. But she added, you've got to give the
Speaker 1: females the cues that she needs to lay her eggs,
Speaker 1: and the larva have to be have to have enough nutrients.
Speaker 1: Factories once fed larva horse meat and honey, and then
Speaker 1: moved to a mix of dried eggs and either honey
Speaker 1: or molasses, according to the past USDA research. Later the
Speaker 1: Panama factory used a mix that included egg powder and
Speaker 1: red blood cells and plasma from cattle in the while,
Speaker 1: larva ready for the equivalent of a butterfly's cocoon stage,
Speaker 1: dropped off their hosts and onto the ground, burrowed just
Speaker 1: below the surface, and grow to adulthood inside a protective casing,
Speaker 1: making them resemble a dark brown tic tac mint. In
Speaker 1: the Panama factory, workers drop them into trays of sawdust.
Speaker 1: Security is an issue, Sonya Swigger, Sweeger Swiger, I don't know,
Speaker 1: sweezer Swige, I don't know. And entomologists with the Texas
Speaker 1: A and M University's Extension Services said a breeding facility
Speaker 1: must prevent any fertile adults kept from breeding stock from escaping.
Speaker 1: So how to drop them from an airplane? I'm assuming
Speaker 1: in the tic TAC stage. I don't know. Dropping flies
Speaker 1: from the air can be dangerous. Last month, a plane
Speaker 1: freeing steriol flies crashed near Mexico's border with Guatemala, killing
Speaker 1: three people. Well Jesus Okay. In test runs in the
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties, according to the USDA, scientists put the flies
Speaker 1: in paper cups and then dropped the cups out of
Speaker 1: the planes using special shoots. Later, they loaded them into
Speaker 1: boxes with the machine known as a whiz packer. I
Speaker 1: feel like the paper cups is just going to add
Speaker 1: to pollution. Although there's biodegradable paper, there's ways, you know,
Speaker 1: the method is still pretty much the same light planes
Speaker 1: with crates of flies dropped those crates bur just called
Speaker 1: the development of sterile fly breeding and distribution in the
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties and sixties one of the USDA's crowning achievements.
Speaker 1: Some agriculture officials argue now that the new factory shouldn't
Speaker 1: be shuttered after another successful fight something we think we
Speaker 1: have complete control over and we have declared a triumph,
Speaker 1: and victory over can always rear its ugly head again.
Speaker 1: Burgess said, Okay, wow, very very interesting, Raven, thank you
Speaker 1: for sharing this. All right, let's go back to the
Speaker 1: chat because it seems like you have another one ready
Speaker 1: to go here. Okay, it was another one that's basically
Speaker 1: talking about the same thing about breeding the flies. That
Speaker 1: is pretty fascinating. I mean, we did an episode we
Speaker 1: talked about the screwworms not too terribly long ago. I
Speaker 1: didn't realize that it was that much of an issue
Speaker 1: and that they were making a real advancement north. That's
Speaker 1: I'm glad that the USDA has taken some sort of
Speaker 1: approach against that, because, good god, that's that's one of
Speaker 1: the other things America does really well. We do war
Speaker 1: really well, and we do farming really well. So for
Speaker 1: them to try to protect that, I like it. I
Speaker 1: like it a lot. All right, let's see here RFK Junior.
Speaker 1: This is from ms N. RFK Junior says the CDC
Speaker 1: data to be public for the first time in autism study.
Speaker 1: Oh here, here we go. All right, I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and share the screen yet again for all the
Speaker 1: good listeners of the Cave tonight, if you would like
Speaker 1: to be a part of this conversation and see what
Speaker 1: we're talking about and join in and send in your
Speaker 1: articles there anything you would like to talk about that
Speaker 1: you think is interesting. Again link in the description below.
Speaker 1: We only got one tier for entry here. Okay, let's
Speaker 1: do this. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kenny
Speaker 1: Junior said the CDC will publish large amounts of data
Speaker 1: for researchers to sift through related to possible causes of
Speaker 1: autism during an interview published today with Tucker Carlson. We're
Speaker 1: going to do real science, and the way we're going
Speaker 1: to do it is we're going to make the database
Speaker 1: public for the first time, he said. We're going We're
Speaker 1: We've gone into the CDC. We've got the data from
Speaker 1: the CMS, which is the Medicaid and Medicare. We're getting
Speaker 1: the data from the Vaccine Safety Data Link, which is
Speaker 1: the biggest repository for HMO health records. Those records will
Speaker 1: have all the vaccination data and the subsequent health claim games.
Speaker 1: You can do a cluster analysis and look to see it.
Speaker 1: There as an Association. Kennedy said, We're going to do
Speaker 1: some in house studies ourselves, but more importantly, we're going
Speaker 1: to make this data available for independent scientists so everyone
Speaker 1: can look at it. So here's the full interview. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to read the entirety of it, but
Speaker 1: all right, it says, here's the full interview, and we're
Speaker 1: not going to pull it up, but at least the
Speaker 1: overarching theme of it here. Twenty years ago, Bobby Kennedy
Speaker 1: was exiled from Polite Society for suggesting a link between
Speaker 1: autism and vaccines. Now he's a caverte secretary and still
Speaker 1: saying it. So him and Tucker got into it, and
Speaker 1: he is basically saying that we will have all of
Speaker 1: the information ourselves that we can look into. Let's see.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson says, I remember your first break with the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and with personal friends, even members of your
Speaker 1: own family, was a rolling Stone piece that you wrote
Speaker 1: about autism, asking why have autism rates risen? And you
Speaker 1: were kind of written out of Polite Societ for doing that.
Speaker 1: One of the first things you did as secretary, I think,
Speaker 1: tell me if I'm mistating here was commission was commission
Speaker 1: a kind of study on autism. Can you tell us
Speaker 1: what that is and what you're seeking to do with that.
