Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome all of the good squires, the
Speaker 1: good retinue, the members of The Cajun Night Live. I
Speaker 1: am your host, Jacob Mook the Cajun Night, and let's
Speaker 1: get right into it here this evening. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and give I'm gonna share the screen for anybody
Speaker 1: who would like to see what we're talking about or
Speaker 1: participate in this.
Speaker 2: Conversation next week.
Speaker 1: What you can do is go down to the links below,
Speaker 1: go to patreon dot com slash Cajun Night.
Speaker 2: There's only one tier for entry.
Speaker 1: We're not trying to make this some massive army, but
Speaker 1: at the same time, I wouldn't be mad if it
Speaker 1: became some massive army. I'm here for all of it.
Speaker 1: But yeah, let's get right into it here. This is
Speaker 1: from the Military Times as a matter of fact, So
Speaker 1: a retired foward star admiral found guilty on four charges
Speaker 1: stemming from bribery allegations. I didn't know this was really
Speaker 1: a thing until I heard a couple of other military
Speaker 1: content creators talking about and I was like, well, let's
Speaker 1: dive into it, shall we. The corruption try Retired Admiral
Speaker 1: Robert Burke concluded Monday with him being found guilty of
Speaker 1: four criminal counts, including bribery charges, by a jury in Washington, DC.
Speaker 1: His attorney and others in the courtroom confirmed to military
Speaker 1: dot Com. Burke, once the second highest ranking leader in
Speaker 1: the Navy, was charged by federal prosecutors last year on
Speaker 1: allegations that he directed a lucrative Navy contract to an
Speaker 1: executive training company Next Jump in twenty twenty one while
Speaker 1: serving as a four star admiral. The company later hired
Speaker 1: him in twenty twenty two for a starting salary of
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand per year. And we hear about this, right,
Speaker 1: retiring generals, retired admirals jumping on as a consultant for
Speaker 1: some company making ungodly amounts of money right out the rip.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know if that was what
Speaker 1: the connections were necessarily, or what types of training that
Speaker 1: this company had. But at the same time, if it's
Speaker 1: an executive training company and he's a four star admiral
Speaker 1: meaning that he knows how to run people and manage
Speaker 1: people at very high levels, doesn't sound crazy to me.
Speaker 2: But where is the whole bribery thing happening here?
Speaker 1: Right? However, Burke's case turned out to be anything but simple.
Speaker 1: After it was announced, the case quickly became mired in
Speaker 1: questions about the reliability of the government's primary witness, Burke's
Speaker 1: over to a one time lover, and next Jump executives
Speaker 1: managed to split themselves off into separate trials after arguing
Speaker 1: that they were actually victim of victims of Burke's lies
Speaker 1: and manipulations. Burke is now the most senior military leader
Speaker 1: in recent history to be convicted for actions they took
Speaker 1: as part of their military service. By the end of
Speaker 1: his career, Burke served as Vice Chief of Naval Operations
Speaker 1: and then commander of US Naval Forces Europe and US
Speaker 1: Naval Forces Africa. He was convicted of conspiracy to defraud
Speaker 1: the US bribery, concealing material facts, and personally enriching himself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's these are kind of big deal charges.
Speaker 1: This is it in little boy jail. This is big
Speaker 1: boy jail. The defendant violated the public trust for his
Speaker 1: own personal gain, prosecutors told the jury last week, you
Speaker 1: also know why a contract for a job tim parlor,
Speaker 1: parlator or parlatory, I'm not sure. The lawyer for Burke
Speaker 1: called the decision a wrongful verdict. And told military dot
Speaker 1: Com that it was the result of a hastily hasty
Speaker 1: trial in which the government went to grant great lengths
Speaker 1: to present evidence that showed only half the story. Parlatary,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna roll with that, noted that the trial
Speaker 1: was initially set to run for three weeks but concluded
Speaker 1: in five days and with the government not even presenting
Speaker 1: all of its evidence. This case demonstrates that when you
Speaker 1: start with a bad investigation by incompetent investigators, you end
Speaker 1: up with the case that the only way you can
Speaker 1: get a conviction is.
Speaker 2: By hiding the evidence from the jury.
Speaker 1: Parlatorio, who has represented several other high profile military figures,
Speaker 1: said that he plans to file an appeal. Military dot
Speaker 1: Com reached out to the Justice Department for content comment.
Speaker 2: Of course, they did not answer.
Speaker 1: Next year, UMP, which was the company, was awarded its
Speaker 1: first Navy contract in early twenty eighteen for around two
Speaker 1: million dollars. A second contract followed later that year for
Speaker 1: ten million dollars to quote train part of the Navy workforce,
Speaker 1: according to.
Speaker 2: Core documents the company filed last year.
Speaker 1: At that time, the Navy was reeling from a pair
Speaker 1: of deadly at sea collisions in the Pacific Ocean that
Speaker 1: not only killed nearly twenty sailors, but also exposed a
Speaker 1: problematic culture that it was willing to ignore years of
Speaker 1: warnings about fatigue, poor training, and leadership uninterested in hearing
Speaker 1: any please for help.
Speaker 2: Color me shocked.
Speaker 1: The military hierarchy was willing to ignore years of warnings
Speaker 1: about fatigue, willing to overlook poor training, and has leadership
Speaker 1: that's uninterested in hearing any please for help from their subordinates.
Speaker 1: Gotta say again, Wow, WHOA color me shocked here? But anyway,
Speaker 1: Burke was Next Jump's main point of contact for the
Speaker 1: ne and according to the company, by twenty nineteen he
Speaker 1: had their two top executives, Charlie Kim and Megan Messenger,
Speaker 1: chasing a one hundred million dollar proposal that would be
Speaker 1: to their biggest contract yet. However, at trial, Parlatori argued
Speaker 1: that Kim and Messenger were merely want to be defense
Speaker 1: contractors who were lying to company investors as part of
Speaker 1: an effort to grow their business. The contract never materialized,
Speaker 1: and according to court transcripts, the company was getting negative
Speaker 1: feedback on the training it had conducted, so they completely
Speaker 1: buffaloed this and then gave him a kickback for the
Speaker 1: jobs that they were being awarded one hundred percent. Still,
Speaker 1: the group had a meeting in a restaurant in Washington,
Speaker 1: DC that included Burke's alleged girlfriend, and according to the prosecution,
Speaker 1: the defendants solidified their agreement and worked out the details
Speaker 1: a contract for a job. That is not how government
Speaker 1: contracts are awarded. Never over a lunch. Well they're not
Speaker 1: supposed to be awarded over a lunch. I mean, you
Speaker 1: know what happens behind closed doors, behind closed doors. But yeah, this,
Speaker 1: this is not a good thing for it to come
Speaker 1: to light. Parlatory argued that the meeting was totally above board.
Speaker 1: Burke arrived in uniform, driven by staff, and while the
Speaker 1: topic of a job post retirement came up, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: necessarily be unexpected that somebody would at least ask about
Speaker 1: a salary. He had in his closing remarks, or he
Speaker 1: said in his closing remarks, I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: But just because you were in uniform and had military
Speaker 1: personnel driving you to a lunch to iron out details
Speaker 1: of a contract that hadn't been awarded yet, yeah, no, okay,
Speaker 1: But at the end of it, there was an agreement. No,
Speaker 1: there was no deal, parlatory set in the closing remarks.
Speaker 1: Instead of a large contract, the company ultimately got a
Speaker 1: far smaller three hundred and fifty thousand dollars contract, of
Speaker 1: which they only got about two.
Speaker 2: Hundred and fifty thousand parlatory set in court.
Speaker 1: After he retired, Burke got a job at next Jump
Speaker 1: with a half a million dollars a year salary. Kim
Speaker 1: and Messenger offered the defendant a job in exchange for
Speaker 1: a Navy contract. The prosecution set in closing arguments it
Speaker 1: was a bribe the defendant readily accept and then because
Speaker 1: he knew it was going to be wrong, he lied
Speaker 1: to cover it up. Meanwhile, hanging over the tribal trial
Speaker 1: was also something that never showed up inside the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Burke's alleged former girlfriend and a key witness for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: She has been described by the defense as a top
Speaker 1: civilian official working in the office of the Undersecretary of
Speaker 1: the Navy. As a witness one in court documents military
Speaker 1: dot COM's with holding her identity yeaha yeah, yeah yah.
Speaker 1: Lawyers for Kim and Messenger argued in a filing aimed
Speaker 1: at exit excluding evidence from the woman that a trial
Speaker 1: court judge in Virginia found that Witness one had lied
Speaker 1: extensively about her ex husband in contentious divorce and child
Speaker 1: custody proceedings.
Speaker 2: OK so they're already trying.
Speaker 1: To bring into question of the character of Witness one
Speaker 1: aka Burke's girlfriend, Parlatorio wasn't even further. This entire case
Speaker 1: rests on the credibility of Witness one, a known liar
Speaker 1: and perjurer, and the search warrants issued in this investigation
Speaker 1: relied almost entirely on Witness one statement to investigators. The
Speaker 1: woman's credibility was at issue because her evidence was key
Speaker 1: in getting warrants that were used to gather the evidence
Speaker 1: that would in turn lead to the indictments. However, lawyers
Speaker 1: for Burke and the two CEOs noted that prosecutors failed
Speaker 1: to tell the judge handling the matter. Ultimately, the woman
Speaker 1: didn't testify at Burke's trial, and neither did Burke himself. However,
Speaker 1: prosecutors did mention some of the exchanges that she said
Speaker 1: with Burke, including one where he told her, I've essentially
Speaker 1: agreed to work for next Jump.
Speaker 2: After the meeting in the restaurant, while Burke's.
Speaker 1: Trial now concluded, the trial of Kim and Messenger are next.
Speaker 1: The paratold military dot com that they are eager to
Speaker 1: use the trial to showcase a variety of emails and
Speaker 1: other documents that they say how Burke, along with other
Speaker 1: top Navy leaders, conspired to lie and deceive the company
Speaker 1: and then hide the evidence.
Speaker 2: Okay, so they are going.
Speaker 1: Out of their way to try to show that they
Speaker 1: didn't have anything to do with this, even you know,
Speaker 1: the contracts being awarded to them enriched them.
Speaker 2: But it's not like they I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I could see this being that they
Speaker 1: would go down with it because they had to bribe
Speaker 1: him with something in order to win these contracts, but
Speaker 1: bribing with a job, it kind of seems like a reach.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I don't know Next Jump
Speaker 1: very well. I don't know their business model. I don't
Speaker 1: know what kind of consulting they do for military contracts
Speaker 1: and things. So I don't really understand it all. But okay,
Speaker 1: they have dozens of communications with the Navy. I think
Speaker 1: it'll be a little embarrassing for the Navy. According to Parliatory,
Speaker 1: Burke's sentencing is set for August twenty second. So okay,
Speaker 1: right out the rip, I figured we could start off
Speaker 1: with something a little close to home, you know. And
Speaker 1: while this one isn't exactly a good news article to
Speaker 1: bring up, it is good to see corruption be brought
Speaker 1: to light. Right.
Speaker 2: These are positive things.
Speaker 1: Now when you talk about something that is not so positive, okay,
Speaker 1: this is it's kind of a disgusting thing that.
Speaker 2: Happened in Palm Springs.
Speaker 1: I don't know if anybody has heard about this one, Okay,
Speaker 1: authority say suspect in California fertility clinic car bombing left
Speaker 1: behind and anti pro life writings. Okay, So for anybody
Speaker 1: who doesn't know, there was a in vitro fertility clinic
Speaker 1: in Palm Springs in an upscale area of California. Well
Speaker 1: the area was upscale anyway. This it's in the middle
Speaker 1: of the desert. I mean, take there what you want.
Speaker 1: But apparently this twenty five year old dude decided to
Speaker 1: make a car bomb and I'm not I need to
Speaker 1: say on the live he decided to use himself as
Speaker 1: the detonator.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 1: He believed that babies shouldn't be born without giving their
Speaker 1: express consent. You heard me, right, as I said that
Speaker 1: basically he believes that humanity just needs to die, or
Speaker 1: believed past tense. He's no longer with us, but yes,
Speaker 1: as it is something that's happening in the US, I
Speaker 1: felt like it was our place to talk about it here.
Speaker 1: A twenty five year old man the FBI believes was
Speaker 1: responsible for an explosion that ripped through a southern California's
Speaker 1: fertility clinic left behind an anti pro life writings before
Speaker 1: carrying out the attack. Investigators called terrorism Authority said on Sunday,
Speaker 1: Guy Edward Bartcuss of twenty nine Palms, California, which there's
Speaker 1: a Marine Corps base out there and it sucks. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy grew up there. I can only
Speaker 1: imagine it sucks was identified by the FBI as the
Speaker 1: suspect in the apparent car bombing detonation Saturday. The damaged
Speaker 1: the clinic in an upscale city of Palm Springs in
Speaker 1: the desert east of Los Angeles. His writing seemed to
Speaker 1: indicate anti natalist views, which hold that people should not
Speaker 1: continue to procreate. This guy was an absolute nut job.
Speaker 1: The blast gutted the American Reproductive Center's fertility clinic and
Speaker 1: shattered the windows of a nearby building, along with palm
Speaker 1: tree line streets.
Speaker 2: Witnesses described allow boom.
Speaker 1: Followed by a chaotic scene with people screaming in terror
Speaker 1: as glass strewn across the sidewalk in street. Investigators said
Speaker 1: Barcas died in the blast, which a senior FBI official
Speaker 1: call possibly the largest bombing scene that we've had in
Speaker 1: southern California. A body was found near the charred vehicle
Speaker 1: outside the clinic. They believe that was Barcas. Barcus attempted
Speaker 1: to live stream the explosion and left behind writings that
Speaker 1: communicated nihilistic ideations that were still being examined to determine
Speaker 1: his state of mind, said Akil Davis, the Assistant director
Speaker 1: in charge of FBI's Los Angeles Field office. US Attorney
Speaker 1: Ballal bill Asali god, I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
Speaker 1: The top federal prosecutor in the area called the message
Speaker 1: anti pro life. This was a targeted attack against the
Speaker 1: IVF facility. Make no mistake, we are treating this, as
Speaker 1: I said yesterday, as an intentional act of terrorism.
Speaker 2: I don't know the writings. I haven't read the manifesto.
Speaker 1: To be terroristic, it has to be for political or
Speaker 1: to achieve some sort of a political goal, or to
Speaker 1: get a political message across to say, pro life is political.
Speaker 1: So I could see that like the guy who the
Speaker 1: Catholic guy who blew up the abortion clinic. Yeah, terrorist,
Speaker 1: I get it, anti pro life and blowing up a
Speaker 1: fertility clinic. I don't know. Maybe his manifesto was like
Speaker 1: overtly politically biased, or this guy was just a twenty
Speaker 1: five year old nut job who wanted to offer himself
Speaker 1: and make it seem like the most grandiose spectacle he
Speaker 1: could come up with. So this happened now. Thankfully no
Speaker 1: one else died as a result of this kid's stupidity.
Speaker 2: There were four other people that were injured.
Speaker 1: However, the building was pretty tore up, but all things considered,
Speaker 1: he was the only victim of his own idiocracy. Authorities
Speaker 1: that were executing a surge hoarrant in twenty nine Palms,
Speaker 1: the city of twenty eight thousand residents about fifty miles
Speaker 1: north east of Home Springs, as part of the investigation.
