Speaker 1: War will visit us here on the continent. The world
Speaker 1: has changed. There is no long term national strategy to
Speaker 1: deal with anything.
Speaker 2: In the Ukraine conflict, maybe the US was sort of
Speaker 2: exposed as being a little bit incompetent or behind what
Speaker 2: the Russian military was.
Speaker 1: Russia has won. One point eight million Ukrainians in uniform
Speaker 1: are dead.
Speaker 2: Terrible.
Speaker 1: Russia will determine what Ukraine looks like beyond the Polish border.
Speaker 2: The most heinoused evil type of crime that you could
Speaker 2: even imagine.
Speaker 1: Are we going to admit that our drug problem is
Speaker 1: here in the United States.
Speaker 2: It's a serious conversation that needs to be have.
Speaker 1: The average African warlord cares more about the people he
Speaker 1: leads in Central Africa than most of the senators and
Speaker 1: congressmen care about us. You may not have a job
Speaker 1: here anymore. Things are about to change, you know, we
Speaker 1: went through this before it was called the Civil War.
Speaker 2: We're living through the biggest global power shifts since World
Speaker 2: War II, and most Americans don't even see it yet.
Speaker 2: Now the rest of the world does. We see nations realigning.
Speaker 2: Old alliances are cracking. The US is stretched thin in China, Russia,
Speaker 2: and the global South they're all moving into the vacuum. Now,
Speaker 2: the question that every investor, every entrepreneur, every family should
Speaker 2: be asking is what comes next? Because whatever this new
Speaker 2: world looks like, your wealth, your freedom, and your future
Speaker 2: is going to be shaped by it. So today we're
Speaker 2: going to be joined by somebody who's been warning about
Speaker 2: this moment long before it hit headlines. I'm talking about
Speaker 2: Colonel Doug McGregor. He's a career Army officer, military strategist.
Speaker 2: He's someone who's not afraid to tell the truth, no
Speaker 2: matter how uncomfortable it is. We're going to talk about
Speaker 2: NATO Ukraine. We're going to talk about Venezuela, China, the
Speaker 2: collapse of American influence. We'll talk about the global power
Speaker 2: realignment that's already underway, and most importantly, what it means
Speaker 2: for you. So let's get into it. Colonel, you've openly
Speaker 2: talked about the US being financially exhausted right now, right now,
Speaker 2: you know, thirty eight trillion dollars in debt and rising,
Speaker 2: rising global commitments. What typically happens when an empire expands
Speaker 2: while it's balance sheet collapses, Well.
Speaker 1: Eventually catastrophe, but in the short run, and we're still
Speaker 1: not yet. In the long run, we're getting there, but
Speaker 1: we're not there yet. I think we have to understand
Speaker 1: that our problems really began with the Vietnam War. A
Speaker 1: lot of people don't understand that Lyndon Johnson actually bankrupted
Speaker 1: the country the cost of the Vietnam War along with
Speaker 1: his social programs, but primarily the war essentially bankrupted the country.
Speaker 1: And so on fifteen August nineteen seventy one, Richard Nixon
Speaker 1: discarded the gold standard. Now some people will say, well, why, well,
Speaker 1: you discarded it because he couldn't pay for anything. We
Speaker 1: have to remember that historically, if you wanted to do something,
Speaker 1: you know, if Washington wanted to spend, they had to
Speaker 1: tax the American people. There was a limit. But after
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy one and the abandonment of the gold standard,
Speaker 1: there was no limit. You needed money, you simply printed it.
Speaker 1: And as a result, over a long period of time,
Speaker 1: they printed away our savings, our income, everything, our heritage,
Speaker 1: our standard of living. They didn't print wealth. What they
Speaker 1: printed for themselves was power. So the printing press for
Speaker 1: dollars is essentially the mother of unending war. You know,
Speaker 1: for two trillion dollars in Afghanistan over twenty years and
Speaker 1: four presidents. We replaced the Taliban with the Taliban and
Speaker 1: there's no accountability.
Speaker 2: Why yeah, well.
Speaker 1: It didn't matter to the average American. You know, if
Speaker 1: the government had to tax us directly to bomb countries
Speaker 1: that most of us can't even find on a map,
Speaker 1: then there would be a revolution or rebellion. But because
Speaker 1: they could print, war was invisible. You know. The printing
Speaker 1: press also is the foundation for endless bureaucracy. When money
Speaker 1: is infinite, you can hire armies of bureaucrats. You can
Speaker 1: take seventy thousand pages of federal code and turn them
Speaker 1: into two hundred thousand. The printing press is also the
Speaker 1: source of uncontrolled immigration. They tell you it's about compassion,
Speaker 1: it isn't. It is a wage suppression operation. Why pay
Speaker 1: an American a living wage when you can import a
Speaker 1: replacement from some other place in the world Latin America, Africa,
Speaker 1: the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent for half the price.
Speaker 1: So what's the result. Millions of people fled into the
Speaker 1: United States, not necessarily people we really need or necessarily want. Certainly,
Speaker 1: not necessarily people that are remotely interested in becoming Americans
Speaker 1: or even can be. But we drive down the cost
Speaker 1: of American labor, while Washington prints money to drive up
Speaker 1: the price of their assets. So we don't have a
Speaker 1: border crisis. What we have is an economic weapon that's
Speaker 1: deployed against us. And printing money without constraint is also
Speaker 1: the mother of endless outsourcing. Fake money allows them to
Speaker 1: ship factories overseas. Behind those closed doors lie rusted towns,
Speaker 1: broken families, an opioid epidemic that kills more than three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people a year, a lot more than died
Speaker 1: in Vietnam. So I think we're heading into the currency
Speaker 1: debasement problem now. And of course this then elevates something
Speaker 1: like bitcoin to considerable importance, because we clearly cannot go
Speaker 1: back to a pure gold standard. It would be nice,
Speaker 1: but I don't think there's enough gold left in the
Speaker 1: United States, maybe not even in the world to do it.
Speaker 1: I mean, you stop and think that in the last
Speaker 1: twenty two months, we've printed thirty percent of all the
Speaker 1: dollars that have ever existed. Now, that's an enormous, enormous
Speaker 1: quantity of dollars. And the President smiles and says, Oh,
Speaker 1: everything's just fun, everything's getting better. All the presidents have
Speaker 1: done that. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican.
Speaker 1: And they say, well, this is capitalism, this is a
Speaker 1: free market. No, it's not. Capitalism requires competition, periodic failure,
Speaker 1: or creative destruction. So in this current environment, given the
Speaker 1: ability to sort of inject liquidity whatever you like, or
Speaker 1: quantitative easy and call it what you will, when big
Speaker 1: business fails, Washington prints money to bail it out. Now
Speaker 1: that assumes that if you're in big business, you have
Speaker 1: the right friends in Washington. And if you aren't big
Speaker 1: business and you don't have friends in Washington, you're foreclosed.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a good way to look at
Speaker 1: the problem that we have right now. And there's no
Speaker 1: easy way out, and nobody wants to default because that
Speaker 1: could have profound consequences. So what do we do. We
Speaker 1: continue to print, and we have a very elaborate game
Speaker 1: involving balance sheets and bonds and T bills. And now
Speaker 1: the stable coin business is another scam in my judgment,
Speaker 1: it's not bitcoin, And why would anybody want to invest
Speaker 1: in stable coin? If each coin is worth one dollar,
Speaker 1: We'll forget it. Let's all buy bitcoin, forget stable coin. Right. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I think those things are coming together. These forces are converging. Now.
Speaker 1: The other part of this is, in addition to running
Speaker 1: out of wealth, which is effectively where we are we
Speaker 1: don't produce anything. What do we manufacture. We manufacture some
Speaker 1: military equipment, but much beyond it. No, our manufacturing base
Speaker 1: was driven out of the country. So we're trying to
Speaker 1: restart that. But that's not something you snap your fingers
Speaker 1: and change. It's going to take a long time. What
Speaker 1: have we done in the energy industry? What have we
Speaker 1: done for agriculture? Those two things used to be pillars
Speaker 1: in the high church of productivity and wealth in the
Speaker 1: United States. We're not getting nearly out of energy or
Speaker 1: out of the agrarian sector. In my judgment, what we
Speaker 1: need there needs to be a focus on that. You know,
Speaker 1: just look at mining. We talk about mineral wealth, and
Speaker 1: we're worried about rare earth. Now, we found some rare
Speaker 1: earths deposits up at Alaska. But I've got news for you.