Speaker 1: So here's Robert F. Kennedy. I'm not going to do
Speaker 1: an impersonation of his voice, mostly because it would hurt
Speaker 1: my throat. But yeah, yeah, I mean, you know the studies.
Speaker 1: There are a handful of studies that the CDC has
Speaker 1: generated on autism. They were all a deep pemelogical Jesus Christ,
Speaker 1: a deepaminie epidemiological studies. There we go and they all
Speaker 1: say what the CDC wanted them to say, which is
Speaker 1: that they couldn't find a link. The problem is that
Speaker 1: the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National
Speaker 1: Academy of Science, has said in two thousand and one
Speaker 1: that the link between autism and vaccines is biologically plausible,
Speaker 1: and they were highly critical of the way the CDC
Speaker 1: was making decisions about the vaccine schedule. This group AIP,
Speaker 1: which is an external panel responsible for deciding which new
Speaker 1: vaccines will be added to the schedule. They had essentially
Speaker 1: been captured by industry. Wow, raven, I saw your hand
Speaker 1: was raised. Please speak on this.
Speaker 10: So pretty much he's like shook the community by saying
Speaker 10: he says that the CDC covered up internal study which
Speaker 10: found and thirty five percent increase in autism. Bricks for
Speaker 10: Hepta B vaccine specifically, he needed that vaccine. They're wanting
Speaker 10: most people, myself included, want the actual data on the
Speaker 10: MMR and the DETAP. But it's a huge win for
Speaker 10: at least for the community of like coming forward and saying, hey,
Speaker 10: like there is something going on. Because the people that
Speaker 10: I've spoken out about it, a lot of the doctors
Speaker 10: have unlived themselves or disappeared or renakeed on what they've
Speaker 10: said or things like that. But if you look at
Speaker 10: the Trump just spoke about it just the other day
Speaker 10: with RFK. He was saying, like when he first started
Speaker 10: back in the day, it was like one number. Now
Speaker 10: it's like one in thirty two people or something. One
Speaker 10: in thirty two kids or thirty five kids or something
Speaker 10: has autism. And it's like at some point, you know,
Speaker 10: we all have to look at what's happening. It's not
Speaker 10: just autism though, it's it's all different types of disorders,
Speaker 10: and autoimmune disorders is a huge thing. There's tons of
Speaker 10: things that have increased by like two hundred plus percent
Speaker 10: in the last decade or two, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 10: clearly it you know, look at the food, look at
Speaker 10: the water supply, look at the vaccine schedule, look at
Speaker 10: all this stuff. But by him like scrupling down on
Speaker 10: the vaccines, it's it's a huge thing. Like, I mean,
Speaker 10: a lot of people are waiting for the studies to drop.
Speaker 10: That's pretty much what he goes on about with Tuckercarls,
Speaker 10: and he talks about a lot of other stuff, but
Speaker 10: that the main point is that he came out and
Speaker 10: said that it's one and thirty five percent increase because
Speaker 10: the heptitis B.
Speaker 1: They started implementing B. Correct me if I'm wrong, But
Speaker 1: this was in the eighties or was it the seventies.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm trying to remember when they started making that
Speaker 1: more of a I.
Speaker 10: Think it was the eighties because the eighties so like
Speaker 10: eighty eight and eighty nine, the vaccines changed. In ninety
Speaker 10: two is when Gates and Fauci got their hands heavy
Speaker 10: in the vaccines, and they were like the original vaccines
Speaker 10: the way they were created in like the seventies and stuff.
Speaker 10: They didn't have the same additives as they do now.
Speaker 10: And that's the big conversation. I think people are missing
Speaker 10: when it comes to anti vax and BAX conversation is
Speaker 10: everyone's fighting against each other, and it's like, why don't
Speaker 10: we just actually talk about why did they change the
Speaker 10: chemical makeup and why don't we go back to something
Speaker 10: that we know doesn't have heavy metals that impacts different
Speaker 10: parts of the brain that cause the autoimmune issues? Like
Speaker 10: why are we not going after a big farmer that
Speaker 10: can't be sued for vaccine injuries? Why are we not
Speaker 10: talking about all the children that have them? And like
Speaker 10: myself included with a child that had vaccine injuries, like
Speaker 10: I felt for the same thing everyone else said, you
Speaker 10: need to vaccinate your kid. Okay, I really didn't feel
Speaker 10: comfortable with Cheryl keep doing it. And he suddenly woke
Speaker 10: up with all this crap, like he started to get
Speaker 10: sick and then a week later he started having all
Speaker 10: these issues and I was like, yeah, my child was fine,
Speaker 10: so that was the only thing to change. But that's
Speaker 10: a that's kind of the big conversation right now, and
Speaker 10: a lot of people that are anti that are vaccining
Speaker 10: people are now kind of questioning like, hey, well, maybe
Speaker 10: there's something to this. If this is really starting to
Speaker 10: come out as truth, which is huge because anti vaxers
Speaker 10: are looked at as crazy people, which it's it's you know,
Speaker 10: they can go to extremes, just like the left and
Speaker 10: the right. There's extreme vaccinators, extreme anti vaxx. Like I
Speaker 10: think they're to be a healthy middle in between.
