Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the showing. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, RSUL, Indeed we do. We got
Speaker 1: a couple of big intra giop fights that we want
Speaker 1: to break down for you. First one that is breaking
Speaker 1: out into the open on Ukraine. Another one with regard
Speaker 1: to that real safety legislation that was pushed in the
Speaker 1: wake of East Palace. I mean, as predicted, news media
Speaker 1: moved on and a bunch of people who talked a
Speaker 1: big game about wanting to do something about it now
Speaker 1: decided they do not actually want to do something about it,
Speaker 1: so we'll tell you about that. We also have more
Speaker 1: home insurance companies pulling out of the state of Florida
Speaker 1: as supremiums there have been skyrocketing. It's become a real
Speaker 1: issue for everybody in that state, so we'll break that
Speaker 1: down for you. We've also got some UFO news that
Speaker 1: Soccer is very interested in and I am mildly interested in,
Speaker 1: so we will tell you about that as well. And
Speaker 1: this is really fascinating and horrifying has riveted the nation.
Speaker 1: The Gilgo Beach serial killer has been caught, at least allegedly.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a case. It was a cold
Speaker 1: case that goes back more than a decade. So we've
Speaker 1: got some details about how exactly they broke this open
Speaker 1: and who it was they arrested in some interesting and
Speaker 1: horrifying details there. We also are excited to welcome to
Speaker 1: the show a conservative woman who you know, she's been
Speaker 1: very like okay, grumor discourse and all of that. You know,
Speaker 1: her politics, my polic is not the same. That's fine.
Speaker 1: She has been criticizing Andrew Tait and taking some real
Speaker 1: heat from her own side, so we wanted to get
Speaker 1: her rationale and what she is thinking about before we
Speaker 1: get to any of that. Though, I want to thank
Speaker 1: all of you guys who support us here at the show.
Speaker 1: If you are able to sign up for premium membership.
Speaker 1: We were just talking yesterday about how you cannot rely
Speaker 1: on any of these social media platforms no matter which
Speaker 1: billionaire oligarch runs them. So we really have put our
Speaker 1: fate in your hands, and we're super grateful for those
Speaker 1: of you who have supported us.
Speaker 3: Very true, we've seen it all before.
Speaker 2: Creator promises things that will materialize quite never quite does.
Speaker 2: The only people that we really can rely on are you.
Speaker 2: That's why we're able to pay our bills every single day.
Speaker 2: So breakingpoints dot Com we do offer off course, you
Speaker 2: know the benefits we can give our premium members the
Speaker 2: show and how early you get our responses to each
Speaker 2: other's monologues and all of that other jazz breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: As I said, also, you get to buy socks early,
Speaker 2: those awesome socks for on show.
Speaker 3: So anyway you can.
Speaker 1: Go cam and checked in on the sock sale numbers
Speaker 1: yet to see if they're flying up.
Speaker 2: I am just going to believe that they're flying on
Speaker 2: the shows. Sure, I had to spare the indignity of
Speaker 2: showing my ankles. I saw one premium subscriber say that
Speaker 2: I have small angles but long feet, so I'm not
Speaker 2: quite sure how to take that.
Speaker 1: It's all ankles.
Speaker 3: But it's all right, it's all right. I'll sit here
Speaker 3: and I'll just.
Speaker 1: Take it this. I'm getting a little uncomfortable. Yes, discourse,
Speaker 1: let's move.
Speaker 3: To the show.
Speaker 2: Let's get to Ukraine. I guess that's the hardest pivot
Speaker 2: that could ever exist. Some actually fascinating moments when President
Speaker 2: Trump was interviewed by Maria Bartriomo over on Fox News Now.
Speaker 2: He has famously said I can end the war in
Speaker 2: Ukraine in twenty four hours.
Speaker 3: Been a bit scant on the details.
Speaker 2: Whenever he was pressed on CNN and previous interviews, He's
Speaker 2: given us the most detail yet to date, and things
Speaker 2: took a little bit of a plot twist inside the answer.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 2: You said you could end the war in Ukraine in
Speaker 2: twenty four hours?
Speaker 3: Yes, how would you do that?
Speaker 4: I know Zilinski very well. I felt he was very
Speaker 4: honorable because when they asked him about the perfect phone
Speaker 4: call that I made, he said it was. Indeed, he
Speaker 4: said it was. If he didn't even know what they
Speaker 4: were talking about, he could have Graham stand at all.
Speaker 5: I feel threatened.
Speaker 6: Well, that's not gonna be enough for Putin to stop bombing.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, no, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying
Speaker 4: is that I know Zolensky very well, and I know
Speaker 4: Putin very well, even better, and I had a good relationship,
Speaker 4: very good with both of them. I would tell Zolensky,
Speaker 4: no more, you gotta make a deal. I would tell Putin.
Speaker 4: If you don't make a deal, we're gonna give him
Speaker 4: a lot. We're gonna give more than they ever got
Speaker 4: if we have to, I will have the deal done
Speaker 4: in one day. One day.
Speaker 2: So in the same breath is saying he's gonna have
Speaker 2: I'm gonna have a deal done in one day. He's
Speaker 2: also actually putting on the table offering Ukraine even more
Speaker 2: military aid than ever before, really taking off any sort
Speaker 2: of breaks or anything in terms of escalation of Putin
Speaker 2: doesn't agree to what he wants. I mean, it is
Speaker 2: a plausible strategy. I guess it's a kin to like
Speaker 2: a Nixonian Madman strategy. It also risks a lot of escalation.
Speaker 2: And this is always the issue with Trump is you
Speaker 2: actually have no id what you're going to get. He
Speaker 2: can come out with a statement against cluster bombs all
Speaker 2: he wants, he said he wanted to reset our relationship
Speaker 2: with Russia while he was president, he broke the Obama
Speaker 2: standard and actually shipped more Javelin missiles into the conflict,
Speaker 2: arguably actually heated up the civil war and got us
Speaker 2: to a point where the invasion seemed appear justified or
Speaker 2: whatever on the Putin side, at least in the eyes
Speaker 2: of Putin. Around how the West really was united against him,
Speaker 2: not validating the reasoning, just saying though that he did
Speaker 2: certainly contribute to that same in terms of sanctions, he
Speaker 2: sanctioned historic amounts of Russian officials and often Christle.
Speaker 3: The way that he would do it is he would say.
Speaker 2: Like, look, I'm being tougher on Russia than Obama is
Speaker 2: to try and circumvent the Russia gay criticism. It both
Speaker 2: didn't work in terms of stopping the criticism and also
Speaker 2: arguably completely cut against any rhetoric that he was making
Speaker 2: on an actual policy level. Nordstream Pipeline is another good example,
Speaker 2: like in almost every case, he was far more hawkish
Speaker 2: on Russia than President and Obama was. So he may
Speaker 2: say he's against you know, cluster muinishes to Ukraine, like
Speaker 2: he put out that statement, but he's also very much
Speaker 2: leaving himself the door open for way more than like
Speaker 2: the dreams of all in the hawks and the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: do not.
Speaker 1: Count on former President Trump to be your anti war here,
Speaker 1: because I mean, listen, we've got the record. One of
Speaker 1: the many disservices that the news media did in poisoning
Speaker 1: everybody's brains with Russia Gate is the exact wrong criticism
Speaker 1: of Trump. The idea was always so he loves poon,
Speaker 1: he's so soft on Putin's is bestie, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 1: And listen, to be fair, Trump played into it with
Speaker 1: some of his comments, and you know the way that
Speaker 1: he personally behaved towards Vladimir Putin. In terms of his
Speaker 1: policy actions, he was hawkish. He was more hawkish than
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. And that was where the real criticism
Speaker 1: should have been, is some of those actions which helped
Speaker 1: to precipitate this particular crisis that we are now dealing with.
Speaker 1: You know, you saw this on a variety of issues
Speaker 1: as well. He was extraordinarily hawkish towards to run. He
Speaker 1: talked a big game about getting out of Afghanistan, but
Speaker 1: ultimately it left it to Joe Biden to actually, you know,
Speaker 1: pull out of that country, which was a very difficult situation.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and even within his rhetoric on Ukraine, he
Speaker 1: has vacillated between saying that Biden is not hawkish enough,
Speaker 1: he's not doing enough, he needs to do more, he
Speaker 1: needs to be more aggressive, and the sort of you know,
Speaker 1: let's get this deal done, let's negotiate, I have the
Speaker 1: war over in twenty four hours. He has vacillated between
Speaker 1: those two extremes, and I think it is the only
Speaker 1: thing that we could expect is that he would continue
Speaker 1: to do the same. And I also think that you know,
Speaker 1: we were about to talk about the way that the
Speaker 1: Republican base feels about the Ukrainian conflict. I think the
Speaker 1: extent of the reluctance to continue with military aid towards Ukraine,
Speaker 1: I think Trump has a lot to do with that,
Speaker 1: and I think he has really helped you drive up
Speaker 1: that sentiment within the Republican Party. But I also think
Speaker 1: it could flip on a dime where you could easily,
Speaker 1: you know, if he starts coming out and saying we
Speaker 1: should have sent F sixteen sooner, we should have sent
Speaker 1: Cluster Bob soon, or we should be doing even more.
Speaker 1: We should let them hit, you know, hit Russia and
Speaker 1: not complain about it. You could easily see the Republican
Speaker 1: base flipping to a position of Biden's not being strong enough,
Speaker 1: he's not being hawkish enough. And because the news media
Speaker 1: always is in favor of war hawkishness, you know, they
Speaker 1: would help to beat those drums as well.
Speaker 2: I saw it in Afghanistan. You know, he had a
Speaker 2: bunch of people who said, you need to pull out
Speaker 2: of Afghanistan. But like, wait, not like that, even though
Speaker 2: it's under a Trump peace deal and you know, before
Speaker 2: the inevitable ooh, but we should have kept going bogroom. Yeah,
Speaker 2: apparently everybody online is a military genius that can figure
Speaker 2: this out. The problem that comes always to the four
Speaker 2: is that when it's actually time to limit the amount
Speaker 2: of aid press for a diplomatic solution, the media is
Speaker 2: going to go against you. So then are you actually
Speaker 2: going to stand in your convictions with Trump? He consistently
Speaker 2: did not do that. He escalated troops in Afghanistan, he
Speaker 2: didn't actually pull out up until the end of his presidency.
Speaker 2: Even whenever he did sign that peace deal with the Taliban,
Speaker 2: the Russia, we gave numerous policy examples, so there's a
Speaker 2: lot to doubt whenever it comes to some of his rhetoric.