Speaker 1: There's rare earth all over Canada. There's rare earth in
Speaker 1: the United States, but we haven't bothered to do anything
Speaker 1: with it. Why well, it wasn't to financially rewarding. It
Speaker 1: was cheaper, faster, better to go somewhere else. And the
Speaker 1: worst part is we don't even have a refinery for
Speaker 1: the stuff. So where do we send our rare earth
Speaker 1: to be refined? Times up China, you know, so it
Speaker 1: goes to China or you know, Kazakhstan. I don't know
Speaker 1: if Mongolia has an operating refinery right now, but we
Speaker 1: haven't built one. You know, we need to build one.
Speaker 1: It's crazy. And we have friends that are sitting on
Speaker 1: enormous rare earth deposits that nobody ever bothers to mention.
Speaker 1: Norway has perhaps the large just rarest department in all
Speaker 1: of Europe. So I think we've just got problems in
Speaker 1: Washington because there is no long term national strategy to
Speaker 1: deal with anything. There's no long term national strategy for
Speaker 1: military purposes, none for scientific industrial development, none for mineral
Speaker 1: wealth and extraction, none for agriculture, none for energy. Everything
Speaker 1: is ad hoc, last minute, a short term. And that's
Speaker 1: not surprising because every four years, what do we do
Speaker 1: in Washington? Every four or eight it depends on how
Speaker 1: long the president lasts. Well, we lobotomize the government. We say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: everything they did was wrong. Now we're going to do
Speaker 1: all of these things. Well, it doesn't really change the country.
Speaker 1: The country remains the same thing, but there is no
Speaker 1: framework for development, no framework for improvement. So I think
Speaker 1: at this point, I think we're on the road to
Speaker 1: what Nasam Talent calls the perhaps the mother of all
Speaker 1: black swans.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a really good frame, and it all kind
Speaker 2: of starts with your case for sound money, which I
Speaker 2: thought was really well put. The interesting historical fact is
Speaker 2: that the first central bank that was created was the
Speaker 2: Bank of England in the late sixteen hundreds. That was
Speaker 2: created specifically so they'd have more money to continue to
Speaker 2: fight wars. So it was started so they could print
Speaker 2: money so they could just keep these never ending wars going.
Speaker 2: And that's what we've seen, and you mentioned, you know,
Speaker 2: spending two trillion dollars in Afghanistan. So while the US
Speaker 2: government certainly has the power of the money printer and
Speaker 2: can continue to print essentially at this point endless amounts
Speaker 2: of money to fight these wars. The symptom of that,
Speaker 2: as you mentioned, then it also requires sort of maybe
Speaker 2: hollowing out the manufacturing base, which I think brings to
Speaker 2: maybe a more crucial point. You're talking about not being
Speaker 2: able to refine our own rare earth elements and things
Speaker 2: like that. So currently, right now the US has this
Speaker 2: massive amount of debt. The money printer is still working
Speaker 2: at this point, it's having diminishing returns. But maybe the
Speaker 2: real crux or maybe pain point that we have right
Speaker 2: now being able to sort of project power globally is
Speaker 2: not just in the money or the debt that we have,
Speaker 2: but the ability to even fight a war, to even
Speaker 2: be able to produce the goods that we need. You've
Speaker 2: heard me talking about investing in layers and things like.
Speaker 2: The reason you have to work so hard is because
Speaker 2: your money doesn't well. I want to invite you to
Speaker 2: a special event. I'm having a three day live event
Speaker 2: called the Wealth Operating System. It's an accelerator event. I'm
Speaker 2: going to teach you all the tools that the one
Speaker 2: percent use to have their money work harder than they do,
Speaker 2: getting their money to do one job, two jobs, three
Speaker 2: five jobs at once, so it can work faster and
Speaker 2: harder than you. Over three days, we're going to go deep.
Speaker 2: I'm going to bring in guest speakers. It's workshop style.
Speaker 2: I got about fifteen tools and We're going to go
Speaker 2: through a methodical process so you can learn how to
Speaker 2: reclaim ten to fifteen hours of your time back per week,
Speaker 2: how to keep more of your money, how to invest
Speaker 2: it and multiply it faster than you've ever imagined by
Speaker 2: the individual. Have a ninety day plan of exactly what
Speaker 2: you need to do to go make twenty twenty six
Speaker 2: the best year you've ever imagined. It's all going to
Speaker 2: be live, it's all going to be virtual. There's a
Speaker 2: link down below if you want to come check out.
Speaker 2: I'll put a QR code up on the screen. If
Speaker 2: you want to get your money working harder than needed
Speaker 2: to grow your wealth faster than you've ever imagined, like
Speaker 2: the one percent, check out the Wealth Operating System Accelerator event.
Speaker 2: Check out the link down below.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you're you know your British analogy is
Speaker 1: Merit's closer attention because you're right. They created the Bank
Speaker 1: of England for those purposes. It was also the strategic
Speaker 1: engine in many ways, at least in monetary terms, for
Speaker 1: the founding and expansion of the British Empire. But having
Speaker 1: said that, Britain did recognize limits and constraints and they
Speaker 1: operated within these limits and constraints. They understood the criticality
Speaker 1: of gold backing their currency, and so they were able
Speaker 1: to be part of various alliances and coalitions that defeated
Speaker 1: various enemies, whether it was Louis the fourteenth or Napoleon Buonaparte,
Speaker 1: and they were able to do it without enormous loss
Speaker 1: of life and without fielding enormous forces. The large forces
Speaker 1: that did most of the fighting were always continental, largely
Speaker 1: German speaking and Russian speaking armies, connected with some others
Speaker 1: on the periphery, but those are the main ones to
Speaker 1: defeat these French forces. That changes in nineteen fourteen and
Speaker 1: a very very bad decision is made, and that decision
Speaker 1: was to intervene in the First World War, something for
Speaker 1: which the British were not prepared and could not sustain.
Speaker 1: And by nineteen seventeen it was pretty obvious to anybody
Speaker 1: looking at the facts on the ground that France and
Speaker 1: Britain were losing, and so the pressure for the bankers
Speaker 1: was enormous for us to come into the war ultimately
Speaker 1: bail out the French and British imperialists. So we ended
Speaker 1: up doing that and had terrible consequences for US because
Speaker 1: we destroyed Europe and we eliminated the major powers in
Speaker 1: Central East Europe that held the European civilization together. Wherever
Speaker 1: we have intervened historically, we have distorted the natural dynamic
Speaker 1: forces in the area, which ultimately determined how people would
Speaker 1: be governed and how people would live. And that's been
Speaker 1: disastrous because we are, much like Great Britain, ultimately a
Speaker 1: maritime and aerospace power. We are not a continental military
Speaker 1: power anywheres but in the Western hemisphere. So like the British,
Speaker 1: we've never had a requirement for a very large army,
Speaker 1: and having to field large armies, especially during and after
Speaker 1: World War Two, was an expense for which we weren't
Speaker 1: prepared and we had to sustain this all through the
Speaker 1: Cold War, which was frankly not a good thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: people don't realize how much of our wealth was squandered
Speaker 1: on containing the Soviet Union. So here we sit at
Speaker 1: the end of this whole process. In nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: we saw ourselves as having quote unquote won the Cold War.
Speaker 1: In reality, the Soviet structure simply collapsed. It didn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. State socialism was a disaster. There was an
Speaker 1: opportunity then to do a lot of things. It made sense.
Speaker 1: The first was to get out of NATO, or at
Speaker 1: least set NATO up to operate without us. You know,
Speaker 1: NATO is kind of like I'm sure some of you
Speaker 1: have contracts with ADT. This is a nationwide security service
Speaker 1: that cuts to your phone and wires your doors, your windows,
Speaker 1: and then you have an alarm system. Well, NATO has
Speaker 1: been the ADT analog for Europeans now for what almost
Speaker 1: seventy sixty five years, and they've never had to pay
Speaker 1: for it. Yeah, that's the problem. They said, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: that's not true. We put money here in here. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you it's a pittance. I served most of
Speaker 1: my military career in Europe. I lived over there for
Speaker 1: ten years. The school there served there twice three times
Speaker 1: actually twice in Germany and then once in Belgium. We
Speaker 1: provided free of charge ADT for the Europeans, and oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, we've provided ADT free of charge for
Speaker 1: Japan and to a lesser extent, Korea. The Koreans did
Speaker 1: join US in Vietnam tried to reduce the burden on
Speaker 1: US there, but not Japan. Japan's national strategy has been
Speaker 1: to extract as much wealth as possible from us and
Speaker 1: get a defense for it without paying for any of it.