Speaker 1: I agree with you one hundred percent, and it's that's
Speaker 1: the thing. The anti vaxx movement was made public by
Speaker 1: the crazies, right. It wasn't from logical people who have
Speaker 1: children who had vaccine injuries and things like that. The
Speaker 1: first time we ever heard about anti vaxers was from
Speaker 1: the screaming heads on one side or the other. And
Speaker 1: that's the problem, right, the squeaky wheel gets the oil,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately those that are talking the loudest typically get
Speaker 1: the most attention, which really sucks when it comes to
Speaker 1: something like this Because I agree with you. I think
Speaker 1: that there's a place for vaccines. The polio, measles and mumps,
Speaker 1: all these things, like, we eradicated a lot of really
Speaker 1: horrible diseases from vaccinations. However, this was before they started
Speaker 1: putting in a lot of extra additives to it. And
Speaker 1: this is we didn't have nearly the rate of autism
Speaker 1: in the thirties, forties, and fifties that we do today.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's one hundred perc link to vaccines,
Speaker 1: but there is a clear correlation between it, like indiscernibly
Speaker 1: connected between them. And even if it's not just the
Speaker 1: vaccines that you're giving the children. Even further proof of this,
Speaker 1: most veterans that I know that deployed to Afghanistan or
Speaker 1: Iraq have at least one child with some sort of
Speaker 1: autoimmune five motor skill issues, something on the spectrum of
Speaker 1: autism or anything like that. And they were trying to
Speaker 1: deny that that was a thing for so long. But
Speaker 1: I mean, it's hard to find a veteran that deployed
Speaker 1: that doesn't have a child that is suffering from some
Speaker 1: sort of issue in some way, shape or form. At
Speaker 1: this point, there's too much research out there for them
Speaker 1: to ignore and just push under the rug like this.
Speaker 10: So the vaccine was created. Heavy vaccine was created an
Speaker 10: eighty one release in eighty two, And in regard to
Speaker 10: the vaccines for deploying or receipts, when I went to
Speaker 10: the VA, I had a real frink conversation with them
Speaker 10: and I was like, you know, I talked to a
Speaker 10: couple of the doctors that were doing the screenings and
Speaker 10: I was like, so are we going to ever be
Speaker 10: able to bring up the amount of vaccines that they
Speaker 10: gave us and what it does to our bodies and
Speaker 10: like what it's done to you know, our egg our
Speaker 10: eggs and our semen and stuff like that, like you know,
Speaker 10: for everybody. And they're like, there's no way we could
Speaker 10: ever like they'll ever let that happen. We've tried to
Speaker 10: bring it up, but that would mean every service member
Speaker 10: period ever is connected to some type because of all
Speaker 10: the different vaccines that you're given, because like when you
Speaker 10: go live over seas and oknaw, you're given way more
Speaker 10: vaccines than people that live in stateside. Then when you deploy,
Speaker 10: you get more vaccines and you get pills on top
Speaker 10: of that, and it's like there's just so much And
Speaker 10: like by the end of the time I was in
Speaker 10: I was questioning everything giving me and I was like,
Speaker 10: what are you giving me? Like why do I need this?
Speaker 10: I've already received smallpox. What was the point of getting
Speaker 10: another smallpox, like a live virus? I had already gotten it,
Speaker 10: So why do I need two of.
Speaker 1: Them like it.
Speaker 10: You know, it's just like the COVID vaccine. I want
Speaker 10: the Stars vaccine, the original. What is covid derivative from
Speaker 10: and dreaded from? And I'm like, why would I need
Speaker 10: a COVID vaccine? I had the actual like mother of it,
Speaker 10: So what's the point of that? Like, it's just never
Speaker 10: made any sense to me. But I mean that's the thing.
Speaker 10: It's it's a money making business. Making people sick is
Speaker 10: what they do, and they want to keep people being sick.
Speaker 10: And it's not just a vaccine. So I mean, we
Speaker 10: really have to look at all the components that's in
Speaker 10: our society. And I think that's where people get all
Speaker 10: hung up as like you're blaming just vaccines. I'm not
Speaker 10: blaming just vaccines. What about what they're putting in food?
Speaker 10: What about the screen time? What are they you know,
Speaker 10: all of this stuff is playing into what's happening with
Speaker 10: the children. But I will say, like the Gardasil vaccine
Speaker 10: is one of the worst vaccines ever. If anyone's even
Speaker 10: considering giving it to your children, please do research into it.
Speaker 10: I wrote a massive, like forty page paper about this
Speaker 10: damn vaccine, and it is terrible, Like they really strongly
Speaker 10: suggest people don't ever let their kids get them.
Speaker 1: No, I agree with you one hundred percent. There's there's
Speaker 1: way more at play than just vaccines. But like, the
Speaker 1: conversation has to start somewhere, and it has to start
Speaker 1: somewhere with documented scientific data to back it up. And
Speaker 1: I feel like vaccines are a very good jumping point
Speaker 1: for the rest of the conversation to begin. But like
Speaker 1: you said, it's a money making operation and they will
Speaker 1: never release the data. Although RFK is talking about them
Speaker 1: releasing the data, let's hope and pray that they actually
Speaker 1: do these things. They also said they would release all
Speaker 1: the JFK files and all of the UFO files and
Speaker 1: all these other things. We're still waiting on this. They
Speaker 1: swore the Epstein list was going to be released now
Speaker 1: we got cash, but telling Dan bon Gino saying there's
Speaker 1: nothing to release. I I hope that RFK is going
Speaker 1: to stay on this, But I mean he has been
Speaker 1: on this conversation for better part of two decades now three,
Speaker 1: so I hope he doesn't change course at this time
Speaker 1: and we actually see the data. Tony, go ahead, brother.
Speaker 3: Yeah. When RFK wrote the book, the real Anthony Fauci
Speaker 3: two or three years ago. About two hundred pages in
Speaker 3: the book were dedicated to AIDS and the proposition that
Speaker 3: HIV does not actually cause AIDS, something I'd never heard
Speaker 3: of before. But apparently one of the discoverers who won
Speaker 3: the Nobel Prize for discovering HIV did not believe it
Speaker 3: caused AIDS, and it's amazing that he put that out there,
Speaker 3: and nobody in the mainstream media asked him about that.
Speaker 3: It was more of his criticism of Fauci over over COVID.