Speaker 2: And you know, to your point also in terms of
Speaker 2: the debate and kind of where it stands. Let's gohead
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen, a shot
Speaker 2: across the bout from Ben Shapiro.
Speaker 3: This is really against.
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson jd Vance in some of their more recent
Speaker 2: comments on Ukraine. He's saying, quote, Ukraine is becoming a
Speaker 2: litmus test for Republican candidates because the bad faith argument
Speaker 2: that if you think we must fund Ukraine in its
Speaker 2: war against Russia, you don't care about American poverty.
Speaker 3: This is wrong.
Speaker 2: The two issues are not connected. First off, pouring money
Speaker 2: into poverty ridden areas does not result in prosperity.
Speaker 3: That has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Half the people now promoting this line now have spoken
Speaker 2: out openly against in the past. You can be skeptical
Speaker 2: of Ukrainian military aid while still being in favor of
Speaker 2: entitlement reform.
Speaker 3: Love how he puts that one in there.
Speaker 2: Second Off, the notion that America has no interest in
Speaker 2: Ukraine is untrue. We have an interest in the Russian
Speaker 2: military being defanged so they do not invade surround nations,
Speaker 2: thus threatening global supply chains and threatening American opponents. We
Speaker 2: have an interest in deterring China from invading Taiwan. We
Speaker 2: are now stuck in this weird binary straw man in
Speaker 2: which we're told that we must fund Ukraine quote until
Speaker 2: they win, as long as it takes without defining winning,
Speaker 2: and it looks like does it mean withdrawing all aid,
Speaker 2: thus leading Russia to take Keith? In terms of defining
Speaker 2: what's stopping is quote? All nuance is lost in politics
Speaker 2: pretty quickly. It is always much easier to malign your
Speaker 2: opponents uncaring about their fellow Americans. But demagoguery comes at
Speaker 2: a pretty high societal cost. So clearly he's coming out
Speaker 2: there a little bit in favor of aid to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I also would note, I mean, if we look at
Speaker 2: the actual comments we played on our show yesterday, Crystal,
Speaker 2: Mike Pence can say that he got caught and was
Speaker 2: responding to one part of the answer all you want,
Speaker 2: but rhetorically it's a terrible look. Whenever you're saying quote,
Speaker 2: it is not my concern whenever you're asked about the binary.
Speaker 2: I also think that One of the reasons why this
Speaker 2: analysis is spurious is because everyone's like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: we can do we can do both at the same time,
Speaker 2: but we're not doing both at the same time. One
Speaker 2: gets massive bipartisan majorities and timeliness, and one doesn't with
Speaker 2: no consensus whatsoever. Now, in terms of the debate, I
Speaker 2: think we should always be honest here about Ukraine. A
Speaker 2: lot of people want to continue and increase military support
Speaker 2: to Ukraine. Not all Republicans actually do agree on Ukraine.
Speaker 2: There is room for debate in the party, and we're
Speaker 2: about to show everybody pulling to that effect.
Speaker 3: But and I think this is the big butt. Ask yourself,
Speaker 3: if that.
Speaker 2: Number the number of Republicans is representative of the number
Speaker 2: of Republicans in the Senate, of the number of Republicans
Speaker 2: in the debate, why is it only like four people
Speaker 2: I can count on one hand the number of people
Speaker 2: who are actual GOP elected leaders or officials who are
Speaker 2: actually against the Ukraine consensus. That to me is what
Speaker 2: the real imbalance looks like.
Speaker 1: That is an interesting point that there is a difference
Speaker 1: so that the Republican base based on the polling and
Speaker 1: can see it always depends a bit on how the
Speaker 1: question is asked and what the particular is in the conflict.
Speaker 1: It looked like after the progotion Wagner coup attempt thing,
Speaker 1: support for Ukraine increased in the wake of that. But
Speaker 1: it appears that the Republican base is basically split fifty
Speaker 1: to fifty on whether they want to continue military aid,
Speaker 1: whether they're of the sort of Mike Pence view or
Speaker 1: whether they're of the you know, Trumpian when he's articulating
Speaker 1: the let's just get to the table and this thing
Speaker 1: resolved immediately when he's articulating that view. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen from the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: That broke this down, because there's a real difference between
Speaker 1: if you ask the overall Republican base how they feel
Speaker 1: about the conflict versus the most plugged in online activist
Speaker 1: base of the party, which is overwhelmingly against continuing military
Speaker 1: aid to Ukraine. So the headline here is gop Ukraine
Speaker 1: skeptics dominate the debate, but not the party. You've got
Speaker 1: some numbers here that, you know, sort of illustrate the point.
Speaker 1: You had a Quinnipiac poll last month that showed sixty
Speaker 1: six percent of American said supporting Ukraine was in the
Speaker 1: national interest of the US will just twenty eight percent
Speaker 1: said it was not. Even among Republicans, you had a
Speaker 1: fifty two percent majority that said it was in our
Speaker 1: interest compared to forty percent who said it was not.
Speaker 1: In an economist yu Goov poll last month, you found
Speaker 1: a similar result. Twice as many Americans favored increasing or
Speaker 1: keeping the same amount of aid as supported decreasing it.
Speaker 1: Neither among Republicans nor among twenty twenty Trump voters was
Speaker 1: decreasing aid a majority position. So in many of these
Speaker 1: polls you find actually a majority of the Republican base
Speaker 1: supports the Ukraine consensus. It's hardly a surprise given the
Speaker 1: fact that you know, elected Republican elites hold that position,
Speaker 1: given the fact that the media is almost uniformly in
Speaker 1: support of that position. But then again you turn to
Speaker 1: put this next piece up on the screen. From media,
Speaker 1: you turned to you know, the activists at the Turning
Speaker 1: Point USA conference and they did a straw pole on
Speaker 1: this very question, and they found that ninety five point
Speaker 1: eight percent of attendees in that straw pole said they
Speaker 1: oppose the US supporting Ukraine against Russia. So I tried
Speaker 1: to make this point yesterday. I think if you're you're
Speaker 1: thinking about this issue and you're just thinking about the
Speaker 1: politics of it and your Republican presidential contender, you might
Speaker 1: be on the correct side of overall GOP sentiment if
Speaker 1: you have the like Mike Pence, let's continue to support them,
Speaker 1: or the Chris Christy, let's continue to support them position.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the people who are most motivated,
Speaker 1: who are most organized, and who frankly I think care
Speaker 1: the most about this issue, they're all on the other
Speaker 1: side of that. And you know, it's a similar dynamic
Speaker 1: that we see play out with issues like abortion. Again,
Speaker 1: taking like you know your particular position on these issues
Speaker 1: and how you feel about them, out of it, you
Speaker 1: have a very hardcore, very well organized, very active, very
Speaker 1: engaged base of the Republican Party that has some very
Speaker 1: hard anti abortion positions that don't even line up with
Speaker 1: where the rest of the GOP bass same thing onl
Speaker 1: BTQ issues. And so once again you've got an issue
Speaker 1: with Ukraine where I think the most active, the most organized,
Speaker 1: that people who care the most about the issue are
Speaker 1: on one side, and then you have a different sentiment
Speaker 1: among the rest of the GP.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think those are always excellent points. Is that
Speaker 2: if the party faithful believes something the activist base, you
Speaker 2: can take over and you can really run the table.
Speaker 2: That's what the Tea Party was able to do back
Speaker 2: in twenty ten, and in this case it very much
Speaker 2: could be. Just even though we have a few lawmakers
Speaker 2: people like Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor Green, Matt Gates, Jade Vance,
Speaker 2: and Trump. You know, Trump is the most popular figure
Speaker 2: and those are some of his most loyal.
Speaker 3: Allies inside of Congress.
Speaker 2: So the turning point USA poll is probably one of
Speaker 2: the most important ones around where the energy is. There's
Speaker 2: also don't forget about those comments from House Speaker Kevin
Speaker 2: McCarthy previously about no more Ukraine aid would pass, even
Speaker 2: though Mitch McConnell and all of them do disagree.
Speaker 3: But I think that the.
Speaker 2: Overall you know, fracture inside of this is interesting because
Speaker 2: it also shows that Trump is leaving the door open.
Speaker 3: You know, he's not closing the door.
Speaker 2: He's not actually ideologically committed to an actual like reducing aid.
Speaker 2: Making sure that you drive key to the table and
Speaker 2: to the bargaining for the bargaining table. He really is
Speaker 2: you know, opening the door to even more military if needed,
Speaker 2: and politically could make that case quite easily, I think
Speaker 2: to the Republicans. I also do think in terms of
Speaker 2: why a lot of Republicans, specifically primary voters, do support
Speaker 2: some of the Ukraine consensus.
Speaker 3: A lot of these people are old.
Speaker 2: You know, old people are still locked into a Cold
Speaker 2: War mindset. I was born after the Cold War ended.
Speaker 2: I don't care really think about it at all. These
Speaker 2: people they you know, when you go through nuclear drills
Speaker 2: and all that stuff. I think for a lot of people,
Speaker 2: like our generation, Crystal millennial generation, we will probably never
Speaker 2: be able to forget the specters of like nine to
Speaker 2: eleven and Islamic terrorism. Whereas, you know, if you grew
Speaker 2: if you were born let's say in you know, two
Speaker 2: thousand and nine, you really didn't even come of age
Speaker 2: up until you like your memories and all that, they're
Speaker 2: really in the post Islamic terror eras, you'd be like,
Speaker 2: what are you talking about? You guys at threat levels
Speaker 2: and airports. So I think it's the same the same
Speaker 2: in terms of the carryover effect, and it'll stick with
Speaker 2: you for the rest of your life. So anyway, just
Speaker 2: an interesting corollary, I think to the politics of it
Speaker 2: now on the policy of it, of which you and
Speaker 2: I do certainly care about. There is a crazy interview
Speaker 2: with the commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces
Speaker 2: who gave one to the Key of Independent from a
Speaker 2: few days ago that we wanted to make sure that
Speaker 2: we actually spend some time with because it's extraordinarily revealing
Speaker 2: as to how the actual Ukrainians fighting this battle think
Speaker 2: about some of the things that we spend a lot
Speaker 2: of time debating here on breaking points. Do they really,
Speaker 2: crystal not care what we think and they're just going
Speaker 2: to use our military aid and weapons to do whatever
Speaker 2: they want? Do they not care about escalation with Russia?