Speaker 1: And it's worked. So what Donald Trump has been saying
Speaker 1: is now saying publicly this needs to end. And of course,
Speaker 1: you know you're dealing with countries es actually in Europe
Speaker 1: that have been spoiled, rotten like children, and they don't
Speaker 1: want us to leave. They want us to continue to
Speaker 1: pay for everything and protect them for nothing. Now, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people in Washington that don't like it,
Speaker 1: because in Washington everything is mortgaged to vanity as well
Speaker 1: as money. That means everybody likes the fact that we
Speaker 1: have US forces all over the world. People like to
Speaker 1: stand up and talk talk, and even President Trump does this,
Speaker 1: which is really annoying. Frankly, we have the greatest armed
Speaker 1: forces in the world. Nobody can stand against us. Well,
Speaker 1: if you're like the British before World War One, and
Speaker 1: you skillfully avoid fighting anybody who can really fight back,
Speaker 1: you look pretty good. And Britain looked pretty good in
Speaker 1: nineteen fourteen until it faced the Imperial German Army and
Speaker 1: the rest is history. Same thing happened again in World
Speaker 1: War Two. So your point is accurate. We're really not organized, trained, equipped,
Speaker 1: and ready, if structured, to go after anybody who is
Speaker 1: a near peer opponent if you will, or appear opponent.
Speaker 1: And I hope people begin to understand that. And the
Speaker 1: answer to that is not to pour money into the
Speaker 1: old structure and the old defense establishment because we need
Speaker 1: a new one. It's to cut back on spending defense spending,
Speaker 1: figure out what it is that we need, and then
Speaker 1: build that, and then steer a different course in foreign policy.
Speaker 1: And that course is war avoidance. You mentioned that in
Speaker 1: Washington and people look at you and say, what conflict
Speaker 1: avoidance will Why? Yeah, because war will visit us here
Speaker 1: on the continent. It's not what it was. The world
Speaker 1: has changed. The technologies we once enjoyed a monopoly over
Speaker 1: have now proliferated. War is dangerous. The last president who
Speaker 1: really understood that was Eisenhower, and he understood that World
Speaker 1: War II is no great march to victory without massive,
Speaker 1: massive loss of life. And you know, this disruption of
Speaker 1: our way of life. So you know, you put together
Speaker 1: the end of the fat system, which I think is
Speaker 1: staring us in the face or it's collapsed, together with
Speaker 1: this giant force it's not really the force we need
Speaker 1: for the future. It happens to be the force that
Speaker 1: we've used for the past fifty sixty years to pulverize
Speaker 1: anybody we didn't like and bullied people into submission. How
Speaker 1: do we rectify this? And that's where you come into
Speaker 1: a discussion of where do we go from here financially
Speaker 1: And I don't really feel competent to discuss that in detail,
Speaker 1: but I think bitcoin fits into that because the fat
Speaker 1: system is not going to survive, not in its current form.
Speaker 2: You talk about when you talked about the British army
Speaker 2: looks strong until they met the German army, and sort
Speaker 2: of the US is sort of looks strong if you
Speaker 2: look at it, and I think, you know, I've heard
Speaker 2: many of your interviews talking about this sort of the
Speaker 2: US was sort of put on a global stage, well
Speaker 2: two times maybe, So if you have heard of like
Speaker 2: the generations of warfare, maybe the third generation of warfare
Speaker 2: was like the industrial armies of like World War One
Speaker 2: and World War two. Fourth generations sort of being maybe
Speaker 2: starting in Vietnam, more of like a guerrilla type warfare.
Speaker 2: And so if you look at like from Vietnam, Ford,
Speaker 2: I mean, how many of these wars have been have
Speaker 2: we been winning from the US side? But then maybe
Speaker 2: more specifically in the Ukraine conflict, maybe the US was
Speaker 2: sort of exposed as being a little bit incompetent or
Speaker 2: behind maybe what the Russian military was.
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it has been. It's been very much exposed.
Speaker 1: Now how profoundly has that affected our standing in the world.
Speaker 1: It'll take time to sort that out. The quickest way
Speaker 1: to demonstrate, you know, the weakness of the United States
Speaker 1: strategically would be to disable or sink an aircraft carrier.
Speaker 1: People don't realize the enormous impact of the loss of
Speaker 1: the Prince of Wales. It's giant British battleship that it
Speaker 1: had been sent along with a cruiser by Churchill to
Speaker 1: Singapore in nineteen forty two, and at the time the
Speaker 1: admirals told Churchill, don't do this, they're at risk. And
Speaker 1: he said, what do you mean they're at risk? These
Speaker 1: are the greatest warships in the world, said, ye know,
Speaker 1: but they don't have any air cover and their air
Speaker 1: defenses on board the vessels are inadequate. And he said, nonsense. Well,
Speaker 1: we know what happened The Japanese found it, they flew
Speaker 1: out to it and they sank it. That was the
Speaker 1: beginning of the end of the British Empire. And then
Speaker 1: subsequently we have the defeat at Singapore, which pretty much
Speaker 1: nailed the coffin shut. So those kinds of events matter.
Speaker 1: We haven't really experienced that yet, but it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: we could very easily and very suddenly. One example I think,
Speaker 1: of course, of the Hoodies. Look at the success the
Speaker 1: Hoodies had against the United States Navy in the Red Sea. Well,
Speaker 1: was that the fault of the sailors on the ships
Speaker 1: that they weren't able to avoid being struck and they
Speaker 1: weren't able to damage fatally the Hoodies, No, of course not.
Speaker 1: And the wrong vessels doing the wrong things for the
Speaker 1: wrong reasons, with the wrong weapons systems. This is years
Speaker 1: and years of negligence. It's also years and years of
Speaker 1: continuing to buy the same things and spending money on
Speaker 1: the same things that we always have because that makes
Speaker 1: people inside the belt Way wealthy, that makes the donors happy,
Speaker 1: it creates money. It doesn't help us in defense, which
Speaker 1: is why spending more money for defense is not an answer.
Speaker 1: It matters how you spend it and on what you spend, right,
Speaker 1: it also matters the quality of the soldier, sailors, airminham
Speaker 1: marines that you have the quality of discipline and leadership. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think your question is a valid one,
Speaker 1: and I would say, yes, we have been exposed to
Speaker 1: some extent, and I don't see any evidence that we
Speaker 1: are seriously examining what has been exposed. I really don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think the majority of the people I talked
Speaker 1: to has still all sorts of fantasies about what is
Speaker 1: really happening on the ground in eastern Ukraine and what
Speaker 1: isn't complete failure to understand what the Russians have really done.
Speaker 1: And I think it's unfortunate, but there's not much that
Speaker 1: we could do about. It's very, very hard to take
Speaker 1: a power with the kinds of armed forces we have
Speaker 1: and persuade the people that lead it to pay attention
Speaker 1: to reality on the ground, especially if that reality is
Speaker 1: so radically different for what they imagine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Unfortunately, in life, sometimes you have to take a
Speaker 2: loss or hit rock bottom before you change direction, and
Speaker 2: certainly we hope it doesn't come to that point. But
Speaker 2: kind of talking about the Russia Ukraine, conflict. You said
Speaker 2: that the conflict is essentially over, but maybe just not officially.
Speaker 2: Now there are some terms of a treaty that have
Speaker 2: been proposed. It looks like that's coming to a head.
Speaker 2: But you said it is essentially over, just we haven't
Speaker 2: really Reality hasn't caught up to that.
Speaker 1: Well. The opportunity to have influenced this positively in a
Speaker 1: way that would have led to peace and stability was
Speaker 1: lost a long time go because the people in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin,
Speaker 1: the globalists that are ruling us weren't really interested in peace.
Speaker 1: The problem that President Trump has is I think he is,
Speaker 1: but he doesn't control Congress, and Congress has no interest
Speaker 1: in peace. The Senate and the House are happy if
Speaker 1: we continue to spend wastefully on what's happening in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: as are the people in Western Europe. Now, the reason
Speaker 1: in Europe's a little different. I think the Europeans still
Speaker 1: delude themselves into believing that they can harm Russia, but
Speaker 1: the sanctions haven't really had the desired impact. Whatever impact
Speaker 1: they had was rapidly balanced out by other actions, and
Speaker 1: we found that most countries, in most cases can find
Speaker 1: a way around sanctions, so that's not really our interest anymore.
Speaker 1: I think the President Trump really would like to normalize
Speaker 1: relations with Russia and be on a better footing, sure
Speaker 1: footing with the Russians than we are. I just don't
Speaker 1: know that he can make it happen. And if you
Speaker 1: look at these twenty eight points, I think somebody pointed
Speaker 1: out to me recently, well, if you want to read
Speaker 1: the twenty eight points that have now been reduced to
Speaker 1: nineteen that are probably going to become ten, you need
Speaker 1: to go to the men's room in the Kremlin and
Speaker 1: look at the current version on the wall, because it's meaningless.