Speaker 3: They got all the attention, but Fauci really got his
Speaker 3: career started with HIV and AIDS. He started a little
Speaker 3: before that, but AIDS was considered a form of cancer
Speaker 3: until he got it designated as a viral infection. And
Speaker 3: when it was designated as such, that's when research was
Speaker 3: done into finding an AIDS vaccine, right, and that never
Speaker 3: panned out, And it's probably because AIDS isn't really a
Speaker 3: viral disease. But these guys, they're trying to tap into
Speaker 3: the religious part of people's brains, which are associated with healthcare,
Speaker 3: and they want to be seen as these heroic, godlike
Speaker 3: figures who can cure disease and on a pretty large
Speaker 3: chunk of the population it works.
Speaker 1: I agree. I mean it's when Fauci really got into
Speaker 1: the whole AIDS conversation. He was trying to push a
Speaker 1: certain drug, rimdzevie rimdesevir. I might be mispronouncing it. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but this he pushed and I think it
Speaker 1: might be something that he created as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: and it was going to be the cure for AIDS
Speaker 1: or the cure for HIV. Well that didn't work. Well,
Speaker 1: it was a cure for AIDS, well that didn't work. Well,
Speaker 1: it was the cure for this well, that didn't work.
Speaker 1: He has been trying to find a way to plug
Speaker 1: this drug to fix something out there, and every single
Speaker 1: time it goes through a clinical trial to show that
Speaker 1: it does something to help prevent or help fight some
Speaker 1: sort of issue that a person is having, it is
Speaker 1: shown to be basically rat poison, and he is still
Speaker 1: promoting it like it's some sort of a miracle drug
Speaker 1: for what we don't know, but we're gonna find out
Speaker 1: it is. It's mind blowing. It's mind blowing that these
Speaker 1: people are building a giant monument to him in the
Speaker 1: CDC right now. It Oh, it blows my mind. Fauci
Speaker 1: is i in my personal opinion, one of the worst
Speaker 1: human beings ever ever. But yeah, go ahead, Raven.
Speaker 10: I've actually heard of what Tony's talking about. It's actually
Speaker 10: getting some popularity right now. It throughout the anti vox
Speaker 10: groups right now. That's why I just I literally just
Speaker 10: read about it two days ago. But Fauci is terrible.
Speaker 10: You can actually want like there is a article I
Speaker 10: read about him that broke down like his involvement in
Speaker 10: all different types of vaccines and how he had heavy
Speaker 10: backing by the Gates Foundation, and how when a couple
Speaker 10: other ones like the Clinton Clinton's also backed him in
Speaker 10: certain areas too. And that's the thing about it, though,
Speaker 10: Like it's it's when you start looking at when people
Speaker 10: started getting sicker and you start following the money trail,
Speaker 10: It's like, clearly there is an agenda at play. Whatever
Speaker 10: that agenda is, Is it to make people more sick?
Speaker 10: Is it to make kids have more issues to where
Speaker 10: that way they have long term disabilities that are going
Speaker 10: to be money makers? I mean it, who knows. But
Speaker 10: the conversation at least is being opened up now. If
Speaker 10: people will actually listen is a whole other thing, because
Speaker 10: the smear campaign on RFK is massive, and like him
Speaker 10: even saying this is huge, and it's like, it's not
Speaker 10: taking away from anyone that has a child that has
Speaker 10: a disability. Hell, I have a child that has disabilities,
Speaker 10: and you know it's not taking that away. It's having
Speaker 10: the conversation as hey, maybe there's something wrong with this,
Speaker 10: and maybe we should look at why they're wrong with
Speaker 10: the original polio vaccine is safe, like the one that
Speaker 10: they were using in the seventies is safe. Like there's
Speaker 10: certain things that are safe about some vaccines, but now
Speaker 10: the vaccines aren't safe, and you can look at it
Speaker 10: with COVID. Cod is a great example of everyone trying
Speaker 10: to shove it down your throat and calling you all
Speaker 10: this stuff. I mean, hell, they were on genesid, like
Speaker 10: on the verge of having a genocide conversation about people
Speaker 10: that didn't get vaccines, and I mean we were, we
Speaker 10: were a hair breath away from that being a vibe.
Speaker 10: And it's like, okay, but you wanted to say all this. Now,
Speaker 10: look at all these people that are dying, look at
Speaker 10: all of what they've come out and said that, like Hey,
Speaker 10: by the way, we were wrong, we screwed up. But
Speaker 10: like it's whatever, now, just keep pumping it out. That's
Speaker 10: that's not okay. But you know, who knows that people
Speaker 10: are actually going to listen to anything.
Speaker 1: I'm happy that the information is becoming more of a
Speaker 1: conversation piece. Right, it's not. It's not a social taboo
Speaker 1: to have your own opinion on vaccines. It was prior
Speaker 1: to COVID and during COVID, Oh my god, you're right,
Speaker 1: there was. I mean people may think, like, you just
Speaker 1: said the genocidal conversation, Well they never said that. Yes
Speaker 1: they did, Yes they did. There was multiple news anchors,
Speaker 1: multiple conversations. I even remember having with people. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: if you don't get the vaccine, you should just go
Speaker 1: die and save the rest of us, and like we
Speaker 1: don't need to catch it from you. And it's like,
Speaker 1: if you have the vaccine, you shouldn't worry about catching it, right,
Speaker 1: But even saying that was seen as like a huge
Speaker 1: social taboo and all of these things. Now that truth
Speaker 1: is coming out, I am happy that more and more
Speaker 1: people are starting to actually think critically about what they're
Speaker 1: putting in their bodies. But I feel like it's not enough. Honestly,
Speaker 1: if some sort of a oh, COVID two point zero
Speaker 1: came out, and no I don't mean the the you
Speaker 1: know gamma and delta and theta and all these other
Speaker 1: variants of COVID, they they lost their credibility on that one.