Speaker 2: The answer to both of those questions appears to be, yeah,
Speaker 2: they really don't. So let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. In terms of what he has said on
Speaker 2: Ukrainian strikes inside of Russia, quote, it is up to
Speaker 2: us to decide how to kill this enemy. Now, once again,
Speaker 2: you could say that is true, but you know you
Speaker 2: can use your own weapons. Then oh wait, you don't
Speaker 2: have any of your own weapons. In terms of partners,
Speaker 2: he says, quote, if our partners are afraid to use
Speaker 2: this weapons. We will kill with our own, but only
Speaker 2: as much as necessary. Once again, ridiculous. They have no
Speaker 2: industrial base, They don't have any of their own weapons.
Speaker 2: All of their weapons are provided to them by charity.
Speaker 2: They can't even afford them themselves because they basically have
Speaker 2: no economy. And you know, he does make the point
Speaker 2: that we always try to emphasize here, he says, to
Speaker 2: save my people, Why do I have to someone ask
Speaker 2: someone for permission what to do on enemy territory? You
Speaker 2: don't if you're able to make your own weapons, and
Speaker 2: you're able to supply your own military, and you're able
Speaker 2: to pay your own bills.
Speaker 3: But you actually can't do any of those.
Speaker 2: You are entirely dependent upon the charity of NATO and
Speaker 2: of the United It is really not NATO but the
Speaker 2: United States. So in that case, yeah, you do have
Speaker 2: to listen whenever we tell you what to do, because
Speaker 2: we have stakes that are in the conflict, and they
Speaker 2: always want to have their cake and eat it too.
Speaker 2: And you know, I'm not the only one actually who
Speaker 2: thinks that the Ukrainians are ungrateful when they always have
Speaker 2: their handout asking for more, even though when they're getting
Speaker 2: a historic amount of aid. I don't know sure if
Speaker 2: you saw this crystal, but Ben Wallace, who is the
Speaker 2: Defense Minister in the UK, gave an on the record
Speaker 2: statement saying, you know, sometimes we'd like to see a
Speaker 2: little bit more gratitude at the NATO summit, and just
Speaker 2: that freaked out the Ukraine, NAFO people, the Lithuanians, and
Speaker 2: Zelenski sarcastically was like, okay, we will say thank you.
Speaker 2: You know, is our thank you enough? And it's like
Speaker 2: it gets to the point of look, the UK, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, they haven't sent nearly enough military aid of
Speaker 2: relative to what we have, considering that they actually are
Speaker 2: on the continent. They are the great power, they have
Speaker 2: a massive economy, they have a real industrial base.
Speaker 3: You send it, why do we have to do it?
Speaker 2: But even you know, compared to the rest of the
Speaker 2: European country's crystal, they've sent way more than anybody else.
Speaker 2: And so for them, they're like, look, our population supports you.
Speaker 2: You but you got to say thanks man. And this
Speaker 2: same thing happened with NATO membership. So Zelenski famously put
Speaker 2: out his angry tweet about NATO membership, and apparently the
Speaker 2: United States Biden and the delegation was so miffed they
Speaker 2: almost watered down the language at the last minute if
Speaker 2: inviting you know, I guess eventual NATO membership. Now, I
Speaker 2: would say, though, that his ungrateful attitude works for a reason,
Speaker 2: which is in almost every case you nothing actually happens
Speaker 2: to you, or they still get all the aid that
Speaker 2: they want. So why wouldn't you keep doing it if
Speaker 2: you sound like a whiny child and you know, on like,
Speaker 2: on balance, he actually is getting everything he wants on paper,
Speaker 2: but there is still a bit of a fraying that
Speaker 2: is happening, I think, even amongst the most pro Ukraine
Speaker 2: people who are involved in those decisions, because it's just
Speaker 2: the arrogance. It's the arrogance, it's the lack of gratitude.
Speaker 2: And you know it is on the record statements like
Speaker 2: this from Ukrainian military commanders being like, you can't tell
Speaker 2: us what to do, and you know once, yes we can,
Speaker 2: we quite literally can.
Speaker 3: Whenever we're the ones we just sang our bills, so
Speaker 3: we can. We just don't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean remember there was a reporting reporting like
Speaker 1: last summer about how Biden was getting irritated with Zelensky,
Speaker 1: for exactly this reason, because it was just constant, it
Speaker 1: was just the sense of entitlement. But to me, the
Speaker 1: most chilling comments from this UH military commander, this Ukrainian
Speaker 1: military commander is he says, listen, as soon as I
Speaker 1: have the means, I'll do something. I don't give a
Speaker 1: damn nobody will stop me. Yes, And he's.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, he is right, He's one hundred percent right.
Speaker 1: You know, we talked about this with the kirch Straight Bridge,
Speaker 1: Ukraine taking responsibility for an attack on that bridge this week,
Speaker 1: and how that contrast with last what was it fall
Speaker 1: or summer when there was a similar attack on the
Speaker 1: bridge and there was a little Ukrainian wink and a nod,
Speaker 1: but they didn't feel bold enough to actually take responsibility
Speaker 1: for that attack. At this point. Now, between then and now,
Speaker 1: you know, we've had all these attacks on Russian soil,
Speaker 1: we direct attacks on the Grumblin and they're there have
Speaker 1: been no repercussions in terms of all Ukraine has seen
Speaker 1: is continued escalation of our support. And you know, okay,
Speaker 1: we will send you the Abram stinks. Okay, we will
Speaker 1: send you the F sixteen. So okay, we will send
Speaker 1: you cluster bombs. So from their perspective, they're like, why
Speaker 1: should we hide it? Why should we do anything other
Speaker 1: than exactly what we want to do in this conflict. Again,
Speaker 1: I don't blame them. I don't blame them for having
Speaker 1: that view. I blame us for allowing what is a
Speaker 1: very dangerous situation to unfold. And the blase attitude that
Speaker 1: some of these people have about potential nuclear war. I
Speaker 1: just cannot wrap my head around it. You know, we
Speaker 1: had an interview yesterday with a former Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson,
Speaker 1: who is a twenty twenty four contender, really grateful for
Speaker 1: his time, super nice guy, wildly differ from him on
Speaker 1: a whole variety of issues. But the thing that was
Speaker 1: most stark to me that he said is, you know,
Speaker 1: I asked him a question, all right, so what are
Speaker 1: you concerned that we're going to get into a nuclear war,
Speaker 1: that we're risky nuclear war? And he said, we risk
Speaker 1: nuclear war every day?
Speaker 3: Did we risk it every day? Yeah? I was shocked.
Speaker 1: That seems like a bad thing. Maybe we should try
Speaker 1: to decrease that risk. So the fact that we have,
Speaker 1: you know, from the beginning of this conflict, we have
Speaker 1: been sounding the alarms about the possibility of sleepwalking into
Speaker 1: a nuclear conflagration, and every step in this direction, every
Speaker 1: bit of Ukraine's feeling in Ukrainians feeling emboldened to take
Speaker 1: these really dangerous actions, risks drawing us directly into this conflict.
Speaker 1: You know, if there was a potential attack on a
Speaker 1: NATO country, God forbid, it risks you know, Putin and
Speaker 1: Russia getting into a desperate situation where they create an
Speaker 1: escalatory ladder that it's very hard to get out of.
Speaker 1: And listen, I know that people are not as fun
Speaker 1: up about the nuclear risk as they were, for example
Speaker 1: last fall when even Biden was talking about trying to
Speaker 1: avoid World War three. But make no mistake, this is
Speaker 1: still a nuclear armed superpower that is facing you know,
Speaker 1: some at least domestic turmoil and instability, and we need
Speaker 1: not to take our eye off that ball.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think you're right.
Speaker 2: It's just one of those where you really shouldn't put
Speaker 2: it off to the side, because you just add absolutely
Speaker 2: never know when something could burst to the four I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, the Ukrainians are one breakthrough away in some
Speaker 2: cases from actually increasing their risk or vice versa. If
Speaker 2: they completely collapse and then they resort to some sort
Speaker 2: of you know, crazy action like a gamble to try
Speaker 2: and get back into the game.
Speaker 3: That could increase it.
Speaker 2: So and you know, in a lot of ways, like
Speaker 2: the current stasis is probably the safest, but because the
Speaker 2: universe of options is so big, you know, in war,
Speaker 2: you never know what's going to happen. There's always risk
Speaker 2: there on the table as long as the conflict continues.
Speaker 2: So I think it's always important to keep it at
Speaker 2: top of mind. And you know, in the most cliche
Speaker 2: like a phrase of all time, like when people tell
Speaker 2: you who they are, believe them, like when he says,
Speaker 2: I don't give a damn what you guys think, believe them.
Speaker 2: I mean, imagine if you had military, like the US
Speaker 2: military commander effectively saying this when somebody else was paying
Speaker 2: our bills and somebody else was like, hey, man, like
Speaker 2: you shouldn't be doing that. We were acting with such
Speaker 2: level of arrogance, it would be universally agreed that this
Speaker 2: is unacceptable. And yet these comments, they just fly completely
Speaker 2: under the radar.
Speaker 3: Nobody in the mainstream media, you know, picks it up.
Speaker 2: And apparently we're the only ones who can read, you know,
Speaker 2: an obvious interview here, which is actually given in English,
Speaker 2: just so everybody understands. You know, it's one of those
Speaker 2: where I don't know why it doesn't get the attention
Speaker 2: it deserves, but apparently it doesn't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean we covered when those leaked oh yeah,
Speaker 1: discord leaks came out and it said in there one
Speaker 1: of the gating items that was keeping them from launching
Speaker 1: more attacks on Russian soil was that we hadn't provided
Speaker 1: them with the weapons to do it. And then you know,
Speaker 1: our like, this is information our government had. These were
Speaker 1: intelligence inners who said our government had they knew that,
Speaker 1: and they're like, yeah, we're going to give them a
Speaker 1: sixteens anyway, it's fine. And so yeah, you like his
Speaker 1: brazen where I'm going to do what I want to
Speaker 1: do is totally justified based on the fact that it
Speaker 1: reminds me when when Hillary Clinton said she went to
Speaker 1: Wall Street and told them to cut it out, and
Speaker 1: they're like, okay, ladies, sure, sure, we're going to do that.
Speaker 1: It's the same deal where you know, we'll send our
Speaker 1: a little like please don't do that anymore, Yes, please
Speaker 1: don't do that. We don't like it when you do that.
Speaker 1: You think that they care, no, because there's no consequences
Speaker 1: attached to it. So that's where we are.
Speaker 3: That's well said, all.
Speaker 1: Right, guys. Yesterday there was actually a pretty significant train
Speaker 1: derailment outside of Philadelphia. A train, you know, relatively large
Speaker 1: freight train outside of that city derailed I think ten
Speaker 1: plus cars of that train off the tracks. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to a little bit of what happened there.