Speaker 1: Russia has won. Russia will determine what Ukraine looks like,
Speaker 1: what Eastern Europe looks like beyond the Polish border. That's
Speaker 1: a foregone conclusion. The Russians have no interest in conquering
Speaker 1: Eastern Europe, never have. They don't even want to move
Speaker 1: much beyond where they are right now. They want to
Speaker 1: get on with business as usual. They would like, I think,
Speaker 1: to have good relations with us for the same reason
Speaker 1: we would like have good relations with them. But again,
Speaker 1: President Trump had the opportunity after he took over to say, look,
Speaker 1: I didn't start this. I don't like it. I don't
Speaker 1: see any value in it, and I'm going to end it.
Speaker 1: And the only way for this to end is if
Speaker 1: I in Washington pull the plug. I halt the flow
Speaker 1: of funds and equipment to Ukraine. This will compel the
Speaker 1: Europeans and the Ukrainians in Kiev to reach some sort
Speaker 1: of deal, because as long as we continue to support them,
Speaker 1: they are simply not incentivized for peace. And they don't
Speaker 1: care how many millions of people that are killed, you know,
Speaker 1: one point eight million Ukrainians. It's about the latest number
Speaker 1: I've gotten. One point eight million Ukrainians in uniform are dead, terrible,
Speaker 1: and we don't care. You know, we don't care. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't see any evidence to anybody on the hill
Speaker 1: gives a damn.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: In fact, I've begun to think that the average African
Speaker 1: warlord cares more about the people he leads in Central
Speaker 1: Africa than most of the Senators and congressmen care about
Speaker 1: US Americans, let alone the Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're so detached from it. But I think it
Speaker 2: has seemed like Trump has tried to pull the plug,
Speaker 2: as you said, But your point, maybe the neo cons
Speaker 2: and the warmongers in Congress keep pushing forward on that.
Speaker 1: But what we haven't stopped the money, right, We haven't
Speaker 1: stopped the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance information that is vital and
Speaker 1: essential to anything that the Ukrainians want to do. Haven't
Speaker 1: done that. We haven't holded all the equipment, although the
Speaker 1: equipment that's promised that the Europeans are now being expected
Speaker 1: to pay for probably won't arrive for two or three years.
Speaker 2: Is some of that maybe just to keep a little
Speaker 2: bit of pressure on to get Putin to tell us
Speaker 2: what his terms are going to be to reach that
Speaker 2: peace agreement.
Speaker 1: He's already done that. He's troubles his terms for three
Speaker 1: plus years. Okay, it's not a secret, don't There's no
Speaker 1: pressure on Putin anymore? Yeah? None. There might have been
Speaker 1: two or three years ago because at that point the
Speaker 1: Russian military was much smaller. They hadn't yet geared up,
Speaker 1: their manufacturing base was not running at full speed. Right now,
Speaker 1: Russia is mobilized for war, and if they're pushed by
Speaker 1: the stupidly billlobilized for total war. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: that Putin is right. A war between our European allives
Speaker 1: and the Russians would end very quickly, and it wouldn't
Speaker 1: end well for the Europeans. Again, it takes at least
Speaker 1: ten years just to build an army.
Speaker 2: You know, a lot of this then hinges on NATO.
Speaker 2: You're mentioning Russia and the Europeans. You talked about, you know,
Speaker 2: for a long time, the US footing the bill for NATO.
Speaker 2: Trump has been very vocal about getting every country to
Speaker 2: pay their fair share. They haven't lately. Just in the
Speaker 2: last couple of weeks, I've been seeing this increasing rhetoric
Speaker 2: around the US leaving NATO, but not for the reasons
Speaker 2: that we typically would think about. It's not so much
Speaker 2: about hey, it's a relic of the Cold War. Hey
Speaker 2: they're not paying their fair share now. It's like we
Speaker 2: don't even share a ligne values with any of these
Speaker 2: countries any longer. So that seems to be the rhetoric
Speaker 2: I'm seeing popping up. Curious your take on that. Every
Speaker 2: day we see headlines about inflation and dead and diminishing
Speaker 2: control over our own money. That's why I always come
Speaker 2: back to bitcoin, because it's built for generation, it is
Speaker 2: built for legacy. But protecting your bitcoin legacy the right
Speaker 2: way is not always simple. It demands discipline, focus and
Speaker 2: the right partner. Now that's why I personally use Unchained Signature.
Speaker 2: It's a premium private client service for serious bitcoin holders
Speaker 2: who want expert guidance, resilient custody, and an enduring partnership.
Speaker 2: Now a Signature, you're paired with your own dedicated account manager,
Speaker 2: someone who understands your goals helps you every step of
Speaker 2: the way. You're going to get white glove onboarding, same
Speaker 2: day emergency support, personalized education, reduced trading fees, and priority
Speaker 2: access to exclusive events and features. Unchained collaborative custody model
Speaker 2: is designed to provide the same security as the world's
Speaker 2: biggest bitcoin custodians, but for those who prefer to hold
Speaker 2: their own keys. Now I've been using and recommending Unchained
Speaker 2: for years. I even got my parents to set up
Speaker 2: with them. So if you want to get set up,
Speaker 2: check out Unchained Signature at unchained dot com, slash mark
Speaker 2: Moss and as a loyal listener, I got a discount
Speaker 2: for you. Just use code Moss ten at checkout to
Speaker 2: get ten percent off your first year. Because your bitcoin
Speaker 2: isn't just for life, it's for generations.
Speaker 1: Well, First of all, all of the problems that President
Speaker 1: Trump points to with regard to the massive impact of
Speaker 1: migrants that have flooded in from Africa, the Middle East,
Speaker 1: the Indian subcontinent, and so forth, we have it too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, we have.
Speaker 1: The same thing here. Who's he kidding? He needs to stop.
Speaker 1: And I mean, if you live in a glass house
Speaker 1: and we are in one, it's probably not a good
Speaker 1: idea to hurl those stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, he's been calling out dearborn Michigan. He's been calling
Speaker 2: out the Somalis in Minnesota as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, but what are we going to do
Speaker 1: about it?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And see the Europeans, they're in a it's an existential
Speaker 1: question for them. One out of every five adults in
Speaker 1: France is a Muslim. Now that means he's a Muslim
Speaker 1: from Africa or the Middle East, and all probability, all right,
Speaker 1: and you do the math, look at the birth rooms.
Speaker 1: So either they find a way to expel these people
Speaker 1: or that's the end of France and French speaking civilization
Speaker 1: and culture is one of the foundations of the West.
Speaker 1: It could go away. Don't kids yourself that Italy is
Speaker 1: not in the greatest shape it's not as bad as France.
Speaker 1: Germany has its own set of problems. Once again, not
Speaker 1: quite as bad as friends. What he is saying to
Speaker 1: them is something that we need to come to terms with.
Speaker 1: If you want to survive, you've got to defend yourselves,
Speaker 1: and you need to defend yourselves internally, determine what you
Speaker 1: will and won't tolerate. Look, he's you know you mentioned dearborn.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Chicago and Governor Pritzker in Michigan, who
Speaker 1: effectively says that ICE is a terrorist organization, that he's
Speaker 1: openly rebelling against the federal government. And you know, we
Speaker 1: went through this before it was called the Civil War.
Speaker 1: I thought we settled that question. But this, this is
Speaker 1: not a good thing. This is destructive to the body politic.
Speaker 1: This is very serious threat to national cohesion. And President
Speaker 1: Trump needs to focus there, which is why I have
Speaker 1: argued for a long time. Get the troops out, bring
Speaker 1: them home, get them back into the United States. You know,
Speaker 1: let's let's ratchet down the operational tempo. You know, these
Speaker 1: just imagine these poor bastards that were over in the Mediterranean,
Speaker 1: in the Navy. They were over there for a few months.
Speaker 1: Now they've sailed down to the Caribbean and there's there's
Speaker 1: sort of sitting around sailing there. You know, this wears
Speaker 1: you out. You know, these are human beings. They have
Speaker 1: to perform, they have to operate the systems, they have
Speaker 1: to make it all work. We seem to have lost
Speaker 1: touch with these things. But here they sit and no
Speaker 1: decision seems to have been made. And I still haven't
Speaker 1: figured out what we expect to accomplish in Venezuela. Again,
Speaker 1: are we going to admit that our drug problem is
Speaker 1: here in the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: You can the hell out of Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico and
Speaker 1: anything you want. What are you doing about it here?
Speaker 2: I heard someone say it's like, you know, these other countries,
Speaker 2: whether it's China with their fentanyl or Venezuela, whatever country
Speaker 2: you want to put onto it, like their job sort
Speaker 2: of is to destabilize us. Our job is to not
Speaker 2: be destabilized.