Speaker 1: He said, thank god, today happened to be the day
Speaker 1: that we have no patience. Doctor Mara Abdallah, who leads
Speaker 1: the clinic, told the Associated Press in a phone interview Saturday. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there was no patience in the clinic, so thankfully no
Speaker 1: one else is injured except the dumbass, which I guess,
Speaker 1: you know, you get what you deserve. As far as
Speaker 1: that's concerned, I don't really understand it, and I don't
Speaker 1: think this is some sort of a microcosm. I saw
Speaker 1: other articles that were trying to say that this is
Speaker 1: a microcosm for what this younger generation believes. He's a
Speaker 1: twenty five year old nut job, and they were saying
Speaker 1: that could this be a new sentiment felt by all
Speaker 1: of these young twenty something year olds, that all of
Speaker 1: them think that no kid should be born and we
Speaker 1: just all need to die and all these things. I
Speaker 1: know multiple people in their early twenties, and none of
Speaker 1: them feel this way about it.
Speaker 2: I don't believe it was a microcosm.
Speaker 1: Either way.
Speaker 2: It goes the guy committed the act.
Speaker 1: This is them cleaning up the wreckage from the fertil clinic.
Speaker 1: Thank god nobody else was injured, but it is a
Speaker 1: thing that did take place. Now, let's talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the New Orleans prison escape that took place.
Speaker 2: Now, I didn't want to pull.
Speaker 1: Up the article that talked about you know, there's a
Speaker 1: few days old article, and they kept saying how many
Speaker 1: of them were still at large and all of these things.
Speaker 1: Didn't exactly want to talk about that because I found
Speaker 1: an article that's as up to date as I could
Speaker 1: find it as time for recording. But I did want
Speaker 1: to go down the rundown of the timeline of the
Speaker 1: jail break. So here's the rundown. At ten thirty pm
Speaker 1: Central time on Thursday May fifteenth, the night before the escape,
Speaker 1: the jail was placed on lockdown, according to the Sheriff's
Speaker 1: Office Orleans, Paari Sheriff Susan Hudson later told reporters her
Speaker 1: agency had been asking local officials for years for millions
Speaker 1: of dollars of funding to upgrade faulty locks on cell doors,
Speaker 1: so we're already off to a grade start here. In
Speaker 1: the early pre dawn hours of Friday, May sixteenth, no
Speaker 1: sheriff's deputy was assigned to the part of the jail
Speaker 1: where the escaped inmates were incarcerated, and a civilian worker
Speaker 1: monitoring the area had briefly stepped away to get food.
Speaker 1: According to the Sheriff's office, around twelve twenty two am,
Speaker 1: a surveillance camera captured several inmates out of their cells
Speaker 1: forcing open another cell sliding door. According to the Sheriff's office,
Speaker 1: all right, I don't know if it's gonna let.
Speaker 2: Me play this video it did earlier.
Speaker 1: Oh it's not.
Speaker 2: Oh come on, dang, it's not gonna only play the video.
Speaker 1: They basically show the video right here of these dudes
Speaker 1: just basically racking the door over and over again until
Speaker 1: it finally opened up.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It's not like these were some criminal masterminds that set
Speaker 1: about to do this crazy Shawshank redemption style prison escape.
Speaker 1: Not at all. They basically just rocked this door until
Speaker 1: it came off and then they all took off out.
Speaker 2: The back by about twelve forty three am.
Speaker 1: So twelve twenty two they're trying to get the doors
Speaker 1: open twelve forty three, multiple inmates had entered the cell
Speaker 1: that they were trying to access, according to the Sheriff's Office.
Speaker 1: Inside the cell, the inmates were moved a combination of
Speaker 1: sink toilet from the wall and of the cell and
Speaker 1: created a hole in the wall. According to the Affidavid,
Speaker 1: they were able to sell steal bars behind the seal
Speaker 1: cells sink, per the Affidavid, So this is what it
Speaker 1: was supposed to look like. They basically just broke this out.
Speaker 1: So that's good things for them, you know. They able
Speaker 1: to make their escape with the water being turned off.
Speaker 1: The inmates were able to successfully make good on their escapes.
Speaker 1: Louisiana Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Michael Moore wrote in
Speaker 1: the Affidavid. If the inmates removed the sink in the
Speaker 1: cell and disconnected the rest of the plumbing with the
Speaker 1: water still on, the plan to escape would not have
Speaker 1: been successful and potentially flooded the cell, drawing attention to
Speaker 1: their actions. Yeah, well they found a way to turn
Speaker 1: it off. At about one am, another surveillance camera captured
Speaker 1: the inmates fleeing the building through a loading dock. According
Speaker 1: to the Sheriff's office, the group then went down a
Speaker 1: perimeter road toward a new.
Speaker 2: Part of the facility that's under construction.
Speaker 1: At about one nineteen am, the inmates were seen climbing
Speaker 1: the fence separating the jail from the construction site. According
Speaker 1: to the Sheriff's office, the inmates used blankets to protect
Speaker 1: themselves from the bar wire on the fence. Traffic camera
Speaker 1: captured the inmates dashing across I ten and entering a
Speaker 1: nearby neighborhood Sheriff's Office investigators found discarded clothing in the
Speaker 1: neighborhoods that believed to have belonged to the inmates. At
Speaker 1: eight thirty am, the inmates disappearance was discovered during a
Speaker 1: routine headcount, and the jails leadership was told of the
Speaker 1: escape at eight thirty five.
Speaker 2: According to them, the alarm spurled spurred.
Speaker 1: Jail staff to search the facility, and investigation looked through
Speaker 1: the surveillance video footage. All right, so real quick, eight
Speaker 1: thirty eight thirty five is when they finally were like
Speaker 1: understood that they escaped and they had left the building
Speaker 1: at let's see here, what was that time? Around one am?
Speaker 1: So they had a solid seven and a half hour
Speaker 1: head start.
Speaker 2: Okay, shortly before ten am, surveillance footage for.
Speaker 1: A nonprofit CA crime camera organization captured inmate Kendall Miles
Speaker 1: twenty on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Yeah, straight up,
Speaker 1: he escaped. First thing he did was go to Bourbon Street.
Speaker 1: I can't say that I support that. You know, I've
Speaker 1: never been in prison. I've never escaped prison. But it
Speaker 1: seems like you would not want to go now, I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe hiding in Playton site. Maybe that was his idea.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Authorities capture Miles around eleven thirty am.
Speaker 1: So he was out there breathing the free air for
Speaker 1: about three hours, all right, dude. Louisiana State patri State
Speaker 1: Police said troopers spotted him in the French Quarter and
Speaker 1: chased him on foot. According to the Sheriff's office, he
Speaker 1: was found hiding under a car at a hotel parking garage.
Speaker 1: All right, So they go down the list of some
Speaker 1: of them that they had captured. But that's also a
Speaker 1: slightly older article that was just it gave a really
Speaker 1: good timeline of the chain of events as they took place.
Speaker 1: So as of now, we still have a few that
Speaker 1: are on the run. After nearly a weekek of no
Speaker 1: inmate arrest from May sixteenth Orleans Parish jail escape, three
Speaker 1: of the men who broke out of the facility were
Speaker 1: apprehended outside New Orleans metro on Memorial Day. The manhunt
Speaker 1: has now cross state lines, with multiple agencies aiding in
Speaker 1: the latest arrests. Two men, Antoine Massey and Derrick Groves
Speaker 1: remain at large as of Tuesday morning. These are the
Speaker 1: three that were arrested on Memorial Day. Baton Rouge Police
Speaker 1: said Van Buren was arrested sitting on a bench near
Speaker 1: a department store following an anonymous.
Speaker 2: Tip, Oh is this where the video is?
Speaker 1: Yeah? This is the video? All right, so y'll check
Speaker 1: this in out. This is pretty cool. Well, I mean
Speaker 1: not cool, you know what I'm saying. It's cool that
Speaker 1: we have the ability to see this. So that's them
Speaker 1: trying to jam the door open. And like they said,
Speaker 1: they have been begging for years to get more funding. Now, granted,
Speaker 1: I understand that every department is asking for more funding,
Speaker 1: every prison is saying that they need more funding. But yo,
Speaker 1: if you got faulty locks that are this bad to
Speaker 1: where no, no, no, no. Legitimately, they could just break open
Speaker 1: the cells whenever they want. We need better locks, Like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I get it. Let's see if we can fast forward
Speaker 1: a little bit here. Yep, there they go. They finally
Speaker 1: get it an open and has them taking off out
Speaker 1: the back. Go ahead, there, Royce.
Speaker 4: I just have a quick question, so A, so if
Speaker 4: this got caught on camera, A, where are the guards there.
Speaker 4: They should be like actively looking at this shit. Second
Speaker 4: of all, from watching all these documentaries and shit about
Speaker 4: prison in jail, there should be a lot of cops.
Speaker 4: There should be counts to make sure the inmates are
Speaker 4: there at a certain point in time. There's literally no
Speaker 4: reason why they should have gone seven hours without knowing,
Speaker 4: like this should have been like an immediate thing.
Speaker 1: You would think, you would think, but apparently the only
Speaker 1: one that was on duty was a I think they said,
Speaker 1: like a civilian contractor or something that was there and
Speaker 1: he had left to go get some food. So yeah,
Speaker 1: now I agree with you one hundred percent. There's multiple
Speaker 1: reasons why they should have never happened. Yet here we are.
Speaker 1: It's insane to me. They legitimately went seven and a
Speaker 1: half hours of a jump start, and granted some of
Speaker 1: them were caught relatively quickly.
Speaker 2: Some of them made their way to Texas. There are those.
Speaker 1: That ate in and abedded in getting some of these
Speaker 1: guys out of the state.
Speaker 2: There's two as these.
Speaker 1: Are the ten gentlemen, as a matter of fact, that
Speaker 1: all escaped the prison. It says right here Patricia van Buren,
Speaker 1: she's eighteen, and Tyshanna Randolph twenty seven were arrested on
Speaker 1: Saturday and booked in the Plaquamin Parish jail on counts
Speaker 1: of accessories after the fact.
Speaker 2: They're accused of driving one.
Speaker 1: Of the escapees from Louisiana to a family member's house
Speaker 1: in Mississippi, according to court documents, So some of these
Speaker 1: guys are smart enough to get to family members, get
Speaker 1: to cars, and you know, try to high tail it
Speaker 1: out of the state. Most of them have been caught.
Speaker 1: But of these ten, I believe it's these two gentlemen
Speaker 1: here that are still at large. That's now Van Buren.
Speaker 1: And where was the other one, Groves? Derrick Groves. I
Speaker 1: think they said he's the one that's still at large
Speaker 1: as of now. Not trying to spend a whole lot
Speaker 1: of time on it, but I mean, it's not very
Speaker 1: often we hear about a sizeable prison break, especially out
Speaker 1: of New Orleans, so I thought it was worth mentioning. Okay, Now,
Speaker 1: it is not very often that we hear Elon go
Speaker 1: against something that Donald Trump is trying to push. However,
Speaker 1: as Elon is kind of stepping away from the lead
Speaker 1: role in DOGE and as Trump is trying to push
Speaker 1: his big, beautiful Bill I find it interesting that Elon
Speaker 1: is saying that this kind of negates all the work
Speaker 1: that Doge has done up until this point. Let's listen in.
Speaker 3: I'm Matt Gelica in Washington. Elon Musk is publicly breaking
Speaker 3: with the president in the White House over one of
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's top priorities, the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 5: I think a bill can be big or it can
Speaker 5: be beautiful.
Speaker 6: I don't know if it could be both.
Speaker 3: Elon Musk, the billionaire White House advisor who was a
Speaker 3: fixture of the first four months or so of Donald
Speaker 3: Trump's second term, is publicly breaking with the administration on
Speaker 3: the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 5: I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,
Speaker 5: which increases the Budge depsit not doesn't decrease it, and
Speaker 5: that reminds the work that the Dosee team is doing.
Speaker 3: Musk's criticism comes as he's taken a step back from
Speaker 3: government work after high profile public backlash to Doze's work
Speaker 3: of trying to downsize the federal government. Doze rapidly cut staff,
Speaker 3: programs and entire agencies since it was established earlier this year.
Speaker 3: The Trump backed bill contains a number of the president's priorities,
Speaker 3: but also carries an estimated two to four trillion dollar
Speaker 3: price tag to pay for some the proposals, including extending
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen tax cuts, defense spending, and more money for
Speaker 3: immigration issues.
Speaker 1: The reactions a lot of things. Number One, we have
Speaker 1: to get a lot of votes. We can't be cutting
Speaker 1: you know. We need to get a lot of support,
Speaker 1: and we have a lot of support.
Speaker 3: Musk isn't the only ones speaking out about the bill
Speaker 3: that barely passed the House last week. Republican senators have
Speaker 3: voice concerns over the potential added national debt the legislation
Speaker 3: might bring, and those concerns could be enough to stall
Speaker 3: the bill's progress.
Speaker 4: I think we have enough to stop the process and
Speaker 4: tell the President gets serious about spending reduction and reducing
Speaker 4: the death sit.
Speaker 3: In a different interview with The Washington Post, Musk defended
Speaker 3: Doje's work while admitting trimming the bureaucracy was tougher than
Speaker 3: he thought it'd be. He also told the Post Doze
Speaker 3: turned into the whipping boy for everything in Washington. House
Speaker 3: Speaker Mike Johnson tweeted praise for DOJ's work on Wednesday,
Speaker 3: and also a plan to make dojes cuds permanent. But
Speaker 3: those cuts can't be made in the current Big Beautiful
Speaker 3: Bill Reckons package. They'd need to come through different budget processes.
Speaker 1: Okay, now let's kind of go into a portion of
Speaker 1: that Big Beautiful Bill. There are some people that love it,
Speaker 1: some people that hate it. I haven't really read it
Speaker 1: all the way through, so I can't really speak much
Speaker 1: on it. But something that is being talked about with
Speaker 1: the Big Beautiful Bill is funding for the Golden Dome. Right,
Speaker 1: the missile protection plan that Trump wants to put on
Speaker 1: the continental US.
Speaker 2: It's rather large, I get it.
Speaker 1: But he has been saying for quite some time that
Speaker 1: he would like to have something similar to Israel's Iron
Speaker 1: Dome in America and wants called the Golden Dome. And
Speaker 1: when he said this, you know, most countries kind of
Speaker 1: stayed out of it. Who has an issue with the
Speaker 1: country wanting to defend themselves even better? But I find
Speaker 1: it interesting that now that it has come through to
Speaker 1: fruition and this Big Beautiful Bill has the funding to
Speaker 1: make it real, China has stepped up and says that
Speaker 1: they do not like it. This is ABC News. Trump's
Speaker 1: gold Dome risks weaponization of space. China says, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get into this, because China is trying to do
Speaker 1: everything they can to dissuade Trump from putting up the
Speaker 1: Golden Dome. Why why would China care that we have
Speaker 1: the ability to protect ourselves against missiles hitting us?
Speaker 2: I find it interesting.
Speaker 1: And as we go into this article and we listen
Speaker 1: to China's reasons for this, it doesn't make sense. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make them look good at all. It kind of
Speaker 1: makes them look petty. But let's check it out here.