Speaker 7: Some homes in the Philadelphia area are being evacuated after
Speaker 7: a train derailment on this Monday morning. Police say a
Speaker 7: forty car freight train derailed around five o'clock Eastern time,
Speaker 7: about ninety minutes ago, and at least ten of those
Speaker 7: cars reportedly came off the tracks.
Speaker 1: You can see right there.
Speaker 7: No injuries have been reported, as mac Cruz had been
Speaker 7: called in. A white substance was reportedly seen leaking from
Speaker 7: a one tanker, but there's still no word on what's
Speaker 7: inside the derailed train cars.
Speaker 1: So that evacuation has since been lifted. Residents have been
Speaker 1: allowed to return to their homes. But this is yet
Speaker 1: another reminder that I mean, first of all, the number
Speaker 1: of derailments that we have in this country is insane
Speaker 1: and other countries do not have this same like, we're
Speaker 1: just going to routinely accept that trains come off the
Speaker 1: track with major risk to life and limb all the time.
Speaker 1: But it also highlights that we have yet to do
Speaker 1: anything in response to that horrific trained derailment in East
Speaker 1: Palastine that led to them lighting the whole thing on
Speaker 1: fire and exposing all of these residents to some sort
Speaker 1: of horrific chemical cocktail. The residents of that town may
Speaker 1: well be dealing with the fallout of those actions for
Speaker 1: their entire lives. They are certainly right now still dealing
Speaker 1: with the aftermath of this, but it's slipped out of
Speaker 1: the news media's attention. And guess what. At the time,
Speaker 1: the rail lobby basically said, we're going to wait this
Speaker 1: out and we're going to wait for republic pressure to
Speaker 1: die down, and then we're going to try to kill
Speaker 1: any bill that comes forward. And as of today, it
Speaker 1: kind of looks like that strategy is working. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, the state of play in
Speaker 1: terms of what is a bipartisan rail safety effort. The
Speaker 1: headline here from Politico is GOP discord threatened. Senate response
Speaker 1: to railway disaster. The rail safety divide within the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is a micro cosm of its realignment over the
Speaker 1: past few years. Trump supports it, but other than centermt Romney,
Speaker 1: the effort gets almost all is GFP support from the
Speaker 1: party's small yet growing populous wing, and unless the party's
Speaker 1: establishment gets more fully on board the safety plan that
Speaker 1: JD Vance shaped with Senator Shared Brown, they're both from Ohio,
Speaker 1: Ohio colleagues, there may stall out. You only have remember
Speaker 1: what a big game Republicans talked at the time, about
Speaker 1: how much they cared about this issue and how much
Speaker 1: they trash the Biden administration, how they have hearings they
Speaker 1: know all virtue signaled about how much they cared about
Speaker 1: making sure that this never happens again. Do you know
Speaker 1: how many Republicans have now said that they support what
Speaker 1: is a very modest incremental improvement and rail safety seven seven.
Speaker 1: That's it. And so you know, again the rail lobby
Speaker 1: having their way, and they do contribute a lot of
Speaker 1: money to some of the key members of that party.
Speaker 1: There's also in the House the situation is even less
Speaker 1: promising because it's controlled by the Republicans. So in the
Speaker 1: Senate you have as far as item particulately, all the
Speaker 1: Democrats on the side of this legislation, which again is
Speaker 1: very modest. Actually, let me give you the details here.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen from Bloomberg. This is
Speaker 1: all that it would do. Would require sensors to detect
Speaker 1: overheated ball bearings that was a likely cause of that
Speaker 1: East Palestine crash. Would tighten rules on hazardous cargo and
Speaker 1: increased maximum fines to ten million dollars. Would require a
Speaker 1: two person crew on freight trains. Two people. That's it,
Speaker 1: that's all we're talking about. Labor agreements already require the same.
Speaker 1: But the Association of American Railroads heads argued that new
Speaker 1: technology should allow single person crews to operate safely. Think
Speaker 1: about how gigantic these trains are and you want a
Speaker 1: single person crew. A study for the group in twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen estimated railroads could save more than two billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year using one person cruise a boon to freight
Speaker 1: giants like Norfolk, Southern or Union Pacific. So they've been
Speaker 1: pushing for this for a while, and you know Republicans
Speaker 1: now throwing up objections about how, oh, we can't do
Speaker 1: this because it would empower the Biden ministry, would hand
Speaker 1: them more power, etc. I mean, these are really modest proposals,
Speaker 1: and it's just pathetic that you have so little support
Speaker 1: for this bill, so that you know that was craft
Speaker 1: in a bipartisan manner, that was on an issue that
Speaker 1: everybody seemed to care about at the time. But as
Speaker 1: the public spotlight has moved on, they feel like they
Speaker 1: can politically let it die.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, this is the classic story, and
Speaker 2: actually this is a really good one to analyze the
Speaker 2: problems in our politics today.
Speaker 3: So let's go through the details.
Speaker 2: This is a bill that has been endorsed by the
Speaker 2: President of the United States, Joseph Biden. This is a
Speaker 2: bill endorsed by former President Donald Trump. But it is
Speaker 2: one of the rarest things in the world to have
Speaker 2: the support of both leaders, ostensibly of each party. And
Speaker 2: yet despite all the media protestations they care about Ukraine
Speaker 2: and not East Palestine, all of the savaging of Pete
Speaker 2: Bodhage Edge, when an actual bipartisan, decent fix to the
Speaker 2: problem comes to the four, what happens nothing? And in fact,
Speaker 2: one quote here is perfect from a Republican senator who
Speaker 2: actually does support the bill quote. JD's gotten the classic
Speaker 2: run around here, which is we want to work with you,
Speaker 2: we want to work with you, but then they try
Speaker 2: and kill it in the committee, and now they're slow
Speaker 2: walking it to the floor. What I'm told is that
Speaker 2: there are not sixty votes. They also note people like
Speaker 2: Susan Collins, the queen of bipartisanship, Lindsey.
Speaker 3: Graham, he never met a Democrat he doesn't want.
Speaker 2: To work with to send more aid to Ukraine, are
Speaker 2: their quote noncommittal.
Speaker 3: And not one member.
Speaker 2: Of GOP leadership supports this bill. So that includes John Cornyn,
Speaker 2: that includes John Thune, Senator Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 3: None of the.
Speaker 2: Actual big wigs are actually working to pull this thing.
Speaker 2: I once again note endorsed by Donald Trump Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: it's got both senators from Ohio, legitimately bipartisan in its
Speaker 2: introduction and can not even yet get to sixty to
Speaker 2: actually come to the floor. And the main person responsible
Speaker 2: for this, honestly is Ted Cruz, who is the head
Speaker 2: of the Commerce Committee, who tried to kill the bill
Speaker 2: while it was in mark up and remains the major
Speaker 2: obstacle to the bill coming to the floor. I actually
Speaker 2: asked Jad about this whenever he was on our show previously.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8: The fundamental argument here that Ted made is he doesn't
Speaker 8: like the fact that the bill gives any discretion or
Speaker 8: any authority to the Biden administration. Right, Well, the bid
Speaker 8: admistration forces the laws. So I've been saying for the
Speaker 8: past three months, and a lot of Republicans have been
Speaker 8: echoing me, that Biden demonstration needs to do more. So
Speaker 8: here's a piece of legislation that forces the Biden administration
Speaker 8: to do more. You can't, on the one hand, say
Speaker 8: they're not doing enough and on the other hand, find
Speaker 8: a piece of legislation that forces them to actually take action.
Speaker 8: There's a deeper problem here, which is if you think
Speaker 8: that we're going to have to fight back against corporate America,
Speaker 8: against big tech, against the pharmaceutical industry, if you have
Speaker 8: to do these things, well, the governments pretty much the
Speaker 8: only path in town.
Speaker 3: That is the representation of the people.
Speaker 8: That is the entity that has the actual authority and
Speaker 8: the power to go after something like a big tech
Speaker 8: or like the railway industry. So you've got to be
Speaker 8: willing to use the power that the people gave us
Speaker 8: under this constitutional system. And I understand people are reactive
Speaker 8: and look, sometimes, of course the government. Oftentimes the government
Speaker 8: does things that shouldn't do. Sometimes it fights progressive battles
Speaker 8: that it shouldn't fight. But if we're going to win
Speaker 8: the argument, we have to be willing to actually use
Speaker 8: the levers of power and use what the people gave us.
Speaker 8: That's what this fight is all about.
Speaker 2: I mean, what he lays out there is a theory
Speaker 2: of government apparently, which is novel to Republicans. Whenever corporate
Speaker 2: interests are involved, they're like, we'll use the government whenever
Speaker 2: we want, you know, in order to cut taxes and
Speaker 2: all of that. But when it comes to regulating one
Speaker 2: of the industries most benefited by federal dollars in the
Speaker 2: entire country.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Then we can't be doing anything.
Speaker 2: Even when dangerous chemicals have leaked out, injured people who
Speaker 2: were in the area, you know, allegedly for the Norfolk
Speaker 2: Southern lawyers here, and you know all these pets who
Speaker 2: allegedly died as a result of this, and who were
Speaker 2: allegedly poisoned in East Palestine, Ohio.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Ted Cruz, I mean, it is disgusting because
Speaker 1: he was one of these ones. Yeah, he was happy
Speaker 1: to go out in front of the cameras and you know,
Speaker 1: trash peak, trash biden, which we did the same, but
Speaker 1: we actually meant it, and we actually wanted things to
Speaker 1: be done to fix the problem so that we can
Speaker 1: move forward and not have an entire American town poisoned
Speaker 1: because we failed to take basic precautionary measures like having
Speaker 1: sensors aboard a giant freight train with explosive chemicals that
Speaker 1: can poison waterways for like a fifty mile radius. And so, yeah,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, he was happy to posture for the cameras
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of them alongside him as well.
Speaker 1: But when it comes down to it, guess what he's
Speaker 1: going to side with the donor class. He's going to
Speaker 1: side with big business. And they throw up the most transparent,
Speaker 1: like tired talking points that if you dig one inch
Speaker 1: deep or don't hold up to scrutiny, and they'll just say, like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's too much government, you know what, don't be so
Speaker 1: stupid about regulation. Yes, some regulation is way over the
Speaker 1: top and becomes counterproductive and is genuinely an impediment, and
Speaker 1: you should be opposed to that regulation. I don't care
Speaker 1: if you're on the right, left, center, whatever. Some things
Speaker 1: are important for health and safety. And you know what,
Speaker 1: these rail giants have turned massive profits, record breaking historical profits.