Speaker 1: Like, no, you're you're exactly right. And I don't think
Speaker 1: first of all, China and people do. I don't know
Speaker 1: how much time you spend in Northeast Asia, but very
Speaker 1: few Americans understand Asia it bears no resemblance to our world.
Speaker 1: They could just as easily be on a different planet.
Speaker 1: That's how different Asia is from the United States and
Speaker 1: the West. The Chinese have no interest in a war
Speaker 1: with us under any and all sort of says. They
Speaker 1: don't want a war with anybody. If the Chinese live
Speaker 1: in fear of something, I think they live in fear
Speaker 1: that the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy will come back.
Speaker 1: I don't think they fear us militarily now. They are
Speaker 1: prudent people, and we have made it very clear that
Speaker 1: if we choose to do so, we can block all
Speaker 1: of China's ports. We've threatened those things in the past.
Speaker 1: We have been very, very aggressive towards China militarily. So
Speaker 1: the Chinese have invested heavily in this One Belt one Road.
Speaker 1: And what is One Belt one Road. It's a Eurasian
Speaker 1: network of transportation and communication that the United States Navy
Speaker 1: can't distrust. Right, They've done what they can to protect
Speaker 1: themselves against the things that we might do to them.
Speaker 1: I don't think President Trump wants anything to do with
Speaker 1: the war against China, and I think privately he's figured
Speaker 1: out if you tried to defend Taiwan against a determined
Speaker 1: attack by the Chinese. You're going to lose, right, that's
Speaker 1: six thousand miles from the United States. This was the
Speaker 1: problem with going to Ukraine. Where is Ukraine? It's on
Speaker 1: Russia's doorstep. Who are we kidding? That's a war they
Speaker 1: can't lose. That's like saying, well, the Russians and the
Speaker 1: Chinese are going to jointly develop a Mexican military establishment
Speaker 1: designed to invade the United States and retake the lost
Speaker 1: territories from the Mexican War in eighteen forty six. Yeah,
Speaker 1: good luck, we could crush that quickly. They're not stupid.
Speaker 1: So you know, there's an awful lot of irrational behavior.
Speaker 1: There's too much emotion, not enough thinking, and not enough
Speaker 1: honesty about what the hell are problems are.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it look like there's been a renewed push maybe
Speaker 2: for this if you call it the Monroe doctrine, but
Speaker 2: sort of it seems like Trump has been saying, Okay,
Speaker 2: we're done being over all over the world, done in
Speaker 2: the East in China, and let's just focus on the
Speaker 2: northern hemisphere.
Speaker 1: No, he didn't say northern, he said western.
Speaker 2: Okay, sorry, that yeah, that's what talk is.
Speaker 1: Cheap bart sounds great, Let's see what happens. That's my
Speaker 1: first remark. Come awful lot of hot air in Washington
Speaker 1: about doing things or not doing things, and I've been
Speaker 1: listening to it for decades, So I think, you know,
Speaker 1: these are great ideas. Let's see some implementation. Sure, there's
Speaker 1: nothing in that National Security Strategy that talks about implementation.
Speaker 1: There is no framework for action. They're just assertions. This
Speaker 1: is the way I feel. I don't think we should
Speaker 1: be there. Great, I don't think we should be there either. Okay,
Speaker 1: so now what you know? This is the so what now?
Speaker 1: What the now? What is missing? And I think that's
Speaker 1: what we need desperately. Now maybe he'll provide that, but
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it.
Speaker 2: It goes back to how you opened up and about
Speaker 2: you know, now whatever fifty sixty years of endless money
Speaker 2: printing and what all the consequences of that, one of
Speaker 2: which you pointed out very correctly, which is this massive
Speaker 2: expansion of the bureaucracy inside the government and all of that,
Speaker 2: and so you kind of get to this point where
Speaker 2: we're at now. It's like, you know, the government's not
Speaker 2: a monolith, so It's like, there could certainly be many
Speaker 2: people who would be happy to sort of withdraw back
Speaker 2: to the Western hemisphere. But to your point, you know,
Speaker 2: we got the neocons, the warmongers, you have the bureaucracy,
Speaker 2: and so I'm guessing it's much harder than it sounds, right,
Speaker 2: easier said than done sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not sure that you can do it with
Speaker 1: the current government that we've got. And remember that you
Speaker 1: do have a number of forces inside the government, in
Speaker 1: the court system, on the hill, inside the federal bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: who are going to fight you to the death because
Speaker 1: you are potentially telling them you may not have a
Speaker 1: job here anymore. Things are about to change, Our policies
Speaker 1: are about to change. Yeah, it's like you get into
Speaker 1: a discussion about illegal immigration. Oh, I don't think we
Speaker 1: should have borders. Everyone who wants to come here should
Speaker 1: be allowed to come here.
Speaker 2: Okay, great, yeah.
Speaker 1: And we all know that's not going to work. But
Speaker 1: then you say, well, wait a minute, why can't we
Speaker 1: hire Americans to do these jobs? Oh, Americans don't want
Speaker 1: to do that. Well, you know, I have two sons,
Speaker 1: and when they were growing up, they went to work.
Speaker 1: You know, where they worked. They worked at a large
Speaker 1: food produce store, something like Giant Orter, and they stacked
Speaker 1: vegetables and they recovered carts. They did all the things
Speaker 1: that Americans don't want to do. You know, that's nonsense. Secondly,
Speaker 1: one of them went into it, you know, and he
Speaker 1: did very well. And he worked in a company where
Speaker 1: he was one of three or four Americans in a
Speaker 1: company of four hundred people from India. And he came
Speaker 1: back to me and he said, you know, Dad, we
Speaker 1: don't have to bring in these Indians. There are Americans
Speaker 1: who will do these jobs. But he says, you've got
Speaker 1: to pay them a living wage. Right, these people are
Speaker 1: brought over here, they're paid nothing. They're treated badly by
Speaker 1: their own people. He said, it's awful. He didn't like
Speaker 1: it at all. And he said, these are not bad people.
Speaker 1: But he said, I can go out this afternoon and
Speaker 1: find ten Americans for twenty or thirty foreigners, and they'll
Speaker 1: do the soft software work, the coating. If we're engineering
Speaker 1: all of that extremely well. We have a lot of
Speaker 1: schools now that have set up excellent training courses to
Speaker 1: train Americas to do these things. Yeah, so we got
Speaker 1: to get out of this. Well, if you say that
Speaker 1: you're a racist, if you say that you're this, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm so tired of hearing people called Nazis, communists, racists, whatever, bigots.
Speaker 1: These people don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think it's two part, and you're
Speaker 2: absolutely right. But the second part of that is that
Speaker 2: when you're paying people fifty sixty thousand dollars a year
Speaker 2: to sit at home and do nothing, they also don't
Speaker 2: want to go do that job. Why would I want
Speaker 2: to go stack produce for fifteen twenty bucks an hour
Speaker 2: when I can just make thirty forty bucks an hour
Speaker 2: doing nothing. And then with the immigration then, you know,
Speaker 2: is something like sixty I hate I want to be
Speaker 2: fact checked it on my own show, but it was
Speaker 2: something like sixty five percent of illegal immigrants were like
Speaker 2: on welfare.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, that's that's because we don't even have control
Speaker 1: of the social security system. Remember when Elon Musk went
Speaker 1: there with his team and then he was castigated and
Speaker 1: attacked by everybody for turning up the truth. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: know that what you had twenty million, thirty million, forty
Speaker 1: million people receiving benefits that didn't even.
Speaker 2: Exist, and I looked like, so we have immigration rules
Speaker 2: that have I mean, and our founding fathers talked about
Speaker 2: the dangers of bringing in too many immigrants at one
Speaker 2: time that couldn't assimilate, so that we've been talking about
Speaker 2: this since the founding of the country. And currently there's
Speaker 2: a rule I believe it's only six hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: thousand immigrants per year, and over the last five years
Speaker 2: we've doubled that legally and then illegally it's, you know whatever,
Speaker 2: it's ten to fifteen million.
Speaker 1: On top of that, Well, here's here's a factoid for you.
Speaker 1: And I'm trying to find the book here because I've
Speaker 1: found it so useful. I've learned so much about it.
Speaker 1: It's about the growth of the United States. It explains
Speaker 1: our climb to economic power, and it points out that
Speaker 1: our greatest leap economically as a scientific industrial power occurred
Speaker 1: between nineteen twenty four and nineteen seventy. And the author
Speaker 1: points out that from nineteen twenty four until the nineteen fifties,
Speaker 1: we had no immigration none. However, we did have a
Speaker 1: law on the books, and it was called the Exceptional
Speaker 1: Skills Act, and that law said that if the individual
Speaker 1: who wants to come into the country, has skills and
Speaker 1: abilities that we can utilize, it can be a benefit
Speaker 1: to the American society, then that person could be admitted.