Speaker 1: But if some new disease came out, I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: more people would think critically before they would just jump
Speaker 1: to go get jabbed. But I also feel like we
Speaker 1: would be sorely let down by these people. Right. The
Speaker 1: study showed that eighty one percent of Americans got at
Speaker 1: least one shot, and somewhere around sixty five percent got
Speaker 1: more than one shot. That's mind blowing to me that
Speaker 1: that many people. And yeah, some of these people they
Speaker 1: thought they were doing the right thing and they didn't
Speaker 1: actually do their research because there wasn't a lot of
Speaker 1: research that was out to the public. Okay, some of
Speaker 1: these people were threatened that if they didn't get this vaccine,
Speaker 1: they couldn't return to work or something along these lines,
Speaker 1: And like, I I think that's abhorrent that they did
Speaker 1: that to the people. I get this. I am currently
Speaker 1: I hope that somewhere around maybe twenty percent would go
Speaker 1: get the shot if some new virus quote unquote, sickness
Speaker 1: quote unquote whatever came out. I also, I feel like
Speaker 1: society is so far gone that it would be probably
Speaker 1: closer to over fifty percent would jump at the opportunity
Speaker 1: before doing any further research. Now, granted that's a lot
Speaker 1: less than eighty one percent, but that still doesn't give
Speaker 1: me a lot of hope for the future. But anyway,
Speaker 1: Raven Goohead, I think.
Speaker 10: That depending on how aggressive and how deadly the situation
Speaker 10: would be, as how many people would get it. I mean,
Speaker 10: this was a whole thing really a training operation. Yeah,
Speaker 10: And that's what I kept telling people while we were
Speaker 10: in COVID. I was like, look at the characteristics of
Speaker 10: what's going on. This is little like a training op.
Speaker 10: They're using, you, like, using everyone globally to see how
Speaker 10: people would respond, to see how easily people are manipulated,
Speaker 10: to see how they can turn the tides with the media,
Speaker 10: to see what they can push and what can't they push. Like,
Speaker 10: standing six feet apart, explain to me how the fuck
Speaker 10: that's actually gonna do anything. We wearing wearing a cloth
Speaker 10: mask that was proven to not be effective. Yet people
Speaker 10: even now are still wearing masks even now. And that
Speaker 10: was the whole thing. Like me and my girlfriend, I
Speaker 10: mean literally got like the cops calling us in Barnes
Speaker 10: and Noble because we wouldn't mask up. And I was
Speaker 10: like explain to me, like, really, give me actual scientific data,
Speaker 10: proof that isn't bought and paid for by a big farmer,
Speaker 10: that isn't swayed, and then and then I'll comply. But
Speaker 10: until that point, I'm not going to be a blind
Speaker 10: sheets following this along. And that's kind of like how
Speaker 10: the whole you know, vaccine situation is going on. Is
Speaker 10: what RFK was saying, is that the studies are bought
Speaker 10: and paid for. You can't get realistic studies because statistics
Speaker 10: can be swayed so easily by a single number that
Speaker 10: changes the graphs that make it look even worse. Because
Speaker 10: if they're being bought and paid for by by people
Speaker 10: that are that are from big pharma, then how are
Speaker 10: we ever going to get realistic data that actually shows
Speaker 10: what's really happening. That's why varus is so like they're
Speaker 10: trying to get more people to use it, but even
Speaker 10: that the CDC is trying to have its hand in
Speaker 10: that and control the numbers and sway what's actually being
Speaker 10: collected on that platform.
Speaker 1: So yeah, regardless, I mean the whole mass thing. I
Speaker 1: forget which comedian said it, but also I can't find
Speaker 1: a fault in this, and not to detract from the
Speaker 1: seriousness of what we're talking about here, but also in
Speaker 1: the same spirit, so the cloth mask, that's not effective.
Speaker 1: They were literally telling us to breathe less moistly. That
Speaker 1: was an actual quote unquote official that was telling us
Speaker 1: to do that. And it's like, wait, do what the
Speaker 1: comedian basically said, like, all right, if I was to
Speaker 1: fart right now, I'm going through at least two layers
Speaker 1: of cloth, and I promise you'll be able to smell it.
Speaker 1: What do you think this mask is going to actually do?
Speaker 1: Like real talk, it doesn't prevent anything. The virus is
Speaker 1: small enough to get through it. It doesn't help anything.
Speaker 1: It might keep your hands away from your face, but
Speaker 1: not really because most of the time you're adjusting the mask,
Speaker 1: which is making your hands go closer to your face.
Speaker 1: More just speaking on it. Hell, I remember the first
Speaker 1: time we even heard anything about that. It was some scientists,
Speaker 1: some doctor who was telling people to keep their hands
Speaker 1: away from their faces, right. That was the big thing.