Speaker 1: So this is the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused Donald Trump
Speaker 1: of undermining global strategic balance and stability by pushing ahead
Speaker 1: on his Golden Dome missile defense shield program, and urges
Speaker 1: the US to abandon the project. They're saying that this
Speaker 1: makes us too safe. They don't like how it's not
Speaker 1: equal the balance and stability because everybody's got this whole
Speaker 1: mutually assured distrust actually understanding when it comes to who's
Speaker 1: a nuclear power and who's not. Now, everybody who's listening
Speaker 1: to me talk about this before knows that I think
Speaker 1: it's a really retarded talking point. No one's launching nukes,
Speaker 1: no one is, even if you have them, yeah, that
Speaker 1: makes you a nuclear power. You're not going to launch
Speaker 1: nuclear bombs. You have the ability to, but that would
Speaker 1: be a suicide for yourself. Everyone understands this. It's never
Speaker 1: gonna happen. But somehow US setting this up makes us
Speaker 1: imbalanced and disproportionately better defended than China, who is another
Speaker 1: nuclear nation. And for the record, they're the only ones
Speaker 1: speaking up saying that this is a bad idea for us.
Speaker 2: Again, I find this side. But let's keep going here.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the project in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office briefing on Tuesday, confirming reports that the
Speaker 1: administration was seeking to establish a missile defense umbrella. The
Speaker 1: presidents said would be capable of intercepting missiles even if
Speaker 1: they are launched from the other side of the world,
Speaker 1: and even if they are launched from space. Again, I
Speaker 1: love this personally. I don't know why we haven't put
Speaker 1: this in place sooner, but anyway, the project will cost
Speaker 1: around one hundred and seventy five billion dollars and be
Speaker 1: operational in three years, Trump said.
Speaker 2: Chinese Foreign Ministry spoke to Mail.
Speaker 1: Mao Ning probably mispronouncing it, but you know it's China,
Speaker 1: soa whatever toll reporters at a Wednesday briefing that the
Speaker 1: proposed shield will heighten the risk of turning the space
Speaker 1: into a war zone and creating a space arms race
Speaker 1: and shake the international security and arms control system, according
Speaker 1: to a readout posted on the ministry's website. So, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and take a little second here, did
Speaker 1: we or did we not have the forming of the
Speaker 1: Space Force because and I quote, space is a war
Speaker 1: fighting front according to our current president. So I feel
Speaker 1: like it's possible, possible China might now be getting the point.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that he said literally that four years ago,
Speaker 1: and now China's saying that this is going to turn
Speaker 1: space into a war zone, creating a space arms race.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm, this would be the point, Thank you, China.
Speaker 1: It plans to expand the US arsenal of means for
Speaker 1: combat operations in outer space, including R and D and
Speaker 1: deployment of an orbital interception system. I love it. That
Speaker 1: gives the project a specific offensive nature and violates the
Speaker 1: principle of peaceful use in outer space. It excuse me,
Speaker 1: the principle of peaceful Use in the Outer Space Treaty.
Speaker 1: She added, referring to the nineteen sixty seven Agreement, which,
Speaker 1: among other things, prohibited the use of nuclear weapons in
Speaker 1: space and limited any usage of all celestial bodies for
Speaker 1: peaceful purposes. The Golden Dome is not putting nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: in space. That's not what it's doing at all. Actually,
Speaker 1: it's putting deterrents that can shoot down nuclear weapons, and
Speaker 1: you're able to shoot them down. Instead of from land
Speaker 1: going up and hitting a missile, you're able to shoot
Speaker 1: it down with a satellite. That it's not launching a
Speaker 1: nuke at a nuke. It's launching a rocket at a nuke.
Speaker 1: I don't see how that breaks any kind of treaty,
Speaker 1: if anything, that keeps peace. That's just my perspective. This
Speaker 1: is yet another American first initiative that puts the US
Speaker 1: in absolute security above all else. Now continued again, I
Speaker 1: think they're arriving at the point it violates the principle
Speaker 1: of undiminished security for all and will hurt global strategic
Speaker 1: balance and stability. She said.
Speaker 2: China is gravely concerned.
Speaker 1: We urge the US to give up deploying, excuse me,
Speaker 1: to give up developing and deploying global anti missile systems
Speaker 1: and take concrete actions to enhance strategic trust between major
Speaker 1: countries and uphold global strategic stability. I don't see this
Speaker 1: as breaking any kind of global treaty in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. I know, I'm American, so I have
Speaker 1: a little bit of a bias when it comes to this.
Speaker 1: I get that. But how does us making sure that
Speaker 1: we can defend ourselves against any and all threats hurt
Speaker 1: someone else?
Speaker 2: Like intrinsically? That doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: But yep, it sounds like China's kind of kind of
Speaker 1: having a little cry baby moment about this. And let's
Speaker 1: keep in mind, this is right on the heels of
Speaker 1: China announcing that they are creating a nuclear power plant
Speaker 1: on the dark side of the moon. Now. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's a true thing or not. That's what
Speaker 1: they are saying that they are doing currently, So as
Speaker 1: far as having anything nuclear in space, just from my
Speaker 1: own little perspective here, it sounds kind of what's the word.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's move on. Let's move on anyway.
Speaker 1: Trump began calling for a US missile defense shield inspired
Speaker 1: by Israel's Iron Dome, which is used to intercept short
Speaker 1: range projectiles a year ago on the campaign trail after
Speaker 1: watching Israel and its Western allies defeat some three hundred
Speaker 1: missiles and drones fired during an attack from Iran. The
Speaker 1: attack was thwarted by a range of anti missile systems
Speaker 1: and military aircraft. Military officials said at the time that
Speaker 1: they hadn't expressed the need for such comprehensive shields to
Speaker 1: defend the US.
Speaker 2: Critics of Trump's eye to defend the US.
Speaker 1: Critics of Trump's plan noted that the US wasn't under
Speaker 1: the threat from its neighbors Canada and Mexico, and is
Speaker 1: buffered by two oceans. I mean, it's very true. We
Speaker 1: are in a very prime location as far as making
Speaker 1: sure that our borders are secure from threats, but apparently
Speaker 1: not secure from illegals. But anyway, the Golden Dome project
Speaker 1: has echoes of a failed Cold War era Star Wars program. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Reagan was all about that. He wanted he wanted to
Speaker 1: put lasers on satellites to shoot down enemy aircraft. The
Speaker 1: scientists had to tell him, sir, we don't have that technology.
Speaker 2: Reagan was just not listening to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if anybody was to look that up operations Star Wars,
Speaker 1: it's pretty hilarious. Reagan was ranting and raving, saying basically
Speaker 1: doctor Evil style, I want freaking laser beams on my
Speaker 1: freaking satellites. And the scientists had to straight up come
Speaker 1: and tell him, sir, sir, we don't have that. We
Speaker 1: don't have lasers that can do that.
Speaker 8: Oh, yes, we do, I know we do. We deaf
Speaker 8: for got layers we could put on them satellites. No, no,
Speaker 8: mister President, that's not a science that we act. No
Speaker 8: one on earth can do that at this moment. You're
Speaker 8: I think you're mixing movies in reality. And he just
Speaker 8: refused to.
Speaker 1: Acknowledge that until until they realized how expensive the project
Speaker 1: was gonna be. And Reaganomics wasn't exactly panning out the
Speaker 1: way he wanted in the time frame that he wanted
Speaker 1: either way, which likewise sought to introduce defense umbrella against
Speaker 1: nuclear capable ballistic missiles. At the time, critics, including leaders
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union, said such a project was both
Speaker 1: unworkable and could spark a new arms race. Okay, So
Speaker 1: with that being said, just so we're all all on
Speaker 1: the same sheet of music here. Okay, As Trump is
Speaker 1: talking about creating the Iron Dome, it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: combination thing. There's gonna be a land element and there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a satellite element. Essentially, if any hypothetical nuclear
Speaker 1: missile was to come towards America, we could shoot it
Speaker 1: down either by air or from the I hones sphere
Speaker 1: of stratosphere, whatever sphere the satellite's rolling. I'm not an
Speaker 1: expert on this, I'm not NASA, right, but they'll be
Speaker 1: able to shoot it down from the upside or from
Speaker 1: the downside, okay, And they're not doing it with nukes.
Speaker 1: There's a couple of different methods that I've seen proposed.
Speaker 1: Some of it is with lasers, some of it is
Speaker 1: with rockets in their own rights, whatever the case is,
Speaker 1: it's not putting a weapon in space. It's putting a
Speaker 1: shield in space, a protection against weapons in space.
Speaker 2: China is the only.
Speaker 1: Country that has stepped up and said that this is
Speaker 1: not good and they really want us to not do
Speaker 1: this again, as they're currently building a nuclear power plant
Speaker 1: their words, not mine, on the dark side of the
Speaker 1: Moon and they're saying that we can't have anything nuclear
Speaker 1: in space. All I can really think of this time
Speaker 1: is donal trying. Don't trust China China is ass ho.
Speaker 2: I love that Malaysian gentlemen. I love him to death.
Speaker 1: Don trym don't trust China. China is ass ho. I
Speaker 1: think we need to just have that guy be our
Speaker 1: spirit animal inside of all of our hearts.
Speaker 2: That's just me here. Anyway, as we're.
Speaker 1: Talking about uh, silly things, right, military things and Asian things,
Speaker 1: I think it's worth mentioning that North Korea had a
Speaker 1: destroyer that they tried to launch, but because they suck
Speaker 1: it sunk to the bottom of the sea, they tried
Speaker 1: doing it like a sideways launch rather than a straightforward launch.
Speaker 1: It'll make more sense when I read the article and
Speaker 1: I got some satellite imagery. Satellite photos over North Korea
Speaker 1: revealed Kim's partially sunken new warship. Let's dive in new
Speaker 1: satellite imagery offers a detailed look at the North Korean
Speaker 1: destroyer damaged in a failed launch that infuriated Kim Jong
Speaker 1: un shocker, who was present during the incident. The five
Speaker 1: thousand ton warship appears to be keeled over stuck on
Speaker 1: a sideway in the yeah. Stuck on a sideway in
Speaker 1: the northeast city of chung Jin, Chong, jan I don't know, uh,
Speaker 1: and maybe partially submerged analysis to say why it matters.
Speaker 1: The destroyer is the second to be constructed following the
Speaker 1: launch of the Cho Yon, which North Korea unveiled with
Speaker 1: much acclaim in late April and which has since become
Speaker 1: a begun weapons systems testing. So this is what this
Speaker 1: area looked like before the ship crashed. Right over here
Speaker 1: is where the ship was docked. That's it right here,
Speaker 1: This is it now, And in an attempt to try
Speaker 1: to hide it from satellite, they went out and covered
Speaker 1: it with blue tarps. Essentially, if I could use a
Speaker 1: visual representation on this one, all right, for everybody who
Speaker 1: can't see you know, I'm gonna go ahead and stop
Speaker 1: sharing the screen for just a moment so I can
Speaker 1: make this point. Then we'll go back to it. So
Speaker 1: let's say that this was the ship. Okay, This the
Speaker 1: front side, This the backside. There's a couple of different
Speaker 1: ways you could launch a ship out of port right.
Speaker 2: To commission it.
Speaker 1: If it's a smaller ship, they'll do it from the sideways.
Speaker 1: We've seen videos where they'll they'll straight up, let it
Speaker 1: tip over and slide into the ocean. That way, fine. Cool.
Speaker 1: If it's too long of a ship, typically they'll go
Speaker 1: straight down a ramp into the water this way. Okay.
Speaker 1: This ship apparently was too long to do the sideways method,
Speaker 1: but they didn't think about that, so they tried doing
Speaker 1: the sideways method. It got hung up, one of the
Speaker 1: skids got caught, one of the sides went down way
Speaker 1: too low, one of the sides stayed way too up,
Speaker 1: and it sunk.
Speaker 2: It absolutely sunk to the bottom of.
Speaker 1: The uh of the bay there, and it took them
Speaker 1: like a week to dredge it up enough and pump
Speaker 1: enough water out to get it back at least on
Speaker 1: the upside of the water. Then they go out and
Speaker 1: just start covering it with tarps because nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: Totally nothing to see here, y'all. This is their second destroyer.
Speaker 1: That's it's it's sad, it's embarrassing. Before I go back
Speaker 1: to read the article, real quick, let me see how
Speaker 1: every guy, everybody's doing in the chat, real quick. What's up?
Speaker 1: What's up? Hey?
Speaker 5: Hey?
Speaker 9: Uh?
Speaker 1: What a retail? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I agree, Alex, I agree, another one bites the dust?
Speaker 1: Agreed?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 1: Merlin. Merlin is in the chat tonight as well, Thank you.
Speaker 1: For joining. Uh, let's see here, Sterling Williams, Oh, this
Speaker 1: is about the the New Orleans case. Thank you for
Speaker 1: bringing it up, Raven Lee. Sterling Williams thirty three claimed
Speaker 1: that he was coerced by an inmate who threatened to
Speaker 1: stab him if he didn't disable the water supply to
Speaker 1: a toilet, enabling the inmate to remove it and access
Speaker 1: a hole in the wall behind it. The breach allowed
Speaker 1: them to escape the facility. Yeah, I mean that sounds
Speaker 1: about right. In prison, if you don't do something, you
Speaker 1: get stabbed. And sure, sure, fair enough. And then Tony says,
Speaker 1: Mao Ning is actually related to Mao Zedong if I'm
Speaker 1: not mistaken. Now I'm not an expert of the Chinese language,
Speaker 1: but isn't they do last names first, right, So Mao
Speaker 1: Zedong and Mao Ning, that's like maw would be the surname,
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken. And then usually when they come
Speaker 1: to America, they anglicize it and they put their last
Speaker 1: name at the back where we put it.
Speaker 6: I think, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, so yeah, that's a at least somehow related
Speaker 1: to Malozedong, which is wild. But yeah, all right, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go back to sharing the screen at this time,
Speaker 1: and let's read more about the North Korean ship debacle. Uh.
Speaker 1: The Kim regime has stepped up efforts to modernize its
Speaker 1: armed forces, including its United Nations sanctioned nuclear weapons program
Speaker 1: and ballistic missile fleet, citing provocations by the US and Washington,
Speaker 1: South Korean and Japanese allies. Now what to know. During
Speaker 1: Thursday's launch, the destroyer became stuck after the transport cradle
Speaker 1: beneath the stern section slid off, according to the state
Speaker 1: run Korean.
Speaker 2: Central News Agency.
Speaker 1: Images supplied by Newsweek two Newsweek by the US commercial
Speaker 1: satellite for firm Planet confirmed the ship was resting in
Speaker 1: an awkward position at chung Jin Humbuck Shipyard Thursday. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm probably mispronouncing it, but they're North Korean, so whatever
Speaker 1: partially covered up by blue tarpullians to mask the damage.
Speaker 1: So that is it. Now. Korea's latest naval destroyer has
Speaker 1: been significantly damaged prior to its launch. In a rare acknowledgment,
Speaker 1: North Korea's state news agency reported yesterday an incident occurred
Speaker 1: with a new destroyer which was close to being launched.
Speaker 1: So yeah, they basically just covered it up with all
Speaker 1: of these tarps to just hide it from the public eye,
Speaker 1: and that totally didn't highlight it or anything. A high
Speaker 1: definition image cat captured by the German based Airbus Defense
Speaker 1: in Space shows the vessel listing heavily to starboard. Vessel
Speaker 1: now covered but angle, consistent with reporting Bobow got stuck
Speaker 1: on sideway slideway. Rather, it is likely the vessel may
Speaker 1: be on its side or at least partially submerged. Joseph Dipsey,
Speaker 1: Research Associate for Defense and Military Analysis at the International
Speaker 1: Institute of Strategic Studies wrote on x North Korea's admission
Speaker 1: of failure is rare but would have likely been undeniable
Speaker 1: once the satellite imagery revealed the extent of the serious accident.