Speaker 1: They can afford to have two people on their crews,
Speaker 1: They can afford to install a few sensors on their
Speaker 1: trains to keep these horrific derailments from happening, and these
Speaker 1: and you know, one of these other things is just
Speaker 1: they have to notify officials in the state if their
Speaker 1: train is carrying hazardous materials so that first responders are prepared.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're talking about such basic, obvious stuff. But
Speaker 1: rather than get into any of those details, because any
Speaker 1: thinking person would look at this and go like, well
Speaker 1: that makes sense. I can't believe we don't have that already,
Speaker 1: instead of getting into those details, they just handwave away, Oh,
Speaker 1: we can't give the Biden administration power. It's too much
Speaker 1: government or in favor of small government. And so we're
Speaker 1: just gonna wait and sit back and let this whole
Speaker 1: situation unfold again. It is truly disgraceful.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and look, the bill's not dead yet.
Speaker 2: It is possible, So you know, I would rarely do this,
Speaker 2: But if you're one of those people and you know
Speaker 2: a senator and you live in their state, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe consider actually sending something because you look, I mean,
Speaker 2: how many senator Republican senators specifically I was a congressional
Speaker 2: intern once upon a time.
Speaker 3: The number of boomers who.
Speaker 2: Are calling in being like, I'm so sick that you're
Speaker 2: not doing enough to find Barack Obama's birth certificate. That
Speaker 2: is what these staff assistants and offices have to deal
Speaker 2: with on an almost daily basis. So I bet they
Speaker 2: rarely get any mail or a phone call or anything
Speaker 2: like that. On rail I'm not sure if it would
Speaker 2: even help. I'm literally just doing this on my own accord,
Speaker 2: but consider it, you know, especially if you're from the
Speaker 2: industrial Midwest and you have a senate or you know
Speaker 2: in that or you have a lot of railway that
Speaker 2: moves through your state, because you know, nobody thinks about
Speaker 2: it until an entire town gets basically, you know, allegedly poisoned.
Speaker 2: And after that, you know, it becomes a flash in
Speaker 2: the pan moment and then boom, it's gone. And unfortunately
Speaker 2: it's just business as usual. And these are people who
Speaker 2: actually want to do something Sharon Brown is a serious person,
Speaker 2: so is Jade Vance. Many of the Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 2: just signed on to this bill. There's a reason the
Speaker 2: former President Trump endorsed it, and there's a reason that
Speaker 2: President Biden endorse it. It's not a joke. It's not
Speaker 2: one of the rare messaging things. In my opinion, that's
Speaker 2: why they're trying to kill.
Speaker 3: It so badly. That's exactly why they're actually try.
Speaker 1: Because it might actually do something. I mean, god, they're
Speaker 1: so greedy, they don't want to take a single penny
Speaker 1: off their bottom line, and they've got all of these
Speaker 1: duds in their pocket. And you see, you know, their strategy,
Speaker 1: and this has worked so many times, is just we'll
Speaker 1: delay it, we'll push it out, and then we'll quietly
Speaker 1: kill the thing and next thing, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: next time this happens, people are going to turn around
Speaker 1: and go, wait, I thought you cared about this. I
Speaker 1: thought you said you were going to do something about it,
Speaker 1: and as of today, absolutely nothing. So yes, shame and
Speaker 1: pressure these people. Where at seven Republican votes, we need
Speaker 1: like three more in the Senate to get it over
Speaker 1: the line. Then maybe you know, the House might take
Speaker 1: it up and feel some pressure to do something as well.
Speaker 1: It'd be great if President Trump would instead of just
Speaker 1: sort of tacitly approving it, if he would actually get involved.
Speaker 1: But as of today, this is, you know, a shameful
Speaker 1: episode as it stands at this point.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's talk about something that we've been keeping our
Speaker 1: eye on here, which is a number of states in
Speaker 1: terms of homeowners insurance are becoming virtually uninsurable. It's a
Speaker 1: huge issue for homeowners, you know, on top of housing
Speaker 1: costs being out of control, premiums in Florida in particular
Speaker 1: have been absolutely skyrocketing as they have been facing catastrophic
Speaker 1: hurricane after catastrophic hurricane. Some of the most expensive disasters
Speaker 1: in history have taken place in that state. And so
Speaker 1: we've got another ensure that is pulling out at the state,
Speaker 1: making things even more difficult. Let's go and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. So far has now joined Banker's Insurance,
Speaker 1: Lexington Insurance, which is a subsidiary of AIG and withdrawing
Speaker 1: from the market just since last year. So multiple major
Speaker 1: insurers just pulling out as a market completely. Again, this
Speaker 1: is not just a Florida problem, a though, it may
Speaker 1: be the worst in Florida. It is a huge problem
Speaker 1: in California because of wildfire's huge problem in Colorado, also
Speaker 1: because of wild fires, Texas, Louisiana. There are a number
Speaker 1: of states that are really struggling with this. And by
Speaker 1: the way, these huge floods that we just had in
Speaker 1: New England are going to exacerbate problems for them there
Speaker 1: as well. This piece from The Guardian was I think
Speaker 1: really powerful because they actually talked to some of the
Speaker 1: residents in the state that are struggling with this, and
Speaker 1: what they're seeing is that as homeowners insurance is getting
Speaker 1: completely unaffordable. Normal middle class, working class, longtime residents of
Speaker 1: Florida are being pushed out. And guess who's coming in
Speaker 1: to gobble up their homes. It is permanent capital. It is,
Speaker 1: you know, these gigantic Wall Street investors who are snapping
Speaker 1: up a lot of the Florida real estate that is
Speaker 1: being made available by these homeowners that are being pushed out.
Speaker 1: They say in this piece that climate change is threatening
Speaker 1: the very existence of some parts of Florida. The costs
Speaker 1: are being felt by Floridians. At the end of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, average annual property insurance premiums had already risen
Speaker 1: to more than forty two hundred in Florida. That is
Speaker 1: three times the national average. I saw estimates. I did
Speaker 1: a monologue on this a while ago that they the
Speaker 1: estimate is that they're going to see another forty percent
Speaker 1: increase in homeowners insurance costs just this year. They spoke
Speaker 1: to one resident I think this guy was in Vero
Speaker 1: Beach who said, none of my immediate neighbors have hurricane insurance.
Speaker 1: Various of them are now trying to self ensure, meaning
Speaker 1: they're trying to build up pots of money to pay
Speaker 1: for possible damages, which is a huge risk and probably
Speaker 1: will not work. Some of them rejected by citizens, for instance,
Speaker 1: for not having sufficient storm coverings on their windows and
Speaker 1: could not afford other insurance to make matters words, I mean,
Speaker 1: the Republican legislature basically gave like giant giveaway to the industry,
Speaker 1: create a big bailout fund from them. Made it more
Speaker 1: difficult for homeowners to sue some of these property insurers
Speaker 1: who have been out and out scamming them, especially in
Speaker 1: the wake of Hurricane Ian. Put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen from Politico. They say that Hurricane Ian battered these
Speaker 1: middle class beach communities. Repair costs finished them off. That
Speaker 1: hurricanes's assault on southwest Florida is speeding a transition already
Speaker 1: occurring in some of the state's coastal communities, driving out
Speaker 1: middle and working class people, replacing them with deep pocketed buyers.
Speaker 1: In the waterfront cities of Fort Myers Beach and Cape Corral,
Speaker 1: even homeowners with flood insurance are finding they cannot afford
Speaker 1: the cost of rebuilding their houses to modern building codes
Speaker 1: as federal rules demand. And part of that is, as
Speaker 1: I was saying, there was a whole investigation, a series
Speaker 1: of investigations into the fact that many of these homeowners,
Speaker 1: even the ones that had insurance, were basically scammed by
Speaker 1: their insurers, which were these fly by night operations. Since
Speaker 1: the big guys are pulling out of the state, they're
Speaker 1: either giving them pennies of what they actually are owed,
Speaker 1: or they're tying them up in paperwork and not paying
Speaker 1: out at all for the damage that has been incurred
Speaker 1: to their property. So this is a huge deal in Florida,
Speaker 1: but it is a growing deal across the country.
Speaker 2: Really, Solder this is a major senior issue too, So
Speaker 2: I did the math here, So at forty two hundred
Speaker 2: is the average annual premium.
Speaker 3: That's three hundred and fifty dollars a month.
Speaker 2: Not vast majority, but a large portion of people who
Speaker 2: are seniors rely almost entirely on Social Security their average
Speaker 2: monthly retirement benefit. Right now, for Social Security recipients, it's
Speaker 2: only seventeen one hundred dollars a month. So three hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty of that is just going tough freaking home insurance.
Speaker 2: I mean, just think about the percentage costs. Then you
Speaker 2: include a car payment, and you include a mortgage, or
Speaker 2: you include rent, what exactly you're supposed to eat on,
Speaker 2: you know, especially consider when you have inflation and food.
Speaker 2: So a good reminder save for retirement. But if you're not,
Speaker 2: and you're already in that, you know, in that environment.
Speaker 2: They also quote somebody in that Guardian reference point story
Speaker 2: that you're referencing, quote, my insurance premium went from seven
Speaker 2: fifty to nineteen ninety nine to a little over three
Speaker 2: k last year, before then jumping to four thousand, six
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy eight and twenty twenty three, despite the
Speaker 2: fact that I live in an area that has not
Speaker 2: been hit by a hurricane in over one hundred years,
Speaker 2: and quote, I have an itty biddy house. Luckily I
Speaker 2: was able to then get insurance through a state funded program.
Speaker 2: This brought my own premium down to twenty two hundred annually.
Speaker 2: So I think that the answer here is one that
Speaker 2: you know, many Ted Cruz people are not gonna like.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have to have some sort of government sponsored
Speaker 2: insurance program.
Speaker 3: And I'm not saying that people won't have to pay.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that clearly, kicking this to the free
Speaker 2: market it's not gonna work because they're either straight up
Speaker 2: scamming seniors in Florida right in all these scams, or
Speaker 2: raising premiums to such an outrageous level that they are
Speaker 2: untenable for home ownership or for staying in Florida, where
Speaker 2: like it or not, a lot of old people live.
Speaker 2: And if we're gonna have, you know, external factors like hurricanes,
Speaker 2: wild buyers and all these other things become such an
Speaker 2: impediment to a very basic tenant of living, then.
Speaker 3: You're going to have to have some sort of program.