Speaker 1: That's how we cut Einstein. I mean, if you start
Speaker 1: going down the list of the people that did come in,
Speaker 1: they were superstars, they were wonderful. And then immigration starts
Speaker 1: to pick up again. But then in nineteen sixty five
Speaker 1: we changed the laws. We threw a lot of things out,
Speaker 1: we opened the floodgates. It didn't really affect us until
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties. Frankly, I remember that Ronald Reagan then
Speaker 1: issued amnesty to all of the people from Latin America
Speaker 1: that were here illegally. And they said, well, that'll solve
Speaker 1: the problem. Nobody'll come anymore.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: That's when it's spiked, Right, so you know, the immigration
Speaker 1: thing is not what it appears to be. And now
Speaker 1: if all of the projections and predictions for AI are accurate,
Speaker 1: then the last thing you need are people coming into
Speaker 1: this country that don't read and write, even in their
Speaker 1: own languages. People that are not skilled, people are not
Speaker 1: well educated. Somebody said, well, you just don't like Mexicans.
Speaker 1: I said, no, I'll stand on the border and invite
Speaker 1: every Mexican into the United States that has a degree
Speaker 1: and applied mathematics you know, science, technology, engineering, mathematics by
Speaker 1: the way, and preferably speaks English. They said, well, that's unreasonable. No,
Speaker 1: it isn't. More people in China speak English than inside
Speaker 1: the United States.
Speaker 2: What Yah. Wow, that's a shocking.
Speaker 1: More people in China could speak English than speak English here.
Speaker 1: That's if you have three hundred and fifty million and
Speaker 1: you assume that everybody speaks English, there are more Chinese
Speaker 1: that speak English than we have living in the United States. Wow.
Speaker 2: People, that's a shocking statistic.
Speaker 1: I think there's there's no excuse for not speaking English anymore.
Speaker 1: We could, we could set that standard.
Speaker 2: The world has, you know, and probably social media as
Speaker 2: I'm sure very uh partly or massively to blame for this,
Speaker 2: But we've lost the ability to have even to civil discourse,
Speaker 2: but more specifically like nuance where it's like I can
Speaker 2: be one hundred percent pro immigration, that could be one
Speaker 2: hundred percent promegration, but not want to bring everybody like
Speaker 2: we get to separate those two things.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I understand your point, but I think
Speaker 1: we're beyond that now I think things are going to
Speaker 1: get ugly. Yeah, and again it's back to the economy, right,
Speaker 1: you know, we've hollowed out the economy. Now now we're
Speaker 1: talking about AI and people are saying already that A
Speaker 1: is going to cause massive layoffs. I've seen predictions for
Speaker 1: the coming year. Well, if that's true, we really have
Speaker 1: to sit down and very carefully scrutinize who is here.
Speaker 1: We think there are fifty two million people inside the
Speaker 1: United States who were not born here, and of that number,
Speaker 1: we may have thirty plus million that are illegal. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: if we're looking at this AI avalanche, it's going to
Speaker 1: fall on everybody and it's going to eliminate jobs. What
Speaker 1: are we doing in immigration?
Speaker 2: It's a serious conversation that needs to be had. I
Speaker 2: want to jump back a little bit more. We'll stick
Speaker 2: in the Western hemisphere topic you've been talking about quite
Speaker 2: quite a bit lately, and I'm pretty interested in. You know,
Speaker 2: hopefully we've talked about the rust of Ukraine thing, and
Speaker 2: to your point, it's already been resolved, we just don't
Speaker 2: know it yet. But now we have this situation going
Speaker 2: on in Venezuela. You know, there's a lot of attack
Speaker 2: going on with Trump and Hegsath because you know they're
Speaker 2: bombing the narco boats and what's your take on what's
Speaker 2: going on? Why are we involved in trying to take
Speaker 2: out drug boats? There? Is it more than just drugs
Speaker 2: in your opinion.
Speaker 1: I don't think the drug business has much to do
Speaker 1: with it. You can certainly make an argument that the
Speaker 1: banks in Venezuela have helped to launder money involved in
Speaker 1: the drug trade, but then again, you could make that
Speaker 1: argument about Hong Kong, Grand Cayman. I think this has
Speaker 1: more to do with, frankly, resources, especially when you look
Speaker 1: at oil, gas, gold mines, emerald minds, rare earths, and
Speaker 1: so forth. I do think there are people in Washington
Speaker 1: that truly believe that if we can install a puppet
Speaker 1: government down there that will be responsive to us, that
Speaker 1: we can then gain undisrupted, uninterrupted access to all of
Speaker 1: those resources, and that those resources could even be collateralized
Speaker 1: and perhaps help to offset this tremendous debt problem that
Speaker 1: plagues us. I'm not sure how you do that. I
Speaker 1: haven't figured it out. And the other thing is that
Speaker 1: even if you were able to get in there and
Speaker 1: put a government in that you say is friendly to you.
Speaker 1: It's Missus Moschado or whomever else. How do you stop
Speaker 1: the people that decide they don't like you and don't
Speaker 1: want you and start to blow up your oil rigs,
Speaker 1: who throw explosives into you know, mines. The country's enormous.
Speaker 1: It's the size of Germany, Austria, France combined. The population,
Speaker 1: depending upon which source you go to, is twenty eight
Speaker 1: point five million to thirty million. I mean, this is enormous.
Speaker 1: It has one thousand, three hundred and eighty mile border
Speaker 1: with Colombia, a one thousand three hundred mile border roughly
Speaker 1: with Brazil if you go in there. The Colombians have
Speaker 1: already said that they'll support the Venezuelas against us, even
Speaker 1: though they don't like the Venezuelans. They have real conflicts
Speaker 1: the Brazilians. They they have perhaps fifty to one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand paramilitaries that they can send across the border from Brazil.
Speaker 1: I mean, we want to turn this into some sort
Speaker 1: of Latin American crusade against the evil Yankees who are
Speaker 1: back trying to exploit us. I mean, I think that's
Speaker 1: a bad idea. I don't see this being necessary or good,
Speaker 1: but again, another reason that's given. We have to show
Speaker 1: those Chinese and Russians we're in charge and they need
Speaker 1: to get out of Venezuela. Okay, good luck with that.
Speaker 1: Let's assume that you can do that. What's going to
Speaker 1: prevent them from coming back. You know, five years from
Speaker 1: now or ten years from now. We do live on
Speaker 1: a planet that is increasingly globalized. Trade is globalized, commercial
Speaker 1: activity is globalized. We're all doing business. Surely there's a
Speaker 1: way to resolve some of this tension. You mentioned the
Speaker 1: Monroe doctrine. I'm glad you did, because everybody's been taught
Speaker 1: for years how important this is. When President Monroe mentioned that,
Speaker 1: everybody nodded and thought this was interesting. But at the
Speaker 1: time when he was president, everybody knew we had no army.
Speaker 1: We had great little navy. It was no way for
Speaker 1: us to enforce any of it. The first time it
Speaker 1: comes up for serious discussion, believe it or not, is
Speaker 1: in the nineteen twenties, and people said, well, we've got
Speaker 1: to be sure that our hemisphere is free of infiltrators.
Speaker 1: That could be anarchists, communists, socialists, later on fascists and
Speaker 1: so forth. But it never had that much teeth, and
Speaker 1: I think we're deluding ourselves. I don't think we can
Speaker 1: wall off South America or Central America from everybody who's
Speaker 1: not any Western hemisphere.
Speaker 2: What about you know, General Mike Flynn has been talking
Speaker 2: about color revolution happening inside the United States. We see
Speaker 2: there's the Seditious Six that are telling the military that
Speaker 2: could stand down and not you disobey unconstitutional orders. So
Speaker 2: we see these things going on. You talked about Pritzer
Speaker 2: saying ICE is A is a terrorist organization. So this
Speaker 2: so this idea that Mike Flynn is talking about. General
Speaker 2: Flynn is talking about with this Color Revolution, and there's
Speaker 2: a lot of people talking about how Venezuela is it's
Speaker 2: not about the resources there, it's really about their role
Speaker 2: in this deep state, in this CI black ops. We
Speaker 2: have this l POYO. You know, there's a couple people
Speaker 2: who have now come from Venezuela that are giving the
Speaker 2: US intel on this, and it seems that maybe this
Speaker 2: is an attack on resource, it's more about an attack
Speaker 2: on that deep state kind of shutting down this insurrection.