Speaker 1: He added, so, of course Kim Jong is going to
Speaker 1: say that this was criminal negligence, and I'm sure everybody's
Speaker 1: bloodline that had anything to do with this are going
Speaker 1: to be in a work camp for the rest of
Speaker 1: their lives. But we shall see. In a Friday update
Speaker 1: on the preliminary investigation, the North Koreans said the damage
Speaker 1: had been deemed not serious. The ship's hull had not
Speaker 1: been pierced as initially reported, and authorities estimated it would
Speaker 1: take two or three days to rebalance the vessel by
Speaker 1: pumping out seawater from a flooded chamber. Experts predicted it
Speaker 1: would take ten odd days to fully restore the damaged
Speaker 1: side of the hull. We shall see, because that was
Speaker 1: almost a week ago and that ship is still under
Speaker 1: tarps as we speak. The Korean news agency reported YEP
Speaker 1: respected Comrade Kim Jong un made a stern assessment, saying
Speaker 1: that it was a serious accident and a criminal act
Speaker 1: caused by sheer carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism, which should
Speaker 1: never occur and could not be tolerated. Sure Sure. Uh SADARVKSEA,
Speaker 1: senior research fellow at London based Royal United Services Institute
Speaker 1: think Tank, was quoted on x saying the Chokeyun class
Speaker 1: represents North Korea's ambitious naval project to date, and its
Speaker 1: construction was a departure from practice for a navy historically
Speaker 1: focused on its literals.
Speaker 2: Laterals. I think it's supposed to be something else here.
Speaker 2: What happens next.
Speaker 1: CAM has called for the destroyer to be restored as
Speaker 1: soon as possible, setting a deadline for completion ahead of
Speaker 1: the key June meeting of the Workers Party of Korea's
Speaker 1: Central Committee. According to the news agency, he stressed that
Speaker 1: the issue was not only a practical one, but also
Speaker 1: a political matter tied to state prestige. It's your second destroyer,
Speaker 1: and the prestige of North Korea is not exactly viewed
Speaker 1: by anybody other than North Koreans. But okay. In a
Speaker 1: speech he delivered in late April, the leader announced plans
Speaker 1: to begin construction of additional warships in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: including a cruiser in various escort vessels. Okay. So yeah,
Speaker 1: as you're just working through the Asiatic area, I couldn't.
Speaker 1: I could not just talk about this well snafu that
Speaker 1: happened with North Korea. But while we are on the
Speaker 1: Asian continent, let's talk about the ceasefire agreement that seems
Speaker 1: to be holding right now between Pakistan and India. Now, Tony,
Speaker 1: you had said that you didn't think that this was
Speaker 1: gonna lead to a World War three or any kind
Speaker 1: of major conflict. Very similarly, because Pakistan and India have
Speaker 1: done this essentially a few times in the past few decades,
Speaker 1: I didn't know exactly how I was gonna go. I
Speaker 1: think that this got a little more ramped up than
Speaker 1: the other skirmishes in the past have gotten, and I
Speaker 1: was thinking that it had potential to maybe go to
Speaker 1: run the gambit, if you will. However, according to CNN,
Speaker 1: here missiles, drones, and airstrikes until a sudden ceasefire. How
Speaker 1: Pakistan and India agreed to an uneasy truce New Delhi
Speaker 1: and Islama's Bad. India and Pakistan engaged in the most
Speaker 1: intense fighting in decades, with four days of escalating conflict
Speaker 1: that included fighter jets, missiles, and drones packed with explosives,
Speaker 1: and ended almost as abruptly as it began.
Speaker 2: New details reveal how a flurry of cell phone calls or.
Speaker 1: I said, I should say, just phone calls and diplomacy
Speaker 1: ultimately brought about a truce between the nuclear armed neighbors
Speaker 1: and historic foes. And while the Indian and Pakistani accounts
Speaker 1: differ on some details, both sides agreed the breakthrough started
Speaker 1: to come on Saturday afternoon. The ceasefire between Islamabad and
Speaker 1: New Delhi, which according to Pakistani officials, had been the
Speaker 1: Indie works for several days was agreed to after a
Speaker 1: quote unquote hotline message was sent from a top Pakistani
Speaker 1: military official to his Indian counterpart, India's military said Sunday,
Speaker 1: offering new details about how the unexpected deal was struck.
Speaker 1: In a briefing Sunday, India's Director General of Military Operations
Speaker 1: said that is as officials were huddling Saturday, quote unquote
Speaker 1: to wargame the early morning strikes from Pakistan, he received
Speaker 1: a mess from his counterpart in Pakistan seeking communications. Pakistan's
Speaker 1: military confirmed Sunday that it reached out, but said it
Speaker 1: contacted intermediaries regarding a ceasefire with India. It did not
Speaker 1: specify which countries, although a Pakistani official involved in the
Speaker 1: talks told CNN it was the United States making the
Speaker 1: important call Saturday. I mean, I don't find this to
Speaker 1: be odd. Honestly, I could see another country taking charge
Speaker 1: of that, though it wouldn't have shocked me to hear
Speaker 1: that Britain or Germany or Katar, let's go way off
Speaker 1: the beaten path here. Qatar is also currently seen as
Speaker 1: like the meeting ground for people of differing backgrounds. It
Speaker 1: wouldn't shock me if the UAE had called and said
Speaker 1: Hey man, let's have a little talk about negotiating here.
Speaker 1: But lo and behold, Donnie T strikes again and he
Speaker 1: according to them, not us. Them is the reason why
Speaker 1: the ceasefire has taken place. So let's talk more about
Speaker 1: it here. During the call all hailed at three thirty
Speaker 1: five pm local time, a ceasefire agreement was reached. According
Speaker 1: to India's Director General of Military Operations, Lieutenant General Rajeev
Speaker 1: guy Gahai. I don't know, I don't speak Hindy. They
Speaker 1: said a further call would be hailed to discuss the
Speaker 1: modalities that would enable the longevity of the agreement. Pakistan
Speaker 1: has not confirmed whether or not the call was hailed,
Speaker 1: but the official involvement of the diplomatic efforts said Pakistan
Speaker 1: have received unspecified assurances from the US that India would
Speaker 1: abide by the ceasefire. I could see that personally, as
Speaker 1: especially as more and more manufacturing and more and more
Speaker 1: deals are being struck outside of China and in favor
Speaker 1: of India. If the US called and said listen, I
Speaker 1: got them, I will make sure that they keep the ceasefire.
Speaker 1: If you can make sure you keep up your end
Speaker 1: of it and like it seems like it worked. So far,
Speaker 1: so good, Aniwen. The latest details of the agreement was
Speaker 1: reached with the first announced by the US President Trump
Speaker 1: give the clearest picture yet of how Islamabad and New
Speaker 1: Delhi directly communicated to agree to an end of the
Speaker 1: spiraling conflict amid growing international pressure on the truth social
Speaker 1: on his truth Social app, Trump said Saturday the US
Speaker 1: had brokened and into the fighting and congratulated the leaders
Speaker 1: of both countries for using common sense and great intelligence.
Speaker 1: While Islamabad praised the US involvement, New Delhi has downplayd
Speaker 1: keen to portray the ceasefire as a victory and saying
Speaker 1: that the neighbors had worked together directly on the truce.
Speaker 1: India's Director General of Military Operations Gehai I'm guessing I'm
Speaker 1: saying that right, said. India approached Islamabad on Wednesday, following
Speaker 1: its initial strikes to communicate our compulsions to strike at
Speaker 1: the heart of terror. India made a request which was
Speaker 1: not specified that was brusquely turned down bruskally. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that word's supposed to mean, or if that
Speaker 1: was the type of turned down with an intimidation that
Speaker 1: a severe response was inevitable and the uh and in
Speaker 1: the offing again, I feel like that's a typo or
Speaker 1: maybe there's like a weird translatory.
Speaker 6: They got this British English thing going. But you know
Speaker 6: those are actual expressions, believe it or not. Brusquely, yeah,
Speaker 6: bruskly means you know, kind of rudely or curtly. And
Speaker 6: in the offing I didn't know this untill a few
Speaker 6: years ago. It just means in the near future.
Speaker 1: Huh.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is like British Shakespearean English that Americans just
Speaker 6: didn't get.
Speaker 1: And that would make sense because India was a part
Speaker 1: of the British Empire for so long. Okay, I get
Speaker 1: it now, all right, So this is just British is
Speaker 1: British English, the King's English, as they would say. Okay,
Speaker 1: fair enough.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: The Indians requested a ceasefire after the eighth and ninth
Speaker 1: of May, after they started their operation. We told them
Speaker 1: that we will communicate back after our retribution, Pakistan Lieutenant
Speaker 1: General Ahmad Sharif Chawdry said during a news conference on Sunday. Huh,
Speaker 1: I didn't know Chawdrey was a Pakistani name. I served
Speaker 1: with the Chawdry due was an absolute beast. He was
Speaker 1: one of the body bears. I think he weighed like
Speaker 1: two seventy five of solid muscle. Like the dude was
Speaker 1: an absolute fire truck with the blues blouse on. It
Speaker 1: was insane. After Pakistan's military operation, we reached the international
Speaker 1: more of this language interlucturs that we responded to the
Speaker 1: ceasefire request. Speaking on Wednesday, after India's initial strikes, the
Speaker 1: Pakistani official involved in diplomacy efforts said Pakistan was engaged
Speaker 1: with the US and that he hoped those conversations would
Speaker 1: bring positive results.
Speaker 2: Well, I would think that they as of this.
Speaker 1: Very moment, have Again, we will see if this keeps
Speaker 1: up here. It says just before eight am Easter your
Speaker 1: time on Saturday, about five pm in India and Pakistan,
Speaker 1: Trump announced the ceasefire on truth social writing, after a
Speaker 1: long night of talks mediated by the United States, I
Speaker 1: am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed
Speaker 1: to a full and immediate ceasefire. Shortly after Trump's post,
Speaker 1: both sides confirmed the truths. India's Foreign ministry said the
Speaker 1: agreement was worked out directly between the two countries, downplaying
Speaker 1: the US involvement, of course, but Pakistani officials heaped praise
Speaker 1: on Washington. This is a direct quote. We thank President
Speaker 1: Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in
Speaker 1: the region. Okay, that's from the Prime minister. A Pakistani
Speaker 1: source familiar with the negotiations told CNN that the US
Speaker 1: and Rubio in particular, was instrumental in striking the deal,
Speaker 1: painting a picture of talks that were in doubt, with
Speaker 1: trust and at a low ebb and missiles attacks from
Speaker 1: India only abating in a final few hours before the
Speaker 1: truce was confirmed. It's not surprising these bitter rivals give
Speaker 1: contradictory accounts of how the deal was struck. India, which
Speaker 1: views itself as a regional superpower, has long been resistant
Speaker 1: of international mediation, whereas Pakistan, which is heavily dependent on
Speaker 1: foreign aid, tends to welcome it.
Speaker 2: Analysis say, yeah, that's very true too.
Speaker 1: It's not like Pakistan is like in the best of
Speaker 1: graces with US or vice versa. It's not like we're
Speaker 1: exactly tight as hell. They're very tight with China in
Speaker 1: a economic resolve. I think they're okay with a lot
Speaker 1: of people, but they absolutely rely on foreign aid to
Speaker 1: you know, survive India does not. India does not, So
Speaker 1: it makes sense that India, being very proud people would
Speaker 1: say that it was by their own works and by
Speaker 1: their own abilities.
Speaker 2: To deal that this ceasefire was created.
Speaker 1: Pakistan, on the other hand, is like, man, thank you
Speaker 1: Trump and Rubio. We couldn't have done it without you,
Speaker 1: So hey, nobody. I don't know who's trying to take
Speaker 1: credit for it. I can guarantee that Trump is gonna
Speaker 1: use this as yet another feather in his cap either
Speaker 1: way it goes. Pakistan and India are currently at peace. Now,
Speaker 1: will this last? Will it happen again in another five years?
Speaker 1: Whatever's gonna I mean, who's to say. Who's to say?
Speaker 1: But at this moment, I think it's a good little
Speaker 1: way to put a bow on that now, as we
Speaker 1: are still talking about that side of the world here,
Speaker 1: I think it's worth mentioning that there is a siege
Speaker 1: that is currently mounting up and underway in mogad Shue. Yeah,
Speaker 1: get ready, y'all, if America gets involved, we might have
Speaker 1: a black hog down two point zero in our hands.
Speaker 1: Uh Shabab's deadliest offensive in months pushes towards Mogadishue, Mogadishu
Speaker 1: itself is speaking on this Shabab militants. I'm probably mispronouncing
Speaker 1: Shabab shabba Ab. I don't know. I don't speak Islam.
Speaker 1: Militants have launched their most aggressive offensive in months, storing
Speaker 1: multiple towns across central Somalia and exposing weaknesses in the
Speaker 1: government's counterinsurgency strategy. The al Qaeda affiliate group briefly seized
Speaker 1: key locations, including Balkad, just thirty kilometers from Mogadishue, before
Speaker 1: federal forces counteracted it or I'm sorry counterattacks. The The tax,
Speaker 1: which began on Friday or excuse me February twentieth, targeted
Speaker 1: federal troops and clan militias in the middle of Chabelle
Speaker 1: and Hran regions, stretching government resources. Then Shabbab claims responsibility
Speaker 1: for at least nine assaults across multiple towns, asserting it
Speaker 1: had killed dozens of pro government fighters and temporarily occupied
Speaker 1: strategic locations.
Speaker 2: The offensive began with a coordinated.
Speaker 1: Assault on El Alai l Ali Ahmed Ali fool deer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I
Speaker 1: also do not speak the language, so I'm going to
Speaker 1: butcher these names. It's gonna sound like I'm doing it
Speaker 1: on purpose and being unronic. I'm not trying to be cheeky.
Speaker 1: I just don't understand how you can have that many
Speaker 1: vowels next to each other, or that many consonants next
Speaker 1: to each other and make sounds with it. I only
Speaker 1: speak the American English. I apologize fooled here. I'll cole
Speaker 1: Sar and all Rannums Yep town spanning southern Haran and
Speaker 1: northern Middle Shabelle. The Somali government initially stated that its
Speaker 1: forces and ma Al Waalse clan militias repelled the attackers,
Speaker 1: killing more than one hundred and thirty militants. The US
Speaker 1: Africa Command or Afrikaans as commonly known, also conducted air
Speaker 1: strikes targeting Shabab positions. It makes sense that they would
Speaker 1: do that, seeing as how they're in al Qaeda affiliate.
Speaker 1: You know, we're down with that, or we're down with
Speaker 1: bombing the hell out of that, I should say. However,
Speaker 1: Shabam countered these claims with photographic evidence of its fighters
Speaker 1: inside Al Casar and Dora on Amica. While government forces
Speaker 1: reasserted control over some areas, the militant group's ability to
Speaker 1: penetrate defensive positions raised concerns about the effectiveness of security measures.
Speaker 1: On February twenty first, heavy clashes erupted at Al baraf
Speaker 1: and in the middle of the Shabab region. So as
Speaker 1: we're seeing, it's a timeline here, right, we're getting February,
Speaker 1: we got March right here. US airstrikes have been effective
Speaker 1: in disrupting Shabab's advances, but ground forces remain overstretched. Without
Speaker 1: reinforcements and a renewed offense of the Somali government could
Speaker 1: lose more ground in the coming months. Now, this is
Speaker 1: not the article that I had pulled up earlier. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna lie to you. This is March fourth. From
Speaker 1: what I just saw, the town of Mogadishu is currently
Speaker 1: under siege.