Speaker 2: So it does look like the state has a state
Speaker 2: funded program, the Citizen Insurance Program in Florida the Citizen
Speaker 2: Property Insurance Corporation, which is not for profit insure of
Speaker 2: last resort in the area. We're going to have to
Speaker 2: have some federal programs spun up that are at least
Speaker 2: able to support it.
Speaker 3: I do like that model.
Speaker 2: Are not for profit insure of last resort so that
Speaker 2: people can get private insurance, better insurance if needed, but
Speaker 2: you can keep an insurance program which is still able
Speaker 2: to pay out at a competitive or relatively decent rate,
Speaker 2: you know, if disaster were to strike, but isn't actually trying.
Speaker 1: To turn a profit. Yeah, I mean, I think that's
Speaker 1: almost the only answer. Florida does have that fund. They
Speaker 1: did just limit who is eligible to participate in that
Speaker 1: Insurer of Last Resort. Colorado legislature legislators have been talking
Speaker 1: about how residents are calling them begging for them to
Speaker 1: institute a similar program because they're part of Colorado, especially
Speaker 1: parts that are more wildfire prone that you know, are
Speaker 1: completely unensurable and you've got residents who are really desperate.
Speaker 1: California they have a fund set up as well, but like,
Speaker 1: let's be really clear, this is going to be a
Speaker 1: tremendous cost. Tremendous cost for states, for taxpayers, if you
Speaker 1: have a federal government program for you know, the federal government.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a huge cost, especially as
Speaker 1: the climate crisis continues to work. So, I mean, we're
Speaker 1: in the middle of this massive heat wave. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about one hundred and eighteen degrees in Phoenix today. We
Speaker 1: just had these huge floods and you know, listen, you
Speaker 1: can't tie all of these things and say one hundred
Speaker 1: percent this is because of the climate crisis. But we
Speaker 1: can see the way that one in one hundred year
Speaker 1: floods are coming like every year. Now. You can see
Speaker 1: the way that these massive catastrophes just fallow one on
Speaker 1: top of another, and say, we know that this is
Speaker 1: not normal from what we've experienced even in the recent past.
Speaker 1: So it's going to continue to escalate as a major
Speaker 1: issue and a major cost of not mitigating the climate crisis.
Speaker 1: And you know, you're leaving a lot of homeowners high
Speaker 1: and dry and making it very difficult for them to
Speaker 1: stay in communities that they have lived in, you know,
Speaker 1: for literally decades. They're being pushed out right now for
Speaker 1: a lack of any sort of comprehensive plan to really
Speaker 1: deal with this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's I do think it's a major
Speaker 2: cost issue, specifically with the insurance problem in California and
Speaker 2: in Florida. And you know, if anything, it's even a
Speaker 2: bigger problem right now in Florida because Florida has so
Speaker 2: much net in migration, so we have a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are moving to the state.
Speaker 3: I think that's great, you.
Speaker 2: Know, cost of living, all of that, having fun, I guess,
Speaker 2: enjoying the weather, and for those people though, a need
Speaker 2: to make it sustainable, especially for newer transplants and for
Speaker 2: future retirees who have always enjoyed the state. So this
Speaker 2: I think is really a retirement and age issue as well,
Speaker 2: to try and make it affordable, because you can't be
Speaker 2: saddling people up with crazy amounts of debt, you know,
Speaker 2: in their last years while they're around with us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, think it's really important.
Speaker 2: Let's go over to UFO has been dying to get
Speaker 2: into this topic, and you know, we finally.
Speaker 3: Have a newspeg. So some big stuff that's been happening
Speaker 3: in the last couple of days.
Speaker 2: On top of an announcement, Let's go ahead and put
Speaker 2: this up on the screen. Senator Schumer and Mike Rounds
Speaker 2: are introducing new legislation to declassified government records related to
Speaker 2: unidentified anomalists phenomena aaka UFOs modeled actually after the JFK
Speaker 2: Assassination Records Collection Act. By the way, I guess I
Speaker 2: have to do this now. My fiance does work for
Speaker 2: Senator Schumer, so full disclosure. But whenever we're looking at
Speaker 2: this legislation, the most important language is one that jumps
Speaker 2: out immediately, and that is specifically about quote non human intelligence.
Speaker 2: So let me read directly from the text of the
Speaker 2: bill here. The term non human intelligence means any sentient, intelligent,
Speaker 2: non human life form, regardless of nature or ultimate origin,
Speaker 2: that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalist phenomena, or
Speaker 2: of which the feed federal government has become aware. So
Speaker 2: specifically written in the text, now, in terms of the
Speaker 2: UAP phenomenon, here's how they describe it. Quote means any
Speaker 2: object operating or judged capable of operating in outer space,
Speaker 2: the atmosphere, ocean surfaces under sea, lacking prosaic attribution due
Speaker 2: to performance, characteristics and properties not previously known to be
Speaker 2: achievable based upon commonly accepted physical principles. Unidentified anomalist phenomena
Speaker 2: are differentiated are both attributed and temporarily non attributed objects
Speaker 2: by one or more of the following observables. Instantaneous acceleration
Speaker 2: of absent apparent inertia, hypersonic velocity, absent thermal signature, and
Speaker 2: sonic shockwave trans mediums such as space to ground and
Speaker 2: air to undersee travel positive lift contrary.
Speaker 3: To known aero dynamic principles.
Speaker 2: Multi spectral signature control physical or invasive biological effects to
Speaker 2: close observers.
Speaker 3: And so this is spelled out straight up in legislation.
Speaker 2: We're talking here about the freaking Senate majority leader who's
Speaker 2: including this, and this would ride as an amendment onto
Speaker 2: the NDAA, which is what funds the entire Pentagon. So
Speaker 2: this is the strongest and most clear language to date
Speaker 2: that has come from Congress. Congress is fed up after
Speaker 2: the whistleblower allegations of Dave Grush that came out, the
Speaker 2: Pentagon continues to obfuscate.
Speaker 3: They basically called him a liar. We'll see.
Speaker 2: I absolutely don't think so, considering what the even Inspector
Speaker 2: General of the Intelligence community said about him, said that
Speaker 2: he has a credible and highly sensitive and timely allegations
Speaker 2: that are being put forward. You can go watch the
Speaker 2: interview that he did with Ross Kultrut yourself if you
Speaker 2: want to judge for how credible he is.
Speaker 3: I found it incredibly compelling. But put that aside.
Speaker 2: Now we're talking here about actual Congress and hearings putting
Speaker 2: people under oath. So let's go to the next part here, please,
Speaker 2: where the White House was actually asked about this yesterday
Speaker 2: and the spokesperson that the spokesperson himself, John Kirby, had
Speaker 2: this to say, some of.
Speaker 9: These phenomena we know have already had an impact on
Speaker 9: our training ranges. For you know, when pilots are out
Speaker 9: trying to do training in the air and they see
Speaker 9: these things, they're not sure what they are, and it
Speaker 9: can have an impact on their ability to perfect their skills.
Speaker 9: It's already had an impact here, and we just want
Speaker 9: to better understand it.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 9: We're not saying what they are, what they're not. We're
Speaker 9: saying that there's something our pilots are seeing. We're saying
Speaker 9: it has had an effect on some of our training operations,
Speaker 9: and so we want to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 9: We want to understand it better.
Speaker 2: So, yes, I don't understand it better. On top of that, Crystal,
Speaker 2: we got some big news here. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. The House Oversight
Speaker 2: Committee will hold a hearing on UAPs. This is from
Speaker 2: Representative Tim Burchett on Wednesday, July twenty six, So that's
Speaker 2: going to be next week. Already doing some planning and
Speaker 2: some interesting stuff that'll be happening now in terms of
Speaker 2: that hearing and who's going to testify, there's still a
Speaker 2: lot of questions about it. According to Ross, quote the
Speaker 2: Representative Andre Carson. We've played actually some clips about him before.
Speaker 2: He was the first UAP hearings that were held in Congress.
Speaker 2: He's a Democrat from New York. He says that he
Speaker 2: would actually love to get Dave Grush to the hearing
Speaker 2: before the House Permanent Select and Intelligence Committee on Intelligence.
Speaker 2: But quote, he is currently in the minority, so we'll
Speaker 2: see how that works. So we don't yet know who
Speaker 2: the wetnesses are going to be before the Oversight Committee.
Speaker 2: I should also note, you know Burchett himself, he's a believer.
Speaker 2: This guy knows a lot about Roswell, the history, so
Speaker 2: he's been one of the people pushing for this behind
Speaker 2: the scenes. But overall, I would say that this is
Speaker 2: a victory in terms of getting transparency and answer from
Speaker 2: these lawmakers.
Speaker 3: I mean, to have the.
Speaker 2: Senate Majority leader put a writer like that in Congress
Speaker 2: is just extraordinary.
Speaker 3: I mean you heard the terms that I use.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, hopefully it will become reliteral law of the
Speaker 2: United States. So to have that out in writing and
Speaker 2: demanding answers, that's pretty big.
Speaker 1: So I have a few questions for you. So with
Speaker 1: that whole list that you read off that's in the
Speaker 1: amendment here right, that you know, trans medium, biological effects
Speaker 1: and supersonic hypersonic speedy or whatever, like, where does that
Speaker 1: come from?
Speaker 3: Well, oh, well they come you mean in terms.
Speaker 1: Of like where do they get that particulars reports?
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, we've played a lot of video
Speaker 2: here before about that show some of these alleged ins.
Speaker 2: It's not exactly, but in terms of the witness reports
Speaker 2: that have come out from Ryan Graves, from David Fraver
Speaker 2: and other a lot of them report objects that appear
Speaker 2: to defy the laws of physics that you can see
Speaker 2: that are on video. Trans Medium is one that's been
Speaker 2: reported for a long time from people in the US
Speaker 2: Navy and in the US Air Force specifically being able
Speaker 2: to go ser a seed to air almost seamlessly, and
Speaker 2: in some cases even reporting seeing things that were under
Speaker 2: the ocean and trans medium actually would make sense if
Speaker 2: you had some sort of not even propellant, because that's
Speaker 2: probably the wrong way to think of it in terms
Speaker 2: of the way that these things move, but it would
Speaker 2: make sense in terms of the way that something that
Speaker 2: does defy the current laws of physics would have to
Speaker 2: be able to theoretically move between these and the medium itself.
Speaker 2: Air or sea should not matter, as it would to
Speaker 2: like a conventional jet engine. That's where they get the
Speaker 2: term from.
Speaker 1: The thing with Kirby is confusing to me because he
Speaker 1: probably has like the highest classification level you can possibly have,
Speaker 1: so doesn't he already have access to everything there is?