Speaker 2: Have you seen that? Do you think there's any you know,
Speaker 2: smoke fire there. Governments will never stop printing money, so
Speaker 2: inflation it's not going away.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: If your money's not earning at least ten percent a year,
Speaker 2: you're losing purchasing power. Now, that's why I talk about bitcoin.
Speaker 2: It's the number one way to beat inflation and secure
Speaker 2: your future. And the question I get asked almost every
Speaker 2: day is where do you buy your bitcoin?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: For years, I've personally use River dot Com and I
Speaker 2: only take on sponsors that I use and I trust,
Speaker 2: and I trust them because River's bitcoin only. They have
Speaker 2: one hundred percent reserve, and they keep your bitcoin safe
Speaker 2: in cold storage with no middlemen, and you can actually
Speaker 2: talk to a real person, a US based support dedicated manager. Now,
Speaker 2: try getting that peace of mind from coinbase. Of course
Speaker 2: you can't. Now the perks. If you set up auto buys,
Speaker 2: you can pay zero fees plus instead of you're bank
Speaker 2: paying you, you know, zero point four percent on cash.
Speaker 2: River pays you three point seventy five percent on cash
Speaker 2: paid in bitcoin. So if you're ready to build your
Speaker 2: bitcoin position with confidence, go to River dot com, slash
Speaker 2: Mark Moss and get up to one hundred dollars in
Speaker 2: bitcoin when you sign up. Because freedom starts when you
Speaker 2: own your money and your money starts with bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm familiar with the allegation that Dominius software was
Speaker 1: developed under Hugo's Chabez for his purposes, and that it
Speaker 1: was used in the United States allegedly to rig the
Speaker 1: last election or the next to last election for the
Speaker 1: presidency against Trump. I don't know. I mean, that could
Speaker 1: be the case. I just don't know very much about it.
Speaker 1: I do know that there was a lot of irregularity
Speaker 1: and there still is in the system in the United States.
Speaker 1: I think voting integrity is a huge issue, a very,
Speaker 1: very difficult thing to deal with, and I don't think
Speaker 1: it was solved this last time around. Beyond that, I
Speaker 1: don't know now as far as the six senators and congressmen,
Speaker 1: whatever they were, you know, that was a shameless attempt
Speaker 1: to undermine the authority of the commander in chief, the
Speaker 1: president of the United States. That's all. You don't have
Speaker 1: to follow an order, Well, I've got news for you.
Speaker 1: If you're in the regular armed forces of the United States,
Speaker 1: you damn wellware and have to follow the order. Now illegal, Well,
Speaker 1: what illegal order are you being issued? I did not
Speaker 1: have illegal orders issued to me. Well, I was on
Speaker 1: active duty for twenty eight years. However, I did see
Speaker 1: a case of an illegal order that was favorably resolved.
Speaker 1: But it's a very difficult proposition. Now what they were
Speaker 1: talking about should be divorced from what we now know
Speaker 1: about these drug boats. First of all, if you follow
Speaker 1: our own law of war, in our own national law,
Speaker 1: we should not be destroying these boats in international orders.
Speaker 1: Somebody sent me an email and said, well, there's no
Speaker 1: flag on it. If there's no flag, it's free game.
Speaker 1: You can blow them up. No, you cannot. We are
Speaker 1: not under our own laws. We're not even talking about
Speaker 1: the wooden closed to the law of the sea. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about American law. You do not have the right
Speaker 1: in the United States Navy or Coastguard to simply see
Speaker 1: a vessel and say, well, it's not flying a flag,
Speaker 1: so we can blow it up. Now, under certain circumstances,
Speaker 1: you can board it and inspect it. And one of
Speaker 1: the things that we have not seen since this got
Speaker 1: underwagh is any attempt to stop board and inspect. And
Speaker 1: I'm very suspicious of that. You know, this take no
Speaker 1: prisoner's approach, which is allegedly what happened kill the remaining
Speaker 1: two that are alive strikes me as an attempt to
Speaker 1: ensure no one can survive and explain who or what
Speaker 1: they are. And you know, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: know this or not, but in war as well as
Speaker 1: in peace time, you always want to capture people. That's
Speaker 1: how you find things out. So at I been there,
Speaker 1: my concern was absolutely, rescue these people. Let's find out
Speaker 1: who they are, where did they come from? And you
Speaker 1: can do that. But I'm beginning to think that people
Speaker 1: don't want to find out that particular truth because we
Speaker 1: know historically if you go to the DEA's website, look
Speaker 1: at Venezuela, Mexico, these other places, less than four percent
Speaker 1: of the illegal drugs that do come out of Venezuela
Speaker 1: come to the United States. Whatever does, for the most part,
Speaker 1: goes to Africa and Europe. Now I'm not saying that's
Speaker 1: a good thing. We don't care about the rest of it.
Speaker 1: But if you compare the fentanyl influx into the United
Speaker 1: States it comes out of Mexico, it's nothing. And quite
Speaker 1: recently there was a raid up on Port City called
Speaker 1: Traverse Port City in Michigan. They found three point eight
Speaker 1: tons of drugs, most of it was fentanyl. It had
Speaker 1: come in through Michigan from the Great Lakes, from the
Speaker 1: Sinaloa cartel in Mexico. Now, this was a brilliant operation.
Speaker 1: People should look into it, the federal marshals, the local
Speaker 1: police ever. I mean, it was a great operation. We
Speaker 1: were successful. But my point is that's where we need
Speaker 1: to focus, not in Venezuela. Bombing Venezuela, I would argue,
Speaker 1: bombing Mexico is not going to help us deal with
Speaker 1: this drug prom Sealing off the border, keeping people out,
Speaker 1: and by the way, we have a huge problem at
Speaker 1: the legal crossing points because we don't pay customs off,
Speaker 1: let alone border patrol. But enough money, right and what
Speaker 1: happens is the cartail comes in and we'll pay you
Speaker 1: thirty thousand dollars extra a month. Just let this truck through.
Speaker 1: What's he going to do? You know, we're not realistic
Speaker 1: about these things. We have not sealed off the coastlines
Speaker 1: by any means. These semi submersibles have been around for years,
Speaker 1: they continue to operate. They could bring in all sorts
Speaker 1: of things, people, drugs. One of the things when I
Speaker 1: was involved in this down in Key West and join
Speaker 1: Integrated Task Force South Chiada South and Joint Inner Agency
Speaker 1: Task Force South. Excuse me, we were very worried about
Speaker 1: the possibility that people infected with terribly infectious and dangerous,
Speaker 1: deadly diseases could be brought in on semi submersibles right
Speaker 1: into mobile bay, off loaded in mobile bay, and then
Speaker 1: wander around in the United States until suddenly somebody starts
Speaker 1: it becomes very ill, and they discover wow, my god,
Speaker 1: it's smallpox, right, and then you find that how many
Speaker 1: people is this person touched and being there? I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a big deal border and coastal security. And
Speaker 1: then you go to the airports and what are we
Speaker 1: doing in the airports. I'm not saying we're doing nothing.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is you've got to enforce this. You've
Speaker 1: got to enforce the law there, but you got to
Speaker 1: enforce the law inside the United States. What do you
Speaker 1: do when you catch two men that have thirteen children,
Speaker 1: little children that are being trafficked, that are brought up
Speaker 1: from Mexico and you catch them in Phoenix, Arizona. What
Speaker 1: do you do with a truck driven by two people
Speaker 1: and they're bringing up enormous quantities of drugs? They pull
Speaker 1: into a warehouse and the drug peddlars come in to
Speaker 1: collect their wares so they can disseminate them, and you
Speaker 1: capture them. They're all found guilty in a court of
Speaker 1: law or as you take them to court and they're guilty,
Speaker 1: what do you do with them?
Speaker 2: Wow?
Speaker 1: I mean I would execute them. And people say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's too much, that's harsh. You want to stop it, right,
Speaker 1: Every law enforcement officer I've spoken to and asked, what
Speaker 1: if we made the penalty death for trafficking and children
Speaker 1: and women trafficking drugs? Bring it in? Oh, well, gee,
Speaker 1: it would stop.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You can just look at the countries with the
Speaker 2: harshest penalties on crime, and then look at the crime statistics.
Speaker 2: I saw in Singapore the other day. They're like publicly
Speaker 2: caning people, you know, and they don't have any crime.
Speaker 2: In Singapore, nobody wants to be publicly caned. And so
Speaker 2: I'm certainly for much much harsher criminal penalties for sure,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to trafficking women and children. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's just like the most heinoused evil type of crime
Speaker 2: that you could even imagine.