Speaker 2: As in, they.
Speaker 1: Pulled up about two days ago and tried to let
Speaker 1: the people know that they need to leave. Now most
Speaker 1: people can't because they have nowhere to go. So the
Speaker 1: town is currently under siege by this Shabba Abs forces.
Speaker 1: It's not a pretty site for the locals, and I
Speaker 1: hope that America gets involved with this. But again, can
Speaker 1: America be the world police or can we not? Every
Speaker 1: time we do world police things. People beg for it,
Speaker 1: and then as soon as we get boots on the ground,
Speaker 1: they ask us why do we always have to be
Speaker 1: the world police? And we get shit on.
Speaker 2: So I don't exactly know what people want from us
Speaker 2: at this time.
Speaker 1: I know that Trump hasn't taken a necessarily isolationist approach
Speaker 1: as far as the military is concerned. I know that
Speaker 1: he is way more in the regards of wanting to
Speaker 1: keep everybody at home rather than deploying two theaters of
Speaker 1: war and combat that have nothing to do with us.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what to expect. I would hope
Speaker 1: that you in peace forces could maybe send out some
Speaker 1: aid in this regard, as they tried to do with
Speaker 1: Somalia when we had to send our own troops in
Speaker 1: there but UN already had a fighting force in the area.
Speaker 1: I would hope that the UN could step up and
Speaker 1: handle their own business on this one.
Speaker 2: That would be ideal.
Speaker 1: Anyway, before I get to the next article, let me
Speaker 1: come check out the chat to see if anybody has
Speaker 1: shared anything else.
Speaker 10: That is so, I was looking more into the whole
Speaker 10: nuclear reactor thing on the Moon tank. Yeah, and apparently
Speaker 10: what they're going to try to use for fuel is
Speaker 10: these crystals called helium three.
Speaker 1: Yeah, age three, which is the And I know that
Speaker 1: there's people that claim that humans have never been to
Speaker 1: the Moon. However, they have brought back a chemical that
Speaker 1: we allegedly can't reproduce on Earth, and that's what they're
Speaker 1: going to try to use the fuel source for the
Speaker 1: nuclear reactors on the Moon because the Moon is loaded
Speaker 1: with age three. Yeah.
Speaker 10: I thought that was super fascinating.
Speaker 1: I was like, what, so helium is an amazing fuel
Speaker 1: source in a regard helium three is a even more
Speaker 1: stable and I don't know all of the chemical compounds,
Speaker 1: so like the yield of it being burned as a
Speaker 1: fuel source or whatever else. But from the very limited
Speaker 1: research I've done on it, because it's been years, essentially
Speaker 1: it could be used to power anything that would require combustion.
Speaker 1: Now I don't know how you're gonna get combustion where
Speaker 1: there's no oxygen present. I don't know this, or if
Speaker 1: there's a way to use H three without combustion, maybe
Speaker 1: friction would make it happen, or I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I have no idea what China's plans are for this,
Speaker 1: but by their own admission not a conspiracy theory. There's
Speaker 1: a bunch of people out there saying it's all fake
Speaker 1: because the Moon is fake and space is fake. I'm
Speaker 1: not one of those people. China landed that rover on
Speaker 1: the Moon, they have been mapping the dark side of
Speaker 1: it for a little while now, and their plan for
Speaker 1: the nuclear reactor on the other side of the moon,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 2: What's to gain? What are you trying to do with that?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: If they're trying to use that as like a.
Speaker 1: Launch pad to go and explore deep Earth space, I
Speaker 1: guess I could imagine a world where that makes sense.
Speaker 1: But why would you need a nuclear reactor for that?
Speaker 1: If you have helium three, which could be its own
Speaker 1: fuel source to power your rockets once you got to
Speaker 1: the moon. And if I'm not mistake and they're using
Speaker 1: the nuclear plant to power the refining facility for the
Speaker 1: H three or a myle base here, what have you
Speaker 1: found on imrowin?
Speaker 10: I think you're on track with that one. I think
Speaker 10: they're trying to power a research lab. That's what I
Speaker 10: read though. Yuh, They're going to put a research facility
Speaker 10: on the Moon and use the nuclear reactor to power that.
Speaker 10: They also got to be wondering if they're going to
Speaker 10: try to farm some new materials, because sharing how you
Speaker 10: can only get H three on the Moon. What other
Speaker 10: materials could you make that you can only make in
Speaker 10: the vacuum of space.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I mean, I guess sky's the limit
Speaker 1: or the extent of space is the limit? Pardon me,
Speaker 1: I don't know. And that's there is so much controversy
Speaker 1: surrounding the lunar missions, and not just the one from
Speaker 1: sixty nine or the ones that burst into flames in
Speaker 1: our atmosphere and these things. Like I fine, I am
Speaker 1: somebody who is of the belief that humans have made
Speaker 1: it to the Moon. Now, maybe not that first go round.
Speaker 1: I think the whole, you know, Armstrong and Aldrin situation
Speaker 1: was to try to bankrupt the Soviet Union. That's just
Speaker 1: me though, Okay, But since then I believe we have
Speaker 1: made it there. I don't know how H three has
Speaker 1: allegedly naturally formed on the Moon in a vacuum of space.
Speaker 1: Don't know how hydrogen was able to crystallize. How did
Speaker 1: hydrogen get to the Moon in the first place in
Speaker 1: order to solidify in order to bond to other hydrogens
Speaker 1: to make a entirely new not new element, but I
Speaker 1: guess you could say a new compound that. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's impossible to create on Earth, but I'm
Speaker 1: saying it wouldn't be. It's difficult to recreate on Earth
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, like I'm sure with CERN and
Speaker 1: with other types of labs, you can, you know, basically
Speaker 1: rewrite the structure of an atom, but it's not sustainable here.
Speaker 1: I have no idea. But if that's true, and if
Speaker 1: there is an abundance of H three on the Moon,
Speaker 1: if they are able to refine it to be some
Speaker 1: sort of a fuel source, again, I don't know how
Speaker 1: you're burning it or how you're fueling something with it.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how nuclear fusion slash fission And
Speaker 1: I'm only saying slash Tony helped me out on this.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure which one is used in nuclear power.
Speaker 1: If it's fusion or fission or sometimes both, I don't know.
Speaker 1: But I don't understand how you're able to do that
Speaker 1: in space in the first place. Powering a lab would
Speaker 1: be dope and they could use that to like you said, Merlin,
Speaker 1: bring up more research into other elements that are found there,
Speaker 1: because all we've been told over the longest time is
Speaker 1: that the Moon is a barren wasteland of dust. And
Speaker 1: if that's not exactly true, what else isn't exactly true?
Speaker 1: And if they're able to refine the H three to
Speaker 1: a fuel source and somehow achieve to use them or
Speaker 1: get the ability to use the Moon as a launching platform,
Speaker 1: is it possible that China is trying to beat elon
Speaker 1: Musk to Mars. I see that is a potential conversation
Speaker 1: as well. I don't know what to make of it. Man,
Speaker 1: China space program has been laughable up until the past
Speaker 1: few years. And I'm not even saying it's like top
Speaker 1: notch Barty means but or it's not like equal to
Speaker 1: NASA at this moment. But how far off are they
Speaker 1: from being equal to I don't know? All right, So anyway,
Speaker 1: let us continue with these studies here. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: shift our attention over to the nation of Georgia. There
Speaker 1: is a law that they have been trying to pass
Speaker 1: for a good little while here, and apparently they are
Speaker 1: about to enact it. The public is pissed, so pissed,
Speaker 1: in fact, that there is rioting in the streets, and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they're like tearing the country apart or
Speaker 1: anything like this, but I find it interesting that the
Speaker 1: public would be so concerned about this and of itself.
Speaker 1: So the foreign agent laws in Georgia, let's talk about it.
Speaker 1: In a recent contribution, this person argued for activating interim
Speaker 1: measures under Rule thirty nine of the European Court of
Speaker 1: Human Rights in cases of political persecution or prosecution rather
Speaker 1: such as that of Istanbul's mayor. This argument gains renewed
Speaker 1: urgency in light of Georgia's proposed foreign agent law. Indeed,
Speaker 1: as civil society organizations face the threat of criminal sanctions
Speaker 1: under the Foreign Agent's Law two point zero, a near
Speaker 1: copy and paste of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act
Speaker 1: FARA Rule thirty nine, could become their last remaining remedy.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about it here. The saga of Georgia's
Speaker 1: foreign agent laws began in twenty twenty three when Georgian
Speaker 1: dream introduced legislation forming CSOs receiving over twenty percent of
Speaker 1: foreign funding to register as foreign agents or face fines.
Speaker 1: The bill sparked mass protests, was hastily repealed and then
Speaker 1: brought back amid public outrage following the rigged parliamentary elections
Speaker 1: in October of twenty twenty four, which both the EU
Speaker 1: and the Council of Europe deemed neither the legitimate nor fair.
Speaker 1: The public protests and political crisis erupted once more. Five
Speaker 1: months on, Georgian Dream passed a second, far inspired version
Speaker 1: of the law, still without having enacted or repealed the original.
Speaker 1: It is set to come out come into force May
Speaker 1: thirty first, so in a day or two as of
Speaker 1: time of recording. Under the new law, directors of NGO's
Speaker 1: non government offices and media outlets risk criminal prosecution if
Speaker 1: the state claims they acted on behalf of a foreign
Speaker 1: principle and deliberately failed to register. Considering public statements by
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister of Georgia, it is hardly speculative to
Speaker 1: expect selective enforcement of the law against the most outspoken CSOs.
Speaker 1: And if the two foreign agent laws were not enough,
Speaker 1: recent amendments to the law on grants now also require
Speaker 1: donor organizations to obtain prior approval from the gd government
Speaker 1: than Georgian Georgian Democratic Government SURE or a designated agency
Speaker 1: before issuing any funding. Unlike the first foreign agent law,
Speaker 1: which dominated political discourse in twenty twenty three, current attacks
Speaker 1: on CSOs are unfolding more quietly and against the backdrop
Speaker 1: of a broader, faster, and more systematic dismantling of the
Speaker 1: rule of law and human rights.
Speaker 2: In the face of this escalation, the tools.
Speaker 1: Already embedded in the Acronym's jurisprudence offer a way forward.
Speaker 1: Rule thirty nine can and must be reactivated to protect
Speaker 1: CSOs from a consolidating autocratic autocratization. Yeah the ect HR's
Speaker 1: sobering experience with foreign agent laws, so the engagement with
Speaker 1: Russian foreign agent laws has been a sobering experience the
Speaker 1: eco defense. In Eco Defense, the Court issued its judgment
Speaker 1: eight years after the initial application was filed without separately
Speaker 1: addressing the Article eighteen claim of rights abused by the States.
Speaker 1: The result fell far short of a timely or adequate
Speaker 1: response to Russia's systemic efforts to dismantle civil society. The
Speaker 1: Court's failure to engage Art Article eighteen was particularly striking
Speaker 1: given that its proportionally proportionality excuse me analysis had already
Speaker 1: hinted at the court findings of a bad faith, As
Speaker 1: it noted, the government has not been able to show
Speaker 1: that those measures furthered the declared goal of increasing transparency.
Speaker 1: It would take another two years for the ECTCHR to
Speaker 1: explicitly acknowledge the extent to which foreign agents designation had
Speaker 1: been misconceived, misleading, or misused by Russian authorities. In a
Speaker 1: pretty sharp language, excuse me in pretty sharp language, the
Speaker 1: group stated that the labeling requirements were unrelated to the
Speaker 1: stated to the stated purpose of transparency and created instead
Speaker 1: an environment of forced self stigmatization bearing the hallmarks of
Speaker 1: a totalitarian regime. In twenty twenty five, the decision in
Speaker 1: Novaya Gazetta concerning the crackdown on dissent following Russia's invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine offering concurring Judge Pavli to an opportunity to
Speaker 1: reflect on these missed opportunities.
Speaker 2: There is a direct quote here paragraph fifteen.
Speaker 1: With the benefit of some hindsight and a large body
Speaker 1: of case law behind us, can it be said that
Speaker 1: the court sounded the alarm loudly enough and early enough,
Speaker 1: and more importantly for the future, is it now prepared
Speaker 1: to do so?
Speaker 2: In relation to other European.
Speaker 1: Political systems whose democratic protections might be eroded in ascertainable ways,
Speaker 1: as Syrian previously argued on this blog, if Judge Pavley's
Speaker 1: questions resonate with other members of the Court, there is
Speaker 1: indeed amperle doctrinal doctrinal basis for sounding the alarm both
Speaker 1: loudly and early when democratic safeguards are visibly eroding. That
Speaker 1: ground lies on the Court's own Rule thirty nine. So essentially,
Speaker 1: here's what this is talking about here. Russia has been
Speaker 1: having some weird turmoils with Georgia for a while now,
Speaker 1: and most people in America don't understand what this is.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that Russia is about to invade Georgia.
Speaker 1: There were those that believed that that was about to
Speaker 1: happen whenever the Ukrainian situation really kicked off. There were
Speaker 1: some people that said that they were going to also
Speaker 1: move into Estonia. There were some that said that they
Speaker 1: were going to move into Latvia. I don't, as of
Speaker 1: this moment, believe that Russian troops are about to also
Speaker 1: invade Georgia. That being said, there are political actors that
Speaker 1: are used or using the Georgian media to portray very
Speaker 1: very pro Russian sentiments, and the people of Georgia apparently
Speaker 1: do not like this.
Speaker 2: And it's not just on the media.
Speaker 1: There is Russian state actors who are lobbying in Georgian politics.
Speaker 1: From what I can tell, it's the same way that
Speaker 1: America has apex right the Israeli Lobbying Committee, and that's
Speaker 1: the only lobbying committee allowed to be a foreign lobbying
Speaker 1: committee in the entirety of the United States. No other
Speaker 1: country has guys throwing money towards our politicians on behalf
Speaker 1: of foreign nations, or at least not overtly and openly.
Speaker 1: The Georgian people are pissed off that this is still
Speaker 1: going down in their country and nothing is being done
Speaker 1: about it or to stop it in any way, shape
Speaker 1: or form. So the slow shift towards an effective Rule
Speaker 1: thirty nine. Indeed, the ECTCHR record includes more than missed
Speaker 1: opportunities in recent Rule thirty nine landmarks exhibiting a gradual
Speaker 1: shift towards greater flexibility serve as testimony to that interim
Speaker 1: measures are no longer confined to non refoument refoulment excuse me,
Speaker 1: non refoulment cases involving mere individualized and foreseeable threats such
Speaker 1: as the risk of torture or the reuse of evidence
Speaker 1: obtained by torture following removal of a foreign country see
Speaker 1: Abu katata Okay. Instead, they are now increasingly applied in
Speaker 1: response to threats to democracy and the rule of law,
Speaker 1: even where the precise forms such as threats may take
Speaker 1: or are not yet fully known, these shifts may be.
Speaker 1: This shift has been most evident in cases involving, for example,
Speaker 1: the ownership of a media company in Georgia twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: the protection of a journalist's sources in Ukraine twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: the right of a human right to exist, of a
Speaker 1: human rights in goo And in twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 1: of a news outlet in Russia in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: units of measures against judges in Poland in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two and twenty twenty three, and demonstration dispersal techniques in
Speaker 1: Serbia in twenty twenty five. Yeah, we all know what's
Speaker 1: going on in Serbia right now. Those protests they calm
Speaker 1: down eventually, but not after the government used direct energy
Speaker 1: weapons on the crowds to attain control and all those
Speaker 1: videos that came out that's now been confirmed that that
Speaker 1: was absolutely directed energy weapons that were being shot at
Speaker 1: the crowd.