Speaker 3: But I don't think it's true. I mean, that's what
Speaker 3: Dave Dave Grush really.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I know a lot of people who
Speaker 2: have very very high top secret clearance. And one of
Speaker 2: the reasons why it's called TSSCI top Secret Secret Comparliament
Speaker 2: compartmentalized information is because it's compartmentalized. It's a need to
Speaker 2: know program so, I mean, I've said it before John Podesta,
Speaker 2: who's a freaking White House chief of staff. They have
Speaker 2: something I believe it's called Yankee white that is the
Speaker 2: highest clearance that you can get whenever it's the President
Speaker 2: of the United States and core national security people around him.
Speaker 2: He tried to find out and they wouldn't tell him.
Speaker 2: If he's the one who's trying to find out, what
Speaker 2: are you supposed to do? Bill Clinton is on the
Speaker 2: record say quote, I am embarrassed to say that I
Speaker 2: tried to find out and I couldn't really get to
Speaker 2: the bottom of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, when he was the president. So, I mean, there's
Speaker 3: a show in the UK.
Speaker 2: This is more akin to their system called like yes minister,
Speaker 2: And what it effectively boils down to is in the
Speaker 2: UK because the government is constantly like changing, but whoever
Speaker 2: the secretary of what are they call exchequer whatever in
Speaker 2: terms of their treasury secretary, so their treasury secretary is
Speaker 2: constantly like moving in and out as an elected member
Speaker 2: of Parliament, but there's a permanent bureaucracy that the permanent
Speaker 2: bureaucracy is always like yes minister, absolutely will get on
Speaker 2: there and they just do whatever they want yeah, because
Speaker 2: they're the ones who are actually in the permanent government.
Speaker 2: That's how they think of a government, whereas we kind
Speaker 2: of tend to think of it as elected. And while
Speaker 2: you would want us to live in a more directly
Speaker 2: responsible system, the truth is that the deep state and
Speaker 2: all these things are real.
Speaker 1: And then my last question on this is like, if
Speaker 1: if John Kirby can't get answers, how hopeful are you
Speaker 1: that this effort to declassify these documents is going to
Speaker 1: actually yield any real results.
Speaker 3: I think it's about pushing. I mean, let's think about
Speaker 3: the Church Committee.
Speaker 2: The Church Committee, and a lot of people don't know
Speaker 2: about this, but back in the day, the Church Committee
Speaker 2: was an extraordinarily important event because they exposed all the
Speaker 2: wrongdoing of the FBI and the CIA and the intelligence
Speaker 2: community which was completely out of control on domestic stoil
Speaker 2: from the nineteen fifties to the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 3: You want to know.
Speaker 2: Why that we even knew anything about it. It's because Crystal,
Speaker 2: a bunch of militants broke into an FBI warehouse and
Speaker 2: stole some papers. And because of that, we got this name,
Speaker 2: and we said, hey, what the hell is this name?
Speaker 2: Co intel Pro based on Cointel Pro mk Ultra, and
Speaker 2: all of that was only as a result of people
Speaker 2: knowing what terms to FOYA, which then FOYA is the
Speaker 2: Freedom of Information Act for people who aren't nerds like me,
Speaker 2: and then was able to come and be analyzed by
Speaker 2: the Church Committee. And these guys were in the Oversight Committee.
Speaker 2: They had no idea about what was going on here.
Speaker 2: The point here is about public pressure about people like Grush,
Speaker 2: who sees people like us talking about this, Jeremy Corbel
Speaker 2: Ross and out there and say, hey, you know, I'm
Speaker 2: looking at some stuff which directly contradicts what this guy
Speaker 2: is saying in Congress, and I feel pretty compelled to
Speaker 2: come out and to talk about it. So do I
Speaker 2: think Congress is going to get the answer?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: Will it inspire though maybe more Dave grutches somebody even
Speaker 2: with even more compartmentalized information to come forward.
Speaker 3: Will it may be inspire.
Speaker 2: And I'm not advocating this, to be clear, a future
Speaker 2: mission like what happened with mk Ultra and co intel
Speaker 2: Pro about literally going and stealing documents to try to
Speaker 2: figure that out, Maybe it'll inspire next Daniel Elsberg, it's
Speaker 2: just about starting the conversation, and I think that that's.
Speaker 3: What we'll do. And it also it exposes lies.
Speaker 2: So you know, our current committees, we've gotten Sean Kirkpatrick,
Speaker 2: this guy on the record being like, yeah, these things,
Speaker 2: we don't have any possession of these of these technol
Speaker 2: So if it turns out to be true, he's a liar.
Speaker 2: I mean, no, I'm not saying it's suffering consequences. Remember
Speaker 2: when Clapper lied to Congress about the It's not like
Speaker 2: anything happened, but you know he did at least for
Speaker 2: some people. He can always point to his credibility in
Speaker 2: the future public shop.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like he's on video.
Speaker 2: He literally lied, like he lied bald faced to the Congress.
Speaker 2: So I think we very likely would be able to
Speaker 2: see that with this topic.
Speaker 3: I think I think I'm really excited about it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to try and attend to hearing myself just
Speaker 2: to see exactly what's going on, because I do think
Speaker 2: that this one, this one could be a big one
Speaker 2: in terms of what we're able to get on the
Speaker 2: record to the public, and then the combined with the
Speaker 2: legislation itself, if it does pass, would really be extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, So I wanted to give you an
Speaker 1: update on a huge break in a case that you
Speaker 1: know was basically a cold case for more than ten years.
Speaker 1: This is the Gilgo Beach serial killer. Police say that
Speaker 1: they have caught and apprehend handed the man. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put up on the screen what we know about him,
Speaker 1: and then I'll give you a little bit of the
Speaker 1: backstory here. The man they've identified and arrested is Rex Hureman.
Speaker 1: They say he is suspect in Gilgo Beach Killing's little
Speaker 1: life of chaos and control. He was painstaking in his
Speaker 1: Manhattan professional pursuits, but at home in Massapequa Park he
Speaker 1: left neighbors discomfident. So they paint a portrait in the
Speaker 1: New York Times of a man who was an architectural consultant,
Speaker 1: worked with you some well known entities. His professional reputation
Speaker 1: was that he was very fastidious, almost over the top
Speaker 1: attention to detail, which some of his clients apparently appreciated,
Speaker 1: and some of them he was, you know, a sort
Speaker 1: of irritated them the level of attention to detail and
Speaker 1: obsessive focus that he had. But interestingly, his neighbors really
Speaker 1: had a very different feeling about him, and tried to
Speaker 1: avoid him and gave him the creeps. For lack of
Speaker 1: a better term, one neighbor, mister Firshaw, said, I was
Speaker 1: not surprised at all when he was arrested because of
Speaker 1: all the creepiness. Mister Firchaw recounted several run ins with
Speaker 1: his neighbor, none pleasant. There was the time he said
Speaker 1: hello to him as he was cutting wood and mister
Speaker 1: Huerman responded by slightly silently glaring back between chops of
Speaker 1: his splitting mall. Another neighbor who has lived in that
Speaker 1: neighborhood for ten years, has a friend who lives behind
Speaker 1: mister Huerman. Sometimes mister Schmidt would visit his buddy, have
Speaker 1: a few beers in the backyard, look out at the
Speaker 1: sagging Huerman house and say he probably has bodies there,
Speaker 1: so obviously giving off some really weird vibes. There was
Speaker 1: another instance where that same neighbor, mister Schmidt and his
Speaker 1: friend resolved to take their kids treating at his house
Speaker 1: just to get a look inside. There was surprise when
Speaker 1: mister Human answered the door gave each child a small
Speaker 1: plastic pumpkin, But when they got home, mister Schmidt's wife
Speaker 1: was like there is no way in hell you're letting
Speaker 1: our children eat that candy based on who it came from,
Speaker 1: and threw it in the trash, made him throw it
Speaker 1: in the trash. It's also a weird incident where he
Speaker 1: stole oranges from a whole foods that were meant for kids.
Speaker 1: So anyway, there was a really mixed picture of this guy,
Speaker 1: I guess consistent with the idea that he was really
Speaker 1: living and leaning two lives. He was married. He has
Speaker 1: one report I saw said one child, another said two children.
Speaker 1: His daughter worked with him at the architectural firm. He
Speaker 1: was arrested, you know, outside of that firm. But part
Speaker 1: of what makes this, you know, something that we wanted
Speaker 1: to go into here is that this case was basically
Speaker 1: dead and this was horrific. We're talking about ten years ago,
Speaker 1: roughly more than ten years ago. They found four bodies.
Speaker 1: Then they started to really, you know, look more extensively,
Speaker 1: and they found remains of up to sixteen different people
Speaker 1: in this area near Gilgo Beach. Put the next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen. But there was a huge corruption
Speaker 1: issue in the local among the local police officers, and
Speaker 1: so they didn't want to work with the FBI. Because
Speaker 1: the head dude was actually under investigation by the FBI
Speaker 1: for corruption, for the fact that he beat up some
Speaker 1: suspect and then got everybody to cover it up and
Speaker 1: lie about it, etc. So he didn't want to work
Speaker 1: with the FBI, so he let the case drop, and
Speaker 1: so it didn't come back up and get close to
Speaker 1: any sort of conclusion until they brought in a new
Speaker 1: police chief. There was also another element here where because
Speaker 1: the women who were brutally murdered and their bodies left
Speaker 1: in this area of the beach, they were mostly they
Speaker 1: were escorts on Craigslist, and they had moved to New
Speaker 1: York from other areas, and so they were seen as
Speaker 1: sort of like not that important and became not that
Speaker 1: high a priority for the people who were involved. So
Speaker 1: it was a really horrifying look at who people actually
Speaker 1: care about and who they thought mattered. So snoopleice chief
Speaker 1: comes in decides because there's new technology related to DNA
Speaker 1: evidence that maybe she could have another crack at solving
Speaker 1: this case and being able to bring to justice this
Speaker 1: Long Island serial killer. Also, this woman really had an
Speaker 1: understanding of how much even if the news is horrible
Speaker 1: and families find out that you know, yes this was
Speaker 1: my daughter and yes this was her killer, that that
Speaker 1: sort of revelation can at least bring some closure to
Speaker 1: the family. So she was really committed to that and
Speaker 1: ultimately is able to sort of break this case open.
Speaker 1: Ye know, there was a pizza crust and DNA evidence
Speaker 1: that was involved and matching his truck with a truck
Speaker 1: that was seen at one of the scenes of the crime,
Speaker 1: and they were able to bring the alleged killer to justice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is one of the craziest things that I've
Speaker 2: read in terms of the serial killer kind of discourse.