Speaker 1: But if you're losing three hundred thousand dead a year
Speaker 1: in the United States defendant the right, What are you
Speaker 1: going to do? Don't we have an obligation to protect
Speaker 1: our citizens.
Speaker 2: Well, that's the only obligation of the government, right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: But even if they.
Speaker 1: We have to protect the citizens from themselves. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 1: the choice to use drugs is a badwin. Fentanyl is deadly, right.
Speaker 1: We can't stop everything, but should we not try to
Speaker 1: stop that?
Speaker 2: And unfortunately, you know, I mean, this is a much
Speaker 2: deeper conversation, but you know, I have kids, teenage kids,
Speaker 2: and unfortunately, they know several people who have died of
Speaker 2: fentanyl in high school. None of them went to do fentanyl.
Speaker 2: They were doing, you know, something, They thought they're doing
Speaker 2: some other type of drug or pill, and it just
Speaker 2: happened to have the fentanyl in there. And so part
Speaker 2: of me thinks, well, I don't think and I don't
Speaker 2: know statistics on this, but from what I've seen personally,
Speaker 2: like nobody's going out to do fentanyl. It's that all
Speaker 2: the other drugs are so underground that they accidentally get it.
Speaker 2: And so maybe if we had more liberal drug laws
Speaker 2: like you see in other countries, where kids, teenage kids
Speaker 2: weren't going underground to get something and then accidentally dying,
Speaker 2: maybe that could stop it. But yeah, it's a whole
Speaker 2: deeper conversation.
Speaker 1: Well, the society is an experiment with this sort of
Speaker 1: thing produced some interesting outcomes obviously. You know, China was
Speaker 1: forced to accept opium at gunpoint by the Royal Navy,
Speaker 1: and we the Vanderbilts and others made billions of dollars
Speaker 1: from the opium trade. That almost destroyed China as a nation,
Speaker 1: and so they subsequently implemented very harsh measures to stop
Speaker 1: the opium epidemic. More recently, you can go to a
Speaker 1: place like the Netherlands and see large numbers of people
Speaker 1: that are engaged in all this sort of legal activia.
Speaker 1: My only experience with the Netherlands was with the military,
Speaker 1: and it was terrible, and they were as remote from
Speaker 1: readiness to fight and kill anybody as almost anyone I've
Speaker 1: ever seen. They're not bad people, but I think this
Speaker 1: sort of drug dependency or to use for it's a
Speaker 1: dangerous thing. If you're trying to maintain an effected society,
Speaker 1: you're trying to organize, train and educate people to be
Speaker 1: productive members of society, You're never going to have one
Speaker 1: hundred percent success. But when you do that with drugs,
Speaker 1: you're you're probably going to have a lot less success. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. My friends out in Colorado tell me
Speaker 1: that it's been a disaster.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that seems to be the case. Well, let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and wrap this up. Man, We've covered so much ground,
Speaker 2: and I really appreciate you taking the time maybe to
Speaker 2: kind of bring this kind of together and summarize this
Speaker 2: for sort of my main audience thinking about macroeconomic and
Speaker 2: business owners investors. When you think about this and the
Speaker 2: shifting world order that we've talked about, you know, maybe
Speaker 2: the US kind of reaching into its row, NATO potentially falling,
Speaker 2: you know, these different conflicts that we have around the world.
Speaker 2: What would you think for the average you know, investor, entrepreneur,
Speaker 2: how should they be thinking about this over the next
Speaker 2: five to ten years, Like, how would how would you
Speaker 2: be preparing for these shifts if you were in their shoes?
Speaker 1: Well, I would tell investors two things right off the bat.
Speaker 1: Demand that laws be enforced. You know, law enforcement is critical.
Speaker 1: We were very successful economically largely because we had almost
Speaker 1: perfect rule of law in the United States. I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about every jury trial was wonderful. What I'm trying
Speaker 1: to say is that people came to this country, and
Speaker 1: I've talked to so many from different places, and I said,
Speaker 1: what strikes you is most important about the United States?
Speaker 1: He said, oh, you could do business here? Yeah. I said, really, Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: you don't have to bribe anybody. You're not paying people
Speaker 1: under the table, you know, and you put your money
Speaker 1: down and you get what you paid for, and so
Speaker 1: forth so on. So the first thing, number one thing,
Speaker 1: is demand law be enforced. The second thing I would
Speaker 1: tell them is end all these overseas military interventions. Dump
Speaker 1: this sanctions regime. We have something like thirty two to
Speaker 1: thirty three countries under sanctions because somebody on the hill
Speaker 1: or somebody in the state department decide, well, we don't
Speaker 1: like them because they said mean things here where they
Speaker 1: entreat women nicely or they put bags on earth. Get
Speaker 1: rid of all that crap.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: In other words, get back to doing business with people,
Speaker 1: not trying to impose our way of life, our values,
Speaker 1: our structure, our system on others. If you could get
Speaker 1: those two things straight, which is halt the wars, stop
Speaker 1: the sanctions, and enforce the law, I think that would
Speaker 1: be enormously beneficial to business because you don't. Right now,
Speaker 1: China has said, well, you know, if you're going to
Speaker 1: behave this way, you're not going to get any rare earth. Now, personally,
Speaker 1: I'm thankful because that makes us finally pull our heads
Speaker 1: out of rectal territories and think seriously about you know,
Speaker 1: rare earth. But having said that, what possible reason do
Speaker 1: we have for that kind of hostility with China? The
Speaker 1: answer is none. And by the way, if you change
Speaker 1: your approach there and then you turn to the police
Speaker 1: agencies in China and say, we need some help because
Speaker 1: we know that fentanyl and its ingredients and so forth
Speaker 1: are shipped, you know, down to Mexico and even into
Speaker 1: the United States. We'd like your help with that. You'd
Speaker 1: be surprised. You'll probably get it. Everybody has problems. China
Speaker 1: has got one point four billion people in it. Good
Speaker 1: Lord Ge wakes up every morning hoping, hoping that he
Speaker 1: can hold that country together. Yeah, it's not easy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good points. All right, Well, I think that's a
Speaker 2: great place to end. We'll wrap it up there again,
Speaker 2: Colonel I really appreciate you sharing all your insights and
Speaker 2: your experience and knowledge with us today. Anything that. I
Speaker 2: know you create a lot of content here on You're
Speaker 2: constantly making the rounds, and I appreciate your hard work there,
Speaker 2: and I think you want to point attention to that
Speaker 2: people should be paying attention to, or that they can
Speaker 2: follow you with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you get a chance, go to the website
Speaker 1: Nationalconversation dot org. We developed that last year. It's brand new,
Speaker 1: it's a nonprofit. It's an attempt to try and chart
Speaker 1: a course into the future that is not part of
Speaker 1: the Democratic or Republican parties. Frankly speaking, I'm one of
Speaker 1: these people that thinks we've reached a point where, contrary
Speaker 1: to what they say, whatever you do, you're going to
Speaker 1: get pretty much the same outcome from both parties. We
Speaker 1: need a different way forward, a different set of principles,
Speaker 1: different set of ideas, different set of priorities. The National
Speaker 1: Conversation is designed to attract people to help us figure
Speaker 1: out what that is. It's not something where you come in.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not what is it, Oh gosh, the
Speaker 1: Tom Cruise religion, what's that?
Speaker 2: Scientology?
Speaker 1: We're not turning you into something like a scientologist. What
Speaker 1: we want to do is have you join us for
Speaker 1: various meetings that we're going to hold all over the country,
Speaker 1: meetings and dinners. We're going to have speakers and then
Speaker 1: we want to hear what you have to say. I
Speaker 1: still think that's the best way to get forward. You
Speaker 1: can't if you try to develop a new party structure,
Speaker 1: a new third party from the top down, it will fail. Right,
Speaker 1: you need leadership, but you need people from the bottom
Speaker 1: up who are committed to it. Yeah, and everybody is
Speaker 1: saying it can't be done. It can't be done, it
Speaker 1: can't be done. There's too much money in these other parties. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what people thought about the Republican Party, and it
Speaker 1: didn't happen that way. The Republicans actually came into power.
Speaker 1: And that's because of events over which you and I
Speaker 1: have no control. We don't know what will happen in
Speaker 1: the next twelve months, and suddenly people based on the
Speaker 1: events may decide, Gosh, these people over here with a
Speaker 1: national conversation, they've got a good idea. We need to
Speaker 1: go that way.
Speaker 2: I love that. I love that good idea. I'm gonna
Speaker 2: make sure we'll link all that down below. I'm going
Speaker 2: to join it. I want to be involved in that.
Speaker 1: A national conversation, thank and good luck with those teenagers.
Speaker 2: Okay, thanks so much, but