Speaker 2: Nobody died, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 1: One guy might have suffered a heart attack, but it's
Speaker 1: questionable if that was because of the direct energy attack
Speaker 1: or if that was because of just being startled because
Speaker 1: of the crowd. Who knows. The wording of the interim
Speaker 1: measures has also become more open minded or open ended.
Speaker 1: The Court now increasingly issues orders suspending domestic decisions or
Speaker 1: proceedings or instructing states to refrain from actions likely to
Speaker 1: produce certain harmful effects. For example, in an interim measure
Speaker 1: issued in twenty twenty two in the case of no
Speaker 1: Vaya Gazetta, the Court instructed Russia to obtain abstain until
Speaker 1: further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking
Speaker 1: and determination of the activities of Novaya Gazetta and from
Speaker 1: other actions that, in the current circumstances, could deprived Voia
Speaker 1: Gazetta of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article
Speaker 1: ten of the Convention. In an interim measure issued in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five in the case of Durravic or Durravich,
Speaker 1: I don't know what that little sign on top of
Speaker 1: the c makes or with that line through the D makes,
Speaker 1: I might be mispronouncing that whole word. That's fine, I've
Speaker 1: been stammering through this whole article. At this point, the
Speaker 1: Court referred to potentially serious health effects and instructed Serbia
Speaker 1: that any use of sound devices for crowd control must
Speaker 1: be prevented in the future. You know, I do love
Speaker 1: how they really tried to say that that's not what happened,
Speaker 1: and then so many other sources came forward that they
Speaker 1: had to acknowledge that that's exactly what happened. But I digress.
Speaker 1: Without even prejudging whether such a crowd control mechanism was
Speaker 1: actually being used it was, though we know that it
Speaker 1: was the shift toward a broader application of Rule thirty nine.
Speaker 1: A company, by more flexible instructions to state in individual cases,
Speaker 1: offers a measure of hope. But if the ECCHR is
Speaker 1: to offer practical and effective protection, the Court must accelerate
Speaker 1: this shift so as not to allow consolidation or consolidating
Speaker 1: atrocities to slip through the cracks of supernatural oversight. The
Speaker 1: tools for this are already in place within its existing doctrine.
Speaker 1: The Court has had at least four avenues it could
Speaker 1: draw on to reaactivate Rule thirty nine more forcibly in
Speaker 1: context like Georgia, the administrative practice exception, the potential victim standard,
Speaker 1: the chilling effect standard, and lastly the bad faith standard
Speaker 1: under Article eighteen. All right, so unless you know a
Speaker 1: lot about the way that Georgia does their politics, a
Speaker 1: lot of this is going to kind of fall short
Speaker 1: on everybody. I get this. But Georgia's pissed off because
Speaker 1: they still have foreign actors that are making their presence
Speaker 1: not just known, but kind of boguarding their will through
Speaker 1: their country.
Speaker 2: They're not happy about it. I get it rightfully.
Speaker 1: So, as Anthony said in the chat, so humans doing
Speaker 1: human shit, Yeah, as it be happening, bro, People be
Speaker 1: peopling one thousand percent. People be people. In so while
Speaker 1: we've kind of gone over a couple of these articles,
Speaker 1: we've covered some things in the continental US, we covered
Speaker 1: some things in Asia, we covered Mogadishu, We've talked about Georgia.
Speaker 1: If anybody has anything that they would like to discuss
Speaker 1: as far as the news articles, or if y'all have
Speaker 1: anything that y'all would like to discuss on y'all's in
Speaker 1: that y'all find interesting.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and let us hear about it. Yeah, to
Speaker 2: only go for it, man.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's a few more things I can think of.
Speaker 6: This is maybe not international newsworthy, but have you seen
Speaker 6: what Candice Owens has been up to.
Speaker 1: The last thing I heard from her was that she
Speaker 1: was saying that Macrone is married to his his long
Speaker 1: lost uncle, and I love father It's father.
Speaker 6: Or article, Yeah, probably his father, because I love it.
Speaker 6: Brigitque kind of appears out of nowhere in the eighties
Speaker 6: right when her supposed brother, I guess that would make
Speaker 6: him an uncle, but Jean Michelle troug No went out
Speaker 6: of existence. There's that, But I was actually thinking of
Speaker 6: something else. She's trying to defend Harvey Weinstein, which is
Speaker 6: pretty hard to believe. But kind of the political triangulation here.
Speaker 6: She's been called such an anti Semite, I think she's
Speaker 6: just trying to find something to do to try to
Speaker 6: make that accusation go away. So what do you think
Speaker 6: about Weinstein in general?
Speaker 1: Though I am not a fan of him as a person,
Speaker 1: I think he's an absolute piece of shit, right, And
Speaker 1: I get that the point that she is making is
Speaker 1: that he is wrongfully imprisoned. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: I agree or disagree with her, but let's go over
Speaker 1: the facts. He didn't, according to the testimonies, and even
Speaker 1: the women that came to court and talked about this,
Speaker 1: they knew what they were going to that hotel room
Speaker 1: to do. They fully understood that they were going to
Speaker 1: benefit from explicit actions with him. Now, if we're going
Speaker 1: to say that that was him misusing his power and
Speaker 1: taking advantage in all of that, yes with you one
Speaker 1: thousand percent. But he didn't actually assault any of the
Speaker 1: women in question. They knew exactly what was happening and
Speaker 1: what would be the result thereof that being said. And
Speaker 1: again I don't know what her latest standpoint is on
Speaker 1: it right now, but from what I heard, she's basically saying, like, no,
Speaker 1: he's a trash human being, and like we you know, fine,
Speaker 1: but I don't believe he should be in jail for this.
Speaker 1: It's the same as some CEO promising a promotion if
Speaker 1: in exchange for a sexual favor. I disagree with that.
Speaker 1: I don't think that you should be doing that at all.
Speaker 1: That's immoral and it's wrong. Is that illegal? And I'm
Speaker 1: asking that genuinely. I don't know the laws to that level.
Speaker 1: Is that illegal?
Speaker 6: Well maybe it's not as illegal as rape for sure. Yeah,
Speaker 6: that's it's a it's a major downngrade And yeah, I
Speaker 6: think like John Zigler and Ryan Dawson have this this
Speaker 6: take on Hollywood. It's a cesspool of immorality and quid
Speaker 6: pro quoes. And if the man is like Brad Pitt,
Speaker 6: the woman probably can't get away with making an accusation
Speaker 6: like this. But when he looks really unattractive, like Harvey Weinstein,
Speaker 6: then they can claim, oh, he raped me, and then
Speaker 6: then people will buy it because most people think, oh, yeah,
Speaker 6: you would never sleep with a toad like that.
Speaker 1: I think that it was all. I think it was
Speaker 1: literally the entire point of him being brought to court
Speaker 1: and done this way was so that they had to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that.
Speaker 2: His dick has gang green.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. And that was also like, I don't feel
Speaker 1: bad necessarily because again, he's using his position of power
Speaker 1: to like basically force his will on women, and I
Speaker 1: don't like that. That's not a good thing, right, But
Speaker 1: the fact that it had to be brought up in
Speaker 1: a court case and pictures of this had to be
Speaker 1: shown in the official court document. I highly recommend that
Speaker 1: nobody go look that up. By the way, do not
Speaker 1: go look up pictures of Harvey Weinstein's dick. There are
Speaker 1: certain things that you really just can't unsee. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna leave it at that. That being said, it was
Speaker 1: a power move to remove power from him. I think
Speaker 1: that was the entire point. And I don't believe that
Speaker 1: some young twenty something year old actress who's trying to
Speaker 1: make it in Hollywood and is trying to land this
Speaker 1: big movie role didn't know why you'd be going to
Speaker 1: this guy's hotel room at two thirty in the morning.
Speaker 1: I have a hard time thinking that they're going to
Speaker 1: play the whole Bay in the Woods routine and get
Speaker 1: away with it. But yeah, I think that's Candas's position.
Speaker 1: I don't inherently disagree with the legality of it. Like
Speaker 1: should he be arrested he's a shit bag, yes, one
Speaker 1: hundred percent, and he shouldn't be in the position that
Speaker 1: he's in or the position as far as like his
Speaker 1: power in Hollywood, yes, that needed to be removed from him.
Speaker 1: The disgusting things that he's doing do need to be
Speaker 1: brought to light. Just like all of Hollywood. Like you said,
Speaker 1: it's a cesspool. Everybody is doing and sleeping and whatever
Speaker 1: to get their next advance or their next role in
Speaker 1: this next big film or whatever the case, especially when
Speaker 1: they're young and up and coming stars. I don't think
Speaker 1: that that's okay. But it's also Hollywood. It is very,
Speaker 1: very rarely merit based. It is absolutely who you know
Speaker 1: and who you're physically or figuratively in bed with. So
Speaker 1: I don't think he should be necessarily in prison for
Speaker 1: this again, unless it's illegal. I don't know. If it's
Speaker 1: illegal to sleep your way to the top, then I
Speaker 1: have a lot of problems with a lot of professionals
Speaker 1: that I personally know. That's all I'm going to say.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so canas Owens is uh And I could
Speaker 1: see the argument saying that this is her kind of
Speaker 1: going against the anti Semite role. But and Royce helped
Speaker 1: me out here. I don't believe Harvey Weinstein is the
Speaker 1: most menchest guy who's ever lived. Probably not. I would
Speaker 1: think he's more of the Jewish by blood, not really
Speaker 1: out there reciting the torah at at every opportunity. I
Speaker 1: could be so wrong, and he's like the most devoutest
Speaker 1: Jewish jew that ever lived. I could be wrong, but
Speaker 1: I just don't get that vibe.
Speaker 6: I mean, he doesn't exactly where Yama goes.
Speaker 1: So I don't even know if he does or doesn't.
Speaker 1: Gonna be honest with.
Speaker 4: You, and I don't believe I've never seen anyone where
Speaker 4: he's learning.
Speaker 2: I don't know what happens if he walks into a synagogue.
Speaker 4: But I mean, as far as religious, I mean, not
Speaker 4: exactly such mention.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so that being said, if Candace is trying
Speaker 1: to show how she is totally not a Zionist, or
Speaker 1: she is an anti Semite, or either way this goes,
Speaker 1: I feel like you could choose a better example than Weinstein.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I do believe what she's saying about
Speaker 1: Macrone and his husband, right, slash whatever you want to
Speaker 1: call Brigitte specifically, because if what she was saying was
Speaker 1: a false, it was a fallacy, was incorrect, they could
Speaker 1: sue the shit out of her for defamation and they can't.
Speaker 1: If they could have, they would have, and they can't.
Speaker 1: I think that actually gives more credence to the facts
Speaker 1: on this one. And I'm sorry, Brigitte is a very
Speaker 1: handsome broad. I just yeah. And then did y'all see
Speaker 1: the hit that I want to say, the hit the
Speaker 1: double hand smoosh of of Emmanuel's face the other day
Speaker 1: on the plane. Yeah, oh my god, talk about emasculating.
Speaker 1: And then like after this whoosh and he looks at
Speaker 1: the cameras like, oh hey, like he didn't know cameras
Speaker 1: are right there. Like that, dude, I would rather an
Speaker 1: open hand slap than a double hand smoosh on the cameras, Like, oh, bro,
Speaker 1: that's that's just humiliating. You just got smoothed by your dad.
Speaker 1: Although at a certain point, could this be also listed
Speaker 1: as child abuse if that's his dad or slash uncle,
Speaker 1: slash whatever, just saying it could be. Yeah. So Candace's
Speaker 1: candas is doing canvas things, and she's bringing a lot
Speaker 1: of things to light. What I do know about her
Speaker 1: is that the media is terrified of her and no
Speaker 1: one wants to be in her crossairs because of how
Speaker 1: she is with her due diligence on topics. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that she never misses. I'm saying I have yet
Speaker 1: to see her miss and I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1: So until further notice, I think Brigitte's got a dick
Speaker 1: and until further notice, I do kind of see the
Speaker 1: argument saying that Harvey shouldn't be in prison for sexual assault,
Speaker 1: he should be in prison for being a discussing human being.
Speaker 1: But I don't think it's illegal to be a discussing
Speaker 1: human being. I don't know, That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 6: But you know how we talked a wile ago about
Speaker 6: how Jerry Sandusky is inno sense mm hm, Well, there
Speaker 6: hasn't been too much progress on this yet, but a
Speaker 6: lot of the Jerry Sandusky innocent people are trying to
Speaker 6: get Candae Ownes attention, thinking, hey, I feel defend Harvey Weinstein.
Speaker 6: Why don't you defend somebody who's actually completely innocent, Because
Speaker 6: that is the case for Sandusky, and he was just
Speaker 6: very naive and didn't even put up a legal defense
Speaker 6: for himself. And it's very tragic. He's eighty something, he's
Speaker 6: eighty one years old now, and he's still stuck in prison.
Speaker 6: But he's still married and the prisoners are convinced of
Speaker 6: his innocence. Normally pedophiles get murdered in prison or at
Speaker 6: least severely injured and abused, but he's convinced all of
Speaker 6: his fellow inmates that he's innocent.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you get locked up and you have a
Speaker 1: jacket on your profile, that's that's what it's called. When
Speaker 1: you have like that extra thing on it, you don't
Speaker 1: last long either. Ay, they use you repeatedly, and not
Speaker 1: just for not just for for sexual things, but also
Speaker 1: just for beat downs, for stabbings, for whatever, and they'll
Speaker 1: make your life a living hell until they decide to
Speaker 1: get rid of you. But if he's able to convince
Speaker 1: the entire prison that he is innocent with a jacket
Speaker 1: on his folder, like, that's that's I don't think people
Speaker 1: fully grasp how big of us of a pole that is.
Speaker 1: That's pretty large, So I don't know. Hopefully Candiszons can
Speaker 1: take a little bit of a notice onto Sanduski and
Speaker 1: maybe bring some things to light about them. One can
Speaker 1: only hope. Uh, all right, let me check the chat here.
Speaker 1: Raven Lee has sent something in here. This is interesting.
Speaker 1: A new planet with signs of life, Neptara nine. I
Speaker 1: heard something about this briefly, but I haven't seen much.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Imagine a planet with lakes and ocean surrounding it,
Speaker 1: covered in blue colored forests. In January twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: NASA announced the discovery of Neptura nine, a planet located
Speaker 1: in the habitable zone of earthsa major galaxy. Using advanced
Speaker 1: spectroscopic imaging, scientists analyzing the or analyzed the planet's atmosphere
Speaker 1: and discovered that it contains a level of oxygen comparable
Speaker 1: with that of Earth millions of years ago. Wow. What
Speaker 1: makes this planet unique is its massive mountainous terrain covered
Speaker 1: in light reflecting materials, indicating the presence of rare minerals.
Speaker 2: According to scientists, this environment may.
Speaker 1: Support primitive life forms or even advanced organisms. Scientists have
Speaker 1: already begun to develop plans to explore the planet using
Speaker 1: advanced probes set to launch within the next decade. This
Speaker 1: discovery of Neptura nine provides provides new insights into the
Speaker 1: possibility of a life elsewhere in the universe, expanding our
Speaker 1: understanding of Earth like planets. I love it. I absolutely
Speaker 1: love it. I've never in my entire life, even as
Speaker 1: a small child, believed that we were the only planet
Speaker 1: that had life on it, maybe the only one in
Speaker 1: our solar system. And I put a maybe on that.