Speaker 1: In the speech where he was talking about this, they
Speaker 1: had account of how many times his hand went by
Speaker 1: his face. And then at the end of it they
Speaker 1: even told him this. Somebody from the crowd of press
Speaker 1: conference or something said this, and He's like, as you
Speaker 1: can see, it's rather difficult to do, but we all
Speaker 1: as a society have to make an effort. And it's
Speaker 1: like you, you know that we can hear you and
Speaker 1: see you, and like people bought it. People bought it,
Speaker 1: hook line and sinker. I would hope, like I said,
Speaker 1: that more people are aware of these things and wouldn't
Speaker 1: jump to this conclusion so quickly. And like you said,
Speaker 1: I think it would affect. It would be depended upon
Speaker 1: the effectiveness and severity of the new sickness. But I mean,
Speaker 1: even still, even if it was another round of the flu,
Speaker 1: which is all COVID actually was. I don't know. I've
Speaker 1: lost so much faith in society that I feel like
Speaker 1: over half of the American population would jump at the
Speaker 1: opportunity to get some new jab regardless of what studies
Speaker 1: did or didn't exist in favor of it. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. I hope I'm wrong. But you know, as
Speaker 1: we're talking about that, you actually pulled up another article
Speaker 1: which I think kind of ties into this one. As
Speaker 1: far as the American society just going along with it,
Speaker 1: not thinking for themselves, I'm gonna go ahead and share
Speaker 1: the screen again. This is a study from MIT that
Speaker 1: found that chat GPT is making people dumber. Eighty three
Speaker 1: percent of chat GPT users can't recall what they just wrote.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about this, shall we. A new study
Speaker 1: out of MIT is raising serious questions about what heavy
Speaker 1: chat GPT used might be doing to our brains. Researchers
Speaker 1: found that most people who rely on the AI tool
Speaker 1: for writing are struggling to stay mentally engaged, and many
Speaker 1: can't even remember what they wrote minutes later. The paper,
Speaker 1: titled your Brain on Chat GPT Accumulation of cognitive debt
Speaker 1: when using an AI assistant for essay writing task tracks
Speaker 1: how many are how the human brain behaves when it
Speaker 1: leans too heavily on AI. The results a drop in
Speaker 1: neural activity, memory gaps, and loss of original thought. I'm
Speaker 1: caller me shocked. Let's go AI amnesia chatpyt GPT is
Speaker 1: making you dumber? What the MIT study found MIT Researchers
Speaker 1: studied how using large language models like chat GPT affect
Speaker 1: the brain and writing behavior. Participants were split into three groups.
Speaker 1: One us an LLM that'd be a large language model,
Speaker 1: another used a search engine, and a third wrote without tools.
Speaker 1: Over four sessions, they completed essays tasks essay tasks while
Speaker 1: their brain activity was tracked using EEG. Here's the key findings.
Speaker 1: Brain only participants had the strongest neural activity and the
Speaker 1: best memory. Recall I can I can believe that large
Speaker 1: language model users showed the weakest brain connectivity and struggled
Speaker 1: to remember their own writing. Yeah, I believe this too.
Speaker 1: When LM users switched to writing without AI in the
Speaker 1: final session, their brain engagement dropped even further. So it
Speaker 1: actually was doing damage to their brain. It's not like
Speaker 1: it was just not being used during that time. Even
Speaker 1: after they weren't using chat GPT, their brain wasn't able
Speaker 1: to do as much as it could before they started
Speaker 1: using it. Wow. People who started without tools and then
Speaker 1: used LMS showed better cognitive performance than full time AI users.
Speaker 1: LM users reported the lowest sense of ownership over their writings. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I could believe that one hundred percent AI versus human
Speaker 1: brain the MIT findings. The experiment followed fifty four participants,
Speaker 1: mainly college students in the Boston area. Oh wow, okay,
Speaker 1: let's consider the source of the subject, shall we. But anyway,
Speaker 1: as they completed four writing sessions, one group used chat
Speaker 1: gpt V four to another used Google Search, and a
Speaker 1: third wrote without any assistance. During the sessions, the researchers
Speaker 1: use EEG's headsets to monitor brain activity across thirty two regions.
Speaker 1: The essays were scored by teachers and AI judges, but
Speaker 1: the real story came from what was happening inside the
Speaker 1: participants' heads. By the fourth session, the group switched roles.
Speaker 1: Chat GPT users had to go without it, while the
Speaker 1: brain only group got to try it for the first time.
Speaker 1: That twist revealed just how dependent some users had become
Speaker 1: on AI. While there's a direct quote here from the
Speaker 1: MIT paper. While LM's offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight
Speaker 1: potential cognitive costs. For four months, LLM users consistently underperformed
Speaker 1: at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. These results raised concern
Speaker 1: about the long term educational implement implications of LLM reliance
Speaker 1: and underscore the need for a deeper inquiry into AI's
Speaker 1: role in learning. This is what the MIT paper said. Wow,
Speaker 1: the warning signs. The numbers are hard to ignore. Brain
Speaker 1: activity fell off a cliff. Chat GPT users showed significantly
Speaker 1: less neuro connectivity, especially in alpha and theta waves, signals
Speaker 1: tied to memory, creativity, and deep thinking. In fact, the
Speaker 1: number of active neural connections dropped from seventy nine to
Speaker 1: forty two. Memory all but vanished. A staggering eighty three
Speaker 1: percent of chat GPT users couldn't recall what they wrote
Speaker 1: minutes earlier. In contrast, just ten percent of the non
Speaker 1: AI and Google Search users had similar recall issues. Wow, okay,
Speaker 1: so writing loss its spark. Teachers called the AI assistant
Speaker 1: essays soulless and bland. Many users copy and paste of
Speaker 1: the AI's output without editing, resulting in flat generic writing. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, what else would you do with an
Speaker 1: AI model. You're not gonna use it for research. You're
Speaker 1: gonna do it. You're gonna use it to make your
Speaker 1: entire paper for you, and you just read it, and
Speaker 1: it's just what it is at that point, right. AI
Speaker 1: dependents came at a cost when chat GPT group had
Speaker 1: to write without it, Their brain showed signs of cognitive fatigue,
Speaker 1: they struggled to engage, and had weaker performance. Overall, people
Speaker 1: felt disconnected from their own work. Users relied on chat
Speaker 1: GBT reported lower satisfaction with what they produced and felt
Speaker 1: less ownership over their writing. Again, yeah, that's what happens
Speaker 1: when you play darize. But anyway, so what's going on
Speaker 1: the research team says this is more about convenience, or yeah,
Speaker 1: this is more about more than convenience. It's about offloading
Speaker 1: mental effort. When people start a task with AI from
Speaker 1: the get go, they tend to stop thinking deeply, planning, analyzing, revising,
Speaker 1: Those steps fade away. Lead research and Natalia Kami's cosmin
Speaker 1: Nah cosmina. Yeah, summed up, summed it up bluntly. The
Speaker 1: task was executed and you could say that it was
Speaker 1: efficient and convene, but you basically didn't integrate any of
Speaker 1: it into your own memory networks. The EEG data backs
Speaker 1: it up. Chat GPT users show lower activity and brain
Speaker 1: areas involved in decision making and long term memory. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the brain only group lit up those regions, suggesting deeper
Speaker 1: cognitive involvement. Interestingly, the search group sat in the middle.