Speaker 1: But oh man, but that's that's the other thing too.
Speaker 1: I have no idea how long it would take for
Speaker 1: any kind of scientific probe to get from us to
Speaker 1: the earthsa major galaxy like It's gotta be longer than
Speaker 1: a few decades unless we can develop.
Speaker 2: More efficient space travel.
Speaker 1: I don't know. And that kind of leads back to
Speaker 1: the whole launch pad thing in space. So, from my understanding,
Speaker 1: the hardest part about getting a human, a rocket or
Speaker 1: whatever from Earth's surface into space is breaking through the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: Once you're out there, there's no real resistance, and the
Speaker 1: problem is most of your fuel has been burned, if
Speaker 1: not all your fuel has been burned to get you
Speaker 1: through the atmosphere in the first place. So, and I've
Speaker 1: brought this up before for anybody who is new to
Speaker 1: listening to the Cage to Night, quick backstory here. I
Speaker 1: once had some friends who were a rocket scientist, and
Speaker 1: one of the guys actually helped build the SpaceX rockets. Okay,
Speaker 1: they were operating out of Stennis Air Force Base. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, there's a big it's like a
Speaker 1: research lab for rocketing out that way too. It's on
Speaker 1: the border of Mississippi and Louisiana and They were saying
Speaker 1: that Musk's big pull was that he was trying to
Speaker 1: get to Mars because Mars has crystallized methanol all over
Speaker 1: the planet. Methanol, for anybody who doesn't know, is very
Speaker 1: comparable to ethanol in the fact that it is a
Speaker 1: hydrocarbon that is used as a fuel replacement the same
Speaker 1: way that you know, we use ethanol on in America
Speaker 1: as far as like you know, it's corn based fuel replacement.
Speaker 1: In China, they use methanol. It's also called LNG liquid
Speaker 1: natural gas. It's it's condensed natural gas, but it's crystallized
Speaker 1: in space because it is so cold there that it's frozen.
Speaker 1: The theory as of this moment moment is that Musk
Speaker 1: is trying to get to Mars so that he can
Speaker 1: process this methanol and turn it into a fuel source
Speaker 1: that he can use Mars as a launching platform to
Speaker 1: explore space. Essentially, if you can get through Earth's atmosphere
Speaker 1: and set up a base of operations, you set up
Speaker 1: a refining site, and then you set up a rocket
Speaker 1: building facility.
Speaker 2: Now I'm sure I.
Speaker 1: Don't know to what level and extent you'd have to
Speaker 1: have logistics all mapped out here. You have to be
Speaker 1: able to get all the materials to Mars. It's not
Speaker 1: like you're going there to start a mining operation to
Speaker 1: find iron ore to make the steel and make the
Speaker 1: aluminum for the rockets. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm not that guy.
Speaker 1: All I'm saying is that the big picture plan is
Speaker 1: to set up an entire community. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say a whole society, although there's people that speculate this
Speaker 1: an entire community and refinement center on Mars to turn
Speaker 1: this crystallized methanol into an actual fuel source for the rockets,
Speaker 1: and they'll be able to launch straight from Mars surface
Speaker 1: to wherever they want, and they'll have so much fuel
Speaker 1: to use because they won't have to worry about getting
Speaker 1: through the atmosphere. Now, as China is talking about building
Speaker 1: this facility on the dark side of the Moon and
Speaker 1: they're trying to source H three from the back side
Speaker 1: of the Moon, I'm wondering if that's also their plan.
Speaker 1: Because on Earth we have different kinds of laws than space.
Speaker 1: There's not many laws when it comes to space because
Speaker 1: no one's really got out there and started claiming things
Speaker 1: for themselves. But it is a very real possibility that
Speaker 1: whoever gets to Mars first gets exclusive rights to whatever's
Speaker 1: on Mars and or could claim the planet for themselves.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that that's what's gonna happen. I'm saying
Speaker 1: it's a possibility. If China gets to the to the
Speaker 1: Moon and starts processing this H three and they use
Speaker 1: that as a jumping platform to get to Mars before
Speaker 1: Elon does, China will now have a monopoly on the
Speaker 1: methanol crystals, therefore a monopoly on the entire planet. They
Speaker 1: can claim it as their territory, and space could absolutely
Speaker 1: become a war fighting front if someone else tries to
Speaker 1: land on Mars. Now, adversely, if America lands there first,
Speaker 1: we could do hypothetically the same thing, depending on whoever
Speaker 1: is in the White House at that time, they could
Speaker 1: claim the entirety of Mars as American territory and set
Speaker 1: up a defensive posture in that way. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that they would do that, I'm saying there's a greater
Speaker 1: than zero percent chance of it.
Speaker 2: So with that being said, I don't know how this.
Speaker 1: Future is gonna shake out, But if either of these groups,
Speaker 1: I know Musk is trying to basically privatize and monopolize
Speaker 1: space exploration for himself.
Speaker 2: I'm not mad at it.
Speaker 1: I get it. I don't think it'll really work out
Speaker 1: that way, but I mean points for effort here. China is,
Speaker 1: of course trying to do what they can to secure
Speaker 1: their future in whatever that may look like for them.
Speaker 2: If this was to go down.
Speaker 1: And it becomes a war between because there's already a
Speaker 1: war going on between Musk and China for data on Earth,
Speaker 1: if it becomes a space war between Musk and China
Speaker 1: for space resources, I don't even know if they have enough.
Speaker 1: This is the stuff the movies are made out of.
Speaker 1: I absolutely love it. I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: The future is a weird place. I'm excited to get there,
Speaker 1: but also kind of trepidacious to some of the things
Speaker 1: we will see. If Nepturnah nine can be explored, hopefully
Speaker 1: in our lifetime, that would be sick again. I have
Speaker 1: no idea how many white years away. You know what,
Speaker 1: I'm going to google that.
Speaker 9: The buzz about Neptarah nine. Scientists just discovered this new
Speaker 9: planet and it's unlike anything we've seen. Picture this swirling
Speaker 9: clouds of vibrant colors, liquid oceans, and a mysterious atmosphere.
Speaker 9: But here's the kicker. Some researchers believe it might actually
Speaker 9: support life. Imagine alien creatures thriving in a world we've
Speaker 9: never known. It's about twenty light years away, and with
Speaker 9: advanced telescopes, we're getting closer to uncovering its secrets. Is
Speaker 9: there life on Neptarah nine. Only time will tell, but
Speaker 9: the possibilities are mind blowing. Keep your eyes on the stars.
Speaker 2: Twenty light years away. Holy shit. Okay, let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and watch.
Speaker 1: This one here, because it seems a little more In.
Speaker 7: The vast expanse of the earthsa major constellation, NASA has
Speaker 7: unveiled the world that could rewrite our understanding of life
Speaker 7: in the cosmos. Meet NEPTARH nine, and earth sized planet
Speaker 7: cooked in blue forests and towering mountains that shimmer like diamonds.
Speaker 7: Discovered in January twenty twenty five, this alien world is
Speaker 7: already challenging everything we thought we knew about habitable planets.
Speaker 7: One the discovery, using next gen spectroscopic tech, NASI detected
Speaker 7: an oxygen rich atmosphere on Neptar nine to twenty one
Speaker 7: percent oh matching Earth's levels to point five billion years ago.
Speaker 7: But here's the twist. Hubble's successor, the UVE ex orbiter
Speaker 7: spotted eerie light finger print sugis vast force reflecting blue wavelengths.
Speaker 7: Unlike Earth's chlorophyll, these alien plants might use retinal like
Speaker 7: pigments to harness starlight. In doctor Kaltenegger's word oxygen alone
Speaker 7: in proof of life on Earth, it took two billion
Speaker 7: years for photosynthesis to fill our skies, but Neptar's oxygen
Speaker 7: persists without detectable CO or methane, a puzzle that could
Speaker 7: hint at biology two. The planet's secrets. Neptar's mountains are
Speaker 7: laced with hyperflective minerals, possibly bore on nitride or exotic ices.
Speaker 7: These peaks act like cosmic mirrors, bouncing starlight into valleys
Speaker 7: where blue trees thrive. But how Theory one, the forests
Speaker 7: absorb v light for energy, emitting blue via fluorescence like
Speaker 7: deep sea corals. Theory two, the foliage uses metallic compounds
Speaker 7: to survive brutal solar flares from Neptar's active en dwarf star,
Speaker 7: unlike hot jupiters losing atmospheres to space Neptar's gravity and
Speaker 7: cool starshield its air a rare stable oasis three The
Speaker 7: Hunt for life. In twenty thirty one, NASA's Stellar's Probe
Speaker 7: will launch to study Neptar's air for biosignatures like methyl
Speaker 7: chlorida gas. Microbes emit, but skeptics worn supervolcanos could also
Speaker 7: pump out out the key finding methane spikes alongside at
Speaker 7: a combo. Only light makes sustainably. In doctor avilobe Astrobiologist's word,
Speaker 7: If Neptarah's forests are real, they dwarf Earth's biosphere. Imagine
Speaker 7: organisms with silicon based blood or liquid methane rivers. This
Speaker 7: isn't science fiction for alien evolution? Could life here look
Speaker 7: anything like us on Earth? Extremophiles thrive in acid and
Speaker 7: boiling vents on Neptara. Maybe trees draw nutrients from metallic soil,
Speaker 7: and creatures navigate using magnetic fields from those radiant peaks
Speaker 7: Lessons from Earth's past. Oxygen surged here only after microbes
Speaker 7: hijacked the air. Neptara's story might be playing out live
Speaker 7: a baby biosphere. We're glimpsing in real time. So NEPTARH
Speaker 7: nine isn't just a planet. It's a question are we
Speaker 7: alone unique or us one note in a galactic symphony
Speaker 7: of life while we wait for answers. Look up tonight
Speaker 7: that faint blue dot in URSA major it's streaming forests.
Speaker 7: Hit subscribe the stone.
Speaker 1: Okay, so they're talking about it being twenty light years away.
Speaker 1: I have no idea how they expect to get there
Speaker 1: in any kind of real time to be able to
Speaker 1: send a probe now. Yeah, like they were talking about
Speaker 1: using like, uh, spectroscopy in light to see what the
Speaker 1: atmosphere might be made out of and things like that
Speaker 1: with you one hundred percent, I have no idea how
Speaker 1: they plan on getting there, if they ever actually do
Speaker 1: plan on sending something there.
Speaker 2: That is insane. That is insane, but also like how
Speaker 2: there's questions about.
Speaker 1: If like the trees there or their version of trees
Speaker 1: there might be using metallic soil for nutrients and life
Speaker 1: forms there, use magnetism to navigate the terrain, methyl rivers.
Speaker 2: Silicon based blood.
Speaker 1: That's insane to me, so pretty incredible.
Speaker 2: I would love to see bat blood. Wait, what is
Speaker 2: this bat blood?
Speaker 1: They're working with it to change our blood to be
Speaker 1: able to do hyperspace and chronosleep to make those trips.
Speaker 1: I've heard stories that they're trying to use different types
Speaker 1: of blood to try to change the DNA sequence to
Speaker 1: where we could go into basically hibernation. But even still,
Speaker 1: by the time that let's say we were to spend
Speaker 1: a sind excuse and not spend by the time we
Speaker 1: were to send astronauts or explorers or whatever to that
Speaker 1: planet twenty light years, we don't have the ability to
Speaker 1: travel at the speed of light, So we're talking about
Speaker 1: hundreds thousands of years, depending on what the engineering of
Speaker 1: our craft will be able to accomplish at that time.
Speaker 1: There's no way, as of our current understanding of technology
Speaker 1: to even get them there and send them back. If
Speaker 1: it was to send a human being, to send a
Speaker 1: satellite or something like that, maybe, But I mean, hell,
Speaker 1: the one that we sent out that's approaching Jupiter kind
Speaker 1: of well, I say, approaching Jupiter. It's slowly approaching Jupiter
Speaker 1: that got sent out how many years back, and it's
Speaker 1: only taken that long to slowly drift out that way.
Speaker 1: You know. Oh, Ravenly has sent another article. Let's check
Speaker 1: this one out. Wow, all right, yep, I'm gonna to
Speaker 1: share this Green on this one again. Let's go wow,
Speaker 1: wow wow.
Speaker 2: This is for an interesting engineering dot com Interstellar dreams.
Speaker 1: Batblood may enable human hibernation for long space travel. Thus
Speaker 1: hibernation could become essential for futures get out of here ad. Thus,
Speaker 1: hibernation could become essential for future space missions, enabling astronauts
Speaker 1: to sleep through the long stretches of travel time. As
Speaker 1: humanity dreams of becoming a starfaring civilization, the challenges of
Speaker 1: long duration space travel loom large. One potential solution to
Speaker 1: this challenge is hibernation, which scientists believe could help astronauts
Speaker 1: endure long journeys between stars. NASA has been investigating this
Speaker 1: idea for years, even studying the hibernation patterns of Arctic
Speaker 1: ground squirrels. That's pretty funny. Whenever I think of Arctic
Speaker 1: ground squirrel, all I can think of his ice age.
Speaker 1: That's just me. However, recent research from a team in
Speaker 1: Germany led by Gerald Kerth at University of Graftswald has
Speaker 1: focused on bats for insight into effective hibernation. Now, before
Speaker 1: I read any further, is there any connection between the
Speaker 1: study that this lab is doing with bats and the
Speaker 1: story of COVID being associated with bat meat being eaten
Speaker 1: by people in Asia and China and Wuhan, and that's
Speaker 1: what started it all. I'm not saying there's confirmed for sure.
Speaker 1: I'm saying it's an interesting thing to just point out anyway.
Speaker 1: Moving on, the study published in the journal Proceedings of
Speaker 1: the National Academy of Sciences, explores the role of erethoscites,
Speaker 1: a specific type of red blood cell, in the hibernation process.
Speaker 1: Hibernation is a crucial biological strategy for many mammals, allowing
Speaker 1: them to conserve energy and survive in the face of
Speaker 1: scarce scarce resources. If humanity is to travel to its
Speaker 1: neighboring stars, such as Proxima Centuri, which is four point
Speaker 1: two four light years away, it must contend with the
Speaker 1: reality that even a near light speed such journey could
Speaker 1: take decades right exactly. Thus, hibernation could become essential for
Speaker 1: future space missions, enabling astronauts to sleep through the long
Speaker 1: stretches of travel time. Kerth and his research team conducted
Speaker 1: extensive analysis on the ethractes from both hibernating bats specifically
Speaker 1: Nictalis nocturla noctila sure and non hibernating bats not going
Speaker 1: to try to pronounce that Latin as well as human
Speaker 1: blood samples. Understanding how these blood cells adapt during hibernation
Speaker 1: is vital, as hibernating animals still require a functioning blood
Speaker 1: supply to deliver oxygen to their tissues even as their
Speaker 1: body temperature drops significantly. Now bat blood, the research team
Speaker 1: noted that blood cells alter their shape in response to
Speaker 1: changes in pressure and blood vessel size. This prompted them
Speaker 1: to investigate whether the extreme conditions during hibernation might also
Speaker 1: trigger changes in blood cells. What they discovered was compelling.