Speaker 1: While search engines still offer outside help, they require users
Speaker 1: to think more formulating questions, scanning results, and evaluating sources.
Speaker 1: Chat GPT, on the other hand, gives a clean output
Speaker 1: with minimal effort. Now what this means for schools and workplaces?
Speaker 1: The implications go beyond academia. Students who rely to heavily
Speaker 1: on AI might see their writing skills deteriorate, and in
Speaker 1: the workplace, team teams banking on AI for reports or
Speaker 1: communication could be short circuited or short circuiting their own creativity. Wow,
Speaker 1: so it does go on to say it's not all
Speaker 1: bad when you used the right way. To be clear,
Speaker 1: the study doesn't say that chat GPT is inherently harmful.
Speaker 1: When the brain only participants got to use it in
Speaker 1: the fourth session, their brain activity spiked. That group already
Speaker 1: had a strong foundation, and they used AI to build
Speaker 1: on their own ideas, not replace them. Even chat GPT
Speaker 1: itself responded with some self awareness asking about the study,
Speaker 1: It replied, this study doesn't say chat GPT is inherently harmful. Rather,
Speaker 1: it warrants against the over alliance without reflection or effort.
Speaker 1: You strategically the tool can boost productivity and creativity, but
Speaker 1: when hand over. But when people hand over the entire
Speaker 1: process from the start, they risk losing the mental muscles
Speaker 1: needed to think independently. Yeah. No, I absolutely agree with
Speaker 1: what they have found. Gol Okay, that was a solid
Speaker 1: fine Raven, thank you for sharing that with the group.
Speaker 1: Good God almighty. Uh ooh oh wait a minute, Tony
Speaker 1: had something here. There is the this whole Candace Owen's
Speaker 1: phone call with Trump from February. She reposted one guy's impression.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go see that. Then hold on. That
Speaker 1: sounds good. Uh oh no, where's it at? Okay, let's
Speaker 1: see this when Donald Trump asked real Candace Owens for
Speaker 1: a favor. Let's listen in.
Speaker 9: Hi, Candae, how are you? It's Donald just wanted to
Speaker 9: say hello, see how you doing. Make sure that everything's okay.
Speaker 9: After I saw that little speech that you gave. This
Speaker 9: was a nasty thing you did. Well. It was nasty
Speaker 9: because you took a perfect phone call and you said
Speaker 9: something happened that never ever happened. You know that better
Speaker 9: than anybody. Yeah, that's what I wanted to talk to
Speaker 9: you about. Quite frankly, just wondering if you could do
Speaker 9: me a little favor and maybe just shut the fuck
Speaker 9: up about mccrone's wife and Dick. Could you do that?
Speaker 9: Would you be able to do that for me?
Speaker 1: Please? Yeah?
Speaker 9: I know about that, but I was pretty close to
Speaker 9: her and I never saw man. I saw something in
Speaker 9: her pants, but I don't know what it was. I mean,
Speaker 9: it could be, and if it was, i'd like you
Speaker 9: know in about two weeks. But for now, can you
Speaker 9: just shut the fuck up about it? Because I'm in
Speaker 9: the middle of a negotiation with Macron to end the
Speaker 9: Ukraine War. I promised it'll be ended within twenty four
Speaker 9: hours and it's a little late, but I'm in a negotiation,
Speaker 9: so i'd appreciate it if you could stop.
Speaker 1: Talking about it. That'll be lovely, Thank you very much.
Speaker 9: By the way, Macron did have a little bit of
Speaker 9: danger for on his shoulder, but that's not the first time. Yeah,
Speaker 9: if you want as a little reward, I'll come when
Speaker 9: you show. You know, I'm great for ratings. But if
Speaker 9: you keep this up, you're starting to sound like your
Speaker 9: kookie friend took her colls and then I said, you'll
Speaker 9: be kookie Candy. So you want to be known as
Speaker 9: Kookie Candy's I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. For the love of God, I
Speaker 1: don't know what I was expecting. But okay, thank you
Speaker 1: for bringing a little, uh comedic relief to the conversation.
Speaker 1: Tony Good God Almighty.
Speaker 3: So for anyone who doesn't know, Candace Owans did an
Speaker 3: episode yesterday saying that back in February, the reason she
Speaker 3: drops this whole Brigit Macrone discussion was because a Trump
Speaker 3: advisor called her and asked her to stop. And then
Speaker 3: she claims that Trump himself called her and delivered a
Speaker 3: message similar to what's in that little impression there, because
Speaker 3: he was talking to Macron and Macrone was saying that
Speaker 3: Macron might be able to help get the Ukraine war ended. Now,
Speaker 3: a lot of people don't believe Candace Owans at all
Speaker 3: in this, and I don't know what to believe. She
Speaker 3: could be making it up, or she could be, you know,
Speaker 3: misinterpreting it, but I tend to actually believe her. I
Speaker 3: believe I find it believable that something like this may
Speaker 3: have actually happened.
Speaker 1: I believe Brigitte's a dude. I fully fully support that idea.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she did a six part series on it, and
Speaker 3: I only have kind of fuzzy memory of it now,
Speaker 3: But Brigitte McCrone has almost no childhood photos and what
Speaker 3: little exists might have just been created decades later. And
Speaker 3: her brother, Jean Michele trug No, appears to have been
Speaker 3: born and grown up and then goes out of existence
Speaker 3: right about the time that Brigitte appears with lots of
Speaker 3: evidence of her existence. And the six part series is
Speaker 3: it does a really good job have proven to me. Anyway,
Speaker 3: I found it very persuasive that Brigitte was actually Jean
Speaker 3: Michel a man and he transitioned to a woman. And
Speaker 3: Jean Michel is probably actually Emmanuel mcrone's father. And there
Speaker 3: is another, you know like sibling of McCrone. It was
Speaker 3: not acknowledged as such, but he looks just like him.
Speaker 3: So yeah, anyway, I don't think Macrone even had the
Speaker 3: ability to end the Ukraine War, but he was trying
Speaker 3: to do some horse trading with Trump, and I think
Speaker 3: he really wanted this story to go away. So I
Speaker 3: find it believable that something like this actually happens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Candace is Candas is a wild one. Don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong, right, I may not agree with every single
Speaker 1: thing that's ever come out of her mouth, but I
Speaker 1: do agree with most things that have And I watched
Speaker 1: the series. I gotta say it is pretty compelling. I
Speaker 1: personally can't find any holes in the logic. And if
Speaker 1: it wasn't, if it was false, they could sue her
Speaker 1: for defamation, like they could come after her and fry
Speaker 1: her alive for going at it this hard. And yet
Speaker 1: they're silent. And it's not like Candas is just some
Speaker 1: internet personnel that like no one watches. Millions and millions
Speaker 1: of people around the world listen to her, and millions
Speaker 1: and millions of people believe this statement. This would be
Speaker 1: a massive defamation lawsuit. Yet they are silent. If nothing else,
Speaker 1: that's pretty damning as far as that's concerned. They're not
Speaker 1: even they're not even acknowledging that it's real. They're not
Speaker 1: even joking about it to try to make light of it. Nothing,
Speaker 1: And it's not a good look. It is not a
Speaker 1: good look. So uh yeah, I don't know what Macrone
Speaker 1: thought he could do to end the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: France is nowhere near the conversation. I think they may
Speaker 1: have donated some funds and some military assets. Fine, so
Speaker 1: as a lot of countries America's donated more than them,
Speaker 1: and Trump was really trying to make a deal happen here.
Speaker 1: He finally got Zelen Zelensky rather to come to the table.
Speaker 1: Putin was about to come to the table, and then said, nevermind.
Speaker 1: The last thing I heard as far as the whole
Speaker 1: war is concerned, was the big drone strikes that took place,
Speaker 1: and then Russia retaliated, And like I said earlier, it's
Speaker 1: nothing really new to report as far as it goes,
Speaker 1: They're still fighting, dude, You're still dying. Both sides are
Speaker 1: still very very corrupt. As far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: it's same, same old same at this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree, it's grinding along kind of slowly. Russia
Speaker 3: takes more territory very slowly. I did not realize until
Speaker 3: this week they didn't have one hundred percent of Lugansk,
Speaker 3: but they just got the last little bit this week.
Speaker 3: And they also took territory that included some kind of
Speaker 3: rare earth mineral. Mind that Zelenski had promised was going
Speaker 3: to be exporting stuff to the United States, and now
Speaker 3: he can't use it for that anymore.
Speaker 1: Right, He's starting to lose more bargaining chips, and I
Speaker 1: think that was another thing. Putin didn't want us to
Speaker 1: put business out posts there because I would have stopped
Speaker 1: his momentum. So you know, it's it's a mess. It's
Speaker 1: an absolute mess, and it's not I don't think it's
Speaker 1: gonna get wrapped up anytime soon. I hope it does.
Speaker 1: Good God, I hope it does. But this this seems
Speaker 1: like it's gonna be one of those situations that it's
Speaker 1: it's very possible that ten years from now we're going
Speaker 1: to be talking about the latest updates in Ukraine. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I hope, I'm God, I hope I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: But this thing was supposed to be two weeks and
Speaker 1: it's been three and a half years. At this point.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that sounds too crazy, So I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Marching next year is what I bet three months ago.
Speaker 1: So you've been saying it happens. I hope that you're correct.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, that might even make it
Speaker 1: on the Cult of Conspiracy Bingo card for twenty twenty sakes.
Speaker 1: If it's not wrapped up this year, we'll put it
Speaker 1: on the Bingo card for this one. You know, we
Speaker 1: can only hope. But anyway, let's see, I think that
Speaker 1: might have been the last article that was posted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, cool, which kind of perfectly timed it out.
Speaker 1: So with that, I believe we are going to wrap
Speaker 1: up this edition of the Cajun Night Live once again.
Speaker 1: I want to thank every single one of you for
Speaker 1: coming and joining me on this Wednesday Night excursion. For
Speaker 1: any of the good people listening to this on the
Speaker 1: cult to conspiracy, and if you would like to join
Speaker 1: in on the conversation next Wednesday Night at nine pm Central,
Speaker 1: come check us out. The link is in the description
Speaker 1: below At Patreon Cajun Night. There's only one tier for entry.
Speaker 1: We're trying to grow this community to where we can
Speaker 1: have these kinds of conversations at least once a week.
Speaker 1: How we might even go more frequently as time goes on,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Would be would y'all be down with
Speaker 1: going to a week on these lives or or would
Speaker 1: y'all rather it be once a week a Cajun Night
Speaker 1: episode is kind of me just rambling on by myself,
Speaker 1: or would y'all rather be all lives y'all let me know.
Speaker 1: I would love to hear back from all of y'all.
Speaker 1: But with that being said again, I am the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night and as always, good people, God bless