Speaker 1: As internal temperatures of the hibernating species fell from ninety
Speaker 1: nine degrees fahrenheit to about seventy three degrees fahrenheit, the
Speaker 1: structure of ethractes across all species examined significantly transformed. The
Speaker 1: cells became less elastic and more viscous, indicating physiological adaptation
Speaker 1: to conserve energy and cold conditions. Interestingly, the study revealed
Speaker 1: a significant distinction. While bat erythiscites continue to transform as
Speaker 1: temperatures plunged to fifty degrees fahrenheit, the human blood cells
Speaker 1: stalled in their response at lower temperatures. This suggests that
Speaker 1: bats possess unique adaptations that enable them to withstand extreme cold,
Speaker 1: a trait that could be harnessed for potential human application.
Speaker 2: Now, human hibernation.
Speaker 1: While applying hibernation techniques to space travel is a long
Speaker 1: term goal, the immediate implications of this research could be revolutionary.
Speaker 1: In medicine, Scientists believe that understanding how to manipulate the
Speaker 1: mechanical properties of human blood cells could optimize circulation for
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical purposes. Of course, they do current surgical techniques such
Speaker 1: as deep hypothermic circulatory arrests DHCA already utilized controlled hypothermia
Speaker 1: to stop brain function during complex surgeries temporarily. Kirth highlighted
Speaker 1: the importance of this research, indicating that while the prospect
Speaker 1: of hibernation for human is not just around the corner,
Speaker 1: the findings represent a significant step forward. There are benefits
Speaker 1: of putting humans in low temperature during interstellar flight, he stated,
Speaker 1: emphasizing the researcher's long term potential. Ultimately, this study illustrates
Speaker 1: the profound insights of the animal kingdom can offer about
Speaker 1: survival strategies and physiological adaptations. By learning from bats hibernating abilities,
Speaker 1: scientists may pave the way for humans to traverse the
Speaker 1: cosmos in the future, hibernation may become a crucial aspect
Speaker 1: of interstellar exploration. That is pretty fascinating. I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 1: I think we get the gist of it. Though they're
Speaker 1: trying to use bat blood to rewrite the DNA and
Speaker 1: genetic code and humans to where hibernation could become a thing.
Speaker 1: I'm not the biggest fan of DNA sequence splicing as
Speaker 1: far as the humanity is concerned. I'm also speaking completely
Speaker 1: out of ignorance on that there may absolutely these secrets
Speaker 1: to unlocking immortality and doing this. I just I don't
Speaker 1: believe the human body was meant to last more than
Speaker 1: one hundred to one hundred and twenty years, like in general.
Speaker 2: Yes, there's exceptions to that rule, but on average.
Speaker 1: My god. But let's say you were to induce some
Speaker 1: sort of a hibernation state and that most closely connected
Speaker 1: spot they were talking about four point two light years away,
Speaker 1: We're still talking about decades to make that journey. That
Speaker 1: is a lot. That is a far cry from twenty
Speaker 1: light years away to get to this potentially life sustaining planet.
Speaker 1: And also because of that whole theory, well not theory,
Speaker 1: it's understood fact that like, the light that we're seeing
Speaker 1: from these stars is x amount of light years old. Right,
Speaker 1: we are currently looking up at a star and we're
Speaker 1: seeing the light from it, but that light might be
Speaker 1: two hundred light years old. And even if you were
Speaker 1: to go to that planet now, who's to say they
Speaker 1: even exists anymore, or that whatever was creating the light
Speaker 1: is still doing so. Right, how many of these stars
Speaker 1: have burned out but we're still seeing the light from
Speaker 1: them before they burned out. Things like that. So, from
Speaker 1: what they're reading about this planet that might sustain life currently,
Speaker 1: what's to say that they don't have life currently there,
Speaker 1: but by the time we make it there, they've ruined
Speaker 1: that life. The inhabitants of the planet have had something
Speaker 1: catastrophic happened, and they ruined the evolutionary sequence for themselves.
Speaker 1: What's to say that they don't also advance in a
Speaker 1: very much human esque type of way, and by the
Speaker 1: time we get there, they are what we are now.
Speaker 1: I mean, who's to say, right, it's all super hypothetical
Speaker 1: and super up to conjecture, But I find it interesting
Speaker 1: that they are trying to do more to have space
Speaker 1: exploration happen. With that being said, kind of a callback
Speaker 1: to earlier in the episode. China is saying that America
Speaker 1: is turning space into a war fighting front, which is
Speaker 1: specifically what Trump was trying to do when he created
Speaker 1: the Space Force. So I don't know why they are.
Speaker 2: Taking that stance of opposition now.
Speaker 1: And if any of y'all have any theories on this one,
Speaker 1: please let please share it with the class, because I
Speaker 1: don't get it. How would us having a better defensive
Speaker 1: posture for our shores, our coast, our country. How would
Speaker 1: that make China feel like like they are under attack.
Speaker 1: They're saying that this is an offensive step. How is
Speaker 1: having a better shield taking an offensive step. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that this is obviously China trying to Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: getting in the way of them attacking America. I don't
Speaker 1: believe that that's the case. Here. They're saying that it's
Speaker 1: no longer equal, that this tips the scales of mutually
Speaker 1: assured destruction, which yeah, I mean not necessarily. It makes
Speaker 1: it to where nobody can attack us even if they
Speaker 1: wanted to. Tony, go ahead and chime in on this one, brother. Yeah.
Speaker 6: The reason for this is it goes back to forty
Speaker 6: years ago with the Cold War, and even defensive measures
Speaker 6: like the star Wars program were seen as tipping the
Speaker 6: overall balance of power too much in favor to one side.
Speaker 6: So the idea is that would make the side with
Speaker 6: a better defensive capability have an itchier trigger finger because
Speaker 6: they think they can get away with a first strike,
Speaker 6: for example, with faster weapons. This is just the argument, yeah,
Speaker 6: and you know the counter argument is, well, it's just defensive,
Speaker 6: you know, stop complaining.
Speaker 1: I I hear what you're saying, and I mean, like
Speaker 1: you're playing Devil's advocate. Now. I get that, like this
Speaker 1: is in Tony's opinion, but I don't understand how that
Speaker 1: would make anybody have necessarily an itchier trigger finger. I mean,
Speaker 1: Israel's been a nuclear power for quite some time and
Speaker 1: they have an iron dome. They have yet to drop
Speaker 1: nukes on anybody. I don't know. I think that at
Speaker 1: this point, China is not exactly the biggest fans of
Speaker 1: America and specifically Trump, So anything Trump tries to do
Speaker 1: China is just going to have something to say in
Speaker 1: retort against it. Possibly, I don't know.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's just an overall reason to say, hey, we
Speaker 6: don't want you to do that, But you know, I
Speaker 6: am more, I am kind of in favor of people
Speaker 6: having missile defense shields, even if it does provoke a
Speaker 6: race to more missile defense shields worldwide. You know, why
Speaker 6: can't China and Russia develop their own missile defense shield?
Speaker 6: I think they could probably do it if we can
Speaker 6: do it.
Speaker 1: There's literally nothing stopping them from doing that, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: And granted, Israel is give or take the size of
Speaker 1: New Jersey, if I'm not mistaken, So it's a lot
Speaker 1: easier and a lot more logistically. Is it's not so
Speaker 1: much of a feat to put an iron dome in
Speaker 1: that type of land mass. China, Russia, the United States
Speaker 1: we are massive countries with a lot of acreage, and
Speaker 1: so it's more of a logistical nightmare to try to
Speaker 1: implement a system like this. But to your point, there's
Speaker 1: nothing preventing China from creating their own version of the
Speaker 1: Golden Dome or Russia from doing the same if they
Speaker 1: don't have the logistical capabilities or the weapons to like
Speaker 1: the rockets. If you will to do that, then that's
Speaker 1: a dumb problem.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know. Maybe you're right, Maybe
Speaker 2: this will lead to.
Speaker 1: Some sort of a shield weapons race, which it sounds
Speaker 1: like it's good for the military industrial complex, which is
Speaker 1: good for the money.
Speaker 2: So I'm not mad at this at the moment, but
Speaker 2: I find it.
Speaker 1: I still find it interesting that China is the only
Speaker 1: country that stepped up to say something negative against it.
Speaker 1: So I don't know the tear if war got agreed
Speaker 1: upon between the United States and China.
Speaker 6: Correct if there's a ninety day pause where the tariff
Speaker 6: got brought down from one hundred and forty five percent
Speaker 6: to thirty percent and shipping traffic is being booked at
Speaker 6: three hundred percent of normal because so many people are
Speaker 6: trying to get stuff into the US right now.
Speaker 2: Very true, So there's a pause on it right now.
Speaker 1: But in your line of thinking, do you believe she
Speaker 1: is going to come to the agreement table they're going
Speaker 1: to be able to strike a deal here, or do
Speaker 1: you think that it's going to become a pissing match
Speaker 1: in a couple of months.
Speaker 6: Well, I don't think Hijiping is going to budge, and
Speaker 6: I think, well he might. He might budge just a
Speaker 6: little bit, but most of the budget is going to
Speaker 6: be on the US side, That's my opinion.
Speaker 1: You mean like, oh, yeah, they're not gonna I doubt
Speaker 1: they'll go back to one hundred and forty five percent
Speaker 1: or whatever.
Speaker 6: It is, or will go back. Yeah, we're not going
Speaker 6: to go back.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't see that happening.
Speaker 1: But I also don't know if America is going to
Speaker 1: come down from thirty. I don't know.
Speaker 6: I haven't paid enough attention, and this isn't my main issue,
Speaker 6: but yeah, you know, I well, some of them were
Speaker 6: in favor of high tariffs. The Confederacy was in favor
Speaker 6: of lower tariffs. Tariffs almost provoked the secession of several
Speaker 6: states before the Civil War, even decades before it. And
Speaker 6: I don't believe tariffs made America great in the late
Speaker 6: eighteen hundreds. But this is an almost religious topic for
Speaker 6: some people who dogmatically believed that of course they did,
Speaker 6: or of course they didn't, and I think they probably didn't.
Speaker 1: I will say that we didn't have the IRS until
Speaker 1: it was like nineteen thirteen or nineteen seventeen, whenever Wilson
Speaker 1: repealed the.
Speaker 2: When Wilson repealed.
Speaker 1: The tariffs and implement into the IRS. And I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that's the other thing too. We actually on the
Speaker 1: cult to Conspiracy. The episodes that are going to be
Speaker 1: dropping soon for for everybody on Patreon, they've already seen them,
Speaker 1: well two of the three anyway.
Speaker 2: The Tavistock Institute, if.
Speaker 1: We are to believe that rabbit hole in that trail
Speaker 1: of thinking, are the reason why America pulled away from
Speaker 1: tariffs and implemented the irs. Up until that point, we
Speaker 1: had no income tax and we were able to sustain
Speaker 1: and operate pretty well. I would say that we entered
Speaker 1: our golden age while tariffs were still in effect. Now
Speaker 1: we went to peak golden age after World War Two.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of reasons for that. We were the
Speaker 1: only ones that weren't bombed the hell out of and
Speaker 1: had all the manufacturing capabilities. I get that. But that
Speaker 1: being said, I'm I'm in favor of tariffs. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's going to save America. I think it could
Speaker 1: potentially lessen the burden of the American taxpayer. But that
Speaker 1: is kind of a double edged sword because that is
Speaker 1: under the assumption that the politicians in power will start
Speaker 1: to remove certain tax laws from the American working class.
Speaker 1: I have a hard time believing that they won't just
Speaker 1: double dip and make even more money. That's my only thing,
Speaker 1: and in the process screw the middle class even further.
Speaker 1: I have hopes, but I also am a bit of
Speaker 1: a realist in certain regards to this too. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Another major source of tax revenue way back in the
Speaker 6: old days or the good old days, was alcohol, even
Speaker 6: though there was a lot of alcoholism, but people were
Speaker 6: not generally. The first tales tax only went into effect
Speaker 6: in nineteen thirty five, and that didn't spread the most
Speaker 6: states until a couple decades after that. Income taxes weren't
Speaker 6: around until well, first Civil War, then something like nineteen thirteen,
Speaker 6: and then they were really small back then. But it's
Speaker 6: it's hard to overstate just how much taxation has changed
Speaker 6: back then, and just how hard it would be to
Speaker 6: go all the way back to that point, even though
Speaker 6: the welfare state would be a lot smaller, and I
Speaker 6: would totally welcome that. There was no payroll tax until
Speaker 6: obviously nineteen thirty five, and it was only two percent
Speaker 6: at that time, and now it's twelve point four percent
Speaker 6: or fifteen point three depending if you include Medicaid. So
Speaker 6: we're just really, we're so far down the path it's
Speaker 6: too hard to go back, even though I wish we could.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that it's not too far, too like, too little,
Speaker 1: too late. I'm hoping. I'm with you that I think
Speaker 1: it's probably more of a foregone conclusion. I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, right. I'm hoping that people that are way
Speaker 1: smarter as far as economics and numbers and money is concerned,
Speaker 1: will be able to make this a reality that we
Speaker 1: can benefit from and the next generations can benefit from
Speaker 1: as well. I just I have a hard time not
Speaker 1: being a pessimist when it comes to stuff like this.
Speaker 1: Everybody wants change until it's time for the change, and
Speaker 1: then it's like, oh, just don't rock the boat. Just
Speaker 1: don't do too much, don't do that. And I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that's going to or is not going to happen.
Speaker 1: I just I have hopes, not a lot of them
Speaker 1: at this point. I don't know. I don't know if
Speaker 1: all these tariffs do come through to fruition as Trump
Speaker 1: is hoping, and if they were. There was a thought
Speaker 1: that was proposed a couple of weeks ago. I heard
Speaker 1: anybody making under one hundred and fifty k a year
Speaker 1: will have no more income tax.
Speaker 2: That sounds great on the surface.
Speaker 1: That's also the vast majority of the taxpayers, meaning that
Speaker 1: that is a lot of revenue being lost by Uncle Sam.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they plan on tariffs replacing that
Speaker 1: hard of a hit. Is it possible, Probably, but I
Speaker 1: am not smart enough or wise enough to understand and
Speaker 1: how that would work to that scale. Now, the other
Speaker 1: side of that, and I have heard many economists say this,
Speaker 1: if you were to do away with all income tax
Speaker 1: just hypothetical, right right now, all income taxes are gone,
Speaker 1: and you instead put a fifteen percent sales tax on
Speaker 1: every single thing car, house, gas, milk, and bread, doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Everything has a fifteen percent tax on it. Five percent
Speaker 1: goes to the state, ten percent goes to the nation
Speaker 1: or to the federal. I should say we would actually
Speaker 1: have more revenue at the end of the year to
Speaker 1: do things with, but I know there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people that will have an issue with that one as well.
Speaker 1: It's by the numbers that also works, But we're talking
Speaker 1: about completely dissolving the irs and our entire tax system,
Speaker 1: which is massive. So it's one of those things that's
Speaker 1: like it's a great idea, but I just don't ever
Speaker 1: see it happening. I don't know. I don't know, all right, everybody,
Speaker 1: I think we are going to wrap up this episode
Speaker 1: of The Cajun Night Live. As always, I want to
Speaker 1: thank everybody for coming out and being a part of this. Again,
Speaker 1: for anybody who is listening to this on Thursday who
Speaker 1: would like to be a part of the conversation next
Speaker 1: weekend all Wednesday nights at nine pm Central, go to
Speaker 1: the link below. Cajun Night on Patreon. There's only one tier.
Speaker 1: It's five dollars a month to be a part of
Speaker 1: it and join in. All the videos for the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night are also posted there as well. And again I
Speaker 1: want to thank everybody for being a part of this
Speaker 1: with me and growing this into what it is becoming.
Speaker 1: Until next time, everybody, God bless