Speaker 2: I think that the worst part about it, as you said, Crystal,
Speaker 2: was that it was a cold case for so many years,
Speaker 2: which really does if they're able to catch them also
Speaker 2: based on old witness testimony and doing the basic groundwork
Speaker 2: of looking at car registration and then eventually taining DNA.
Speaker 3: I mean, presumably all of that existed a decade ago.
Speaker 2: So don't the police really have a lot to answer
Speaker 2: for here as to why. I mean, you know, look,
Speaker 2: if it was development of a technology that didn't you know,
Speaker 2: exist to you're okay, fine, but you know, world wasn't
Speaker 2: that different in twenty twelve, Like It's like whenever we
Speaker 2: saw a witness statement and then they were checking car
Speaker 2: registration records, if anything, they would have been current at
Speaker 2: the time, rather than having to go retrospect. It's not
Speaker 2: like DNA also didn't exist also, and then all you know,
Speaker 2: I always am I always am of two minds whenever
Speaker 2: I think about neighbors and witnesses and all this, because
Speaker 2: on the one hand, like I've got some weird neighbors.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean you're a serial killer. But you know, if.
Speaker 2: Somebody is joking about bodies in a basement and then
Speaker 2: also making people throw candy away, and then you have
Speaker 2: multiple instances also of you know, the report Crystal that
Speaker 2: his interior designer said that he had a chamber inside
Speaker 2: of his basement that he wouldn't let anybody go into.
Speaker 2: I mean, that is where things get just get sketchy,
Speaker 2: to the point of you probably should alert somebody. At
Speaker 2: the same time, like, look, there's always an innocent explanation.
Speaker 2: He said it was for guns. I know gun people
Speaker 2: who've got gun rooms. I guess they wouldn't let a
Speaker 2: lot of people into them, So you know, maybe that's
Speaker 2: what they were just willing to brush it off. But
Speaker 2: I think the fact that you had to bring in
Speaker 2: a new police chief after a decade to really just
Speaker 2: do some very basic leg work here is really an
Speaker 2: awful look for this area.
Speaker 3: And you know, you got to think about to the victims.
Speaker 2: Oh, you know, this is very common unfortunately, and a
Speaker 2: lot of these serial killer cases is they just target
Speaker 2: you know, the underclass people like prostitutes and escorts, and
Speaker 2: nobody's going to miss them. A lot of them are runaways,
Speaker 2: they're not as much of a high priority. They don't
Speaker 2: have their family members beaten down the door in order
Speaker 2: to get their cases solved.
Speaker 3: And you know, they're the ones who are victimized the worst.
Speaker 2: I mean, we sometimes as a society pay attention to
Speaker 2: them really whenever they get killed.
Speaker 3: But you know, just these are really just you know,
Speaker 3: the outliers.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of them who you know, get raped
Speaker 2: or mistreated or terribly abused on literally on a day
Speaker 2: to day basis, and nobody ever really looks or even
Speaker 2: cares about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah. I mean you had some people who
Speaker 1: were involved in this case who basically olwrights and like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we're lucky that it was no one who really mattered
Speaker 1: I mean, there was. It was horrific some of the
Speaker 1: things that they said in the attitude towards this case
Speaker 1: because of who these women were. But these women were
Speaker 1: a lot more than just you know, an escort to
Speaker 1: be discarded with. These were mothers, these were daughters. These
Speaker 1: were people who had hopes and dreams and aspirations and yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe struggling at that particular point in time in their life,
Speaker 1: but they were human beings who really mattered. So there's
Speaker 1: there's that piece of it. There's the part of like
Speaker 1: who society cares about and who these police cared about
Speaker 1: to actually try to identify their killers and think about
Speaker 1: all these years that went by, like we don't know
Speaker 1: that this maniac, this bloodthirsty killer wasn't continuing to murder
Speaker 1: girls during this time. So there's also the piece of like,
Speaker 1: you could have saved lives if you had gone aggressively
Speaker 1: after this and actually tried to close this case. Let
Speaker 1: me just tell you because that the other piece about
Speaker 1: that the corruption aspect of this really speaks to an
Speaker 1: abusive power and like a power trip piece too. So
Speaker 1: here's the details. They say that the former chief of
Speaker 1: the police department in Suffolk County who was the one
Speaker 1: that had the corruption issues. His name was James Burke,
Speaker 1: and he was the one who really sort of let
Speaker 1: this case drop because you didn't want to work with
Speaker 1: the FBI. The reason was the Justice Department was investigating
Speaker 1: him for corruption. In late twenty twelve, a year after
Speaker 1: assuming control of the Suffolk Police, mister Burke assaulted a
Speaker 1: man who was being held for a parole violation. The
Speaker 1: parole whose name is Christopher Lobe, had been brought on
Speaker 1: suspicion that he had stolen a bag from the police
Speaker 1: chief's car that contained pornography and sex choys. Mister Burke
Speaker 1: then pressured detectives who saw him beat this man deny
Speaker 1: that they saw the attack. Even the Suffa County District Attorney,
Speaker 1: Thomas Spoda, helped with that cover up. Eventually, both of
Speaker 1: them were convicted of conspiracy, and Suffolk County became notorious
Speaker 1: as one of the nation's most corrupt law enforcement jurisdictions.
Speaker 1: So the other piece of this is, you know, these
Speaker 1: these guys who felt like the rules didn't apply to them,
Speaker 1: They felt like they were the law. They thought that
Speaker 1: they could abuse their power and engage in a cover
Speaker 1: up and get away with that. The fact that they
Speaker 1: had their own personal issues of corruption is part of
Speaker 1: why they did not aggressively look to, you know, to
Speaker 1: solve this case and just let it linger for years
Speaker 1: and years while vulnerable women continue to be at risk.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that's why the public is involved
Speaker 2: in it. You know, it's not always grizzly details and
Speaker 2: they're always so interested. It's always just a question of
Speaker 2: about does something like this happen? You know, it really
Speaker 2: is a tragedy. And yeah, I'm glad that we actually
Speaker 2: spent some time on these because you know, sometimes people
Speaker 2: and I see this all the daily mail, and all
Speaker 2: these people are having a field day in terms of like, oh,
Speaker 2: like I said, interior designer, guess what I read it.
Speaker 3: I had to you know, I had to know.
Speaker 2: But we're trying to think about this from a systemic
Speaker 2: level of like police screwed this up, the people were
Speaker 2: responsible for protecting and then also people were the most
Speaker 2: vulnerable amongst us in our society very often just get
Speaker 2: disregarded and then when they get killed, you know, nobody
Speaker 2: takes a notice. That's why cases allowed to languish for
Speaker 2: a decade when apparently it really wasn't that difficult to solve?
Speaker 3: And who knows, maybe somebody else could have been saved.
Speaker 2: Apparently there's still pulling bodies and remnants and all those
Speaker 2: things out of his residence. So it's really gross. It's
Speaker 2: very sad, Crystal, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 1: Extreme heat alerts are blanketing the country right now as
Speaker 1: a brutal heat wave punishes the west and the southwest
Speaker 1: of this nation. Particularly hard hit is the state of Arizona,
Speaker 1: where sidewalks have reached temperatures high enough to cause contact
Speaker 1: burns death. Valley May now notch a new record for
Speaker 1: the highest temperature ever reliably recorded, and Phoenix broke its
Speaker 1: daily record with a high temperature of one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighteen Now these record breaking temperatures are causing misery for
Speaker 1: the homeless and for outdoor workers in construction, package delivery,
Speaker 1: and farming. They are also exacerbating a problem that has
Speaker 1: been many years in the making. Dwindling water supplies. High
Speaker 1: temperatures from climate change plus a long term drought also
Speaker 1: likely caused by climate change, are drying up rivers, groundwater,
Speaker 1: and reservoirs at an increased pace. In fact, this water
Speaker 1: crisis has gotten so dire that Arizona has decided to
Speaker 1: ban additional construction in certain Phoenix neighborhoods to try to
Speaker 1: slow the depletion of this absolutely vital resource. Now, these
Speaker 1: Western water wars have been escalating in every state in
Speaker 1: that part of the country, and they often pit rural
Speaker 1: residents who need water for irrigation with growing urban centers.
Speaker 1: But in Arizona, a new foe and new battle lines
Speaker 1: are being drawn because, as the Washington Post reports, and
Speaker 1: as we've discussed here before, one of the main consumers
Speaker 1: of water in the state doesn't have urban or rural
Speaker 1: Arizona roots, or even American roots at all. A giant
Speaker 1: agribusiness with ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Ira is
Speaker 1: guzzling up Arizona's water at a stunning clip. Here's the
Speaker 1: Washington Post quote. A mega drought has seared Arizona, stressing
Speaker 1: its rivers and reservoirs and reducing water to a trickle
Speaker 1: in the homes of farm workers near this desert valley.
Speaker 1: But greenfields of alfalfa stretch across thousands of acres of
Speaker 1: the desert land, shimmering in the burning sunlight. Wells draw
Speaker 1: water from deep underground, turning the parched earth into verdant farmland.
Speaker 1: For nearly a decade, the state of Arizona has leased
Speaker 1: this world terrain west of Phoenix to a Saudi owned company,
Speaker 1: allowing it to pump all the water it needs to
Speaker 1: grow the alfalfa hey, a crop it exports to feed
Speaker 1: the Kingdom's dairy cows. Now in their own home country,
Speaker 1: the Saudis have actually banned growing water intentsive crops like
Speaker 1: alfalfa in order to protect their own limited water resources,
Speaker 1: So in order to feed their cows, they've turned to Arizona,
Speaker 1: exploiting the state's water usage laws to suck up vast
Speaker 1: quantities of local groundwater, and for years they have faced
Speaker 1: next to no scrutiny, even nyeing Arizona's the ability to
Speaker 1: know just how much water they are actually using. The company,
Speaker 1: Fondamante Arizona, aggressively lobbied the legislature and the governor, hiring
Speaker 1: key people with high level connections. One of their top
Speaker 1: lobbyists had served as finance chair for the Arizona Republican Party,
Speaker 1: and as if that wasn't enough, they put a former
Speaker 1: Republican member of Congress on their payroll as well. Now
Speaker 1: it made some sense to target Republicans first of all,
Speaker 1: until quite recently the state was reliably read. Second of all,
Speaker 1: their pitch landed with free market conservative types who viewed
Speaker 1: water as part and parcel of the property rights of landowners,
Speaker 1: rather than as a public resource to be managed collectively.
Speaker 1: Perfect example of how companies and foreign governments have figured
Speaker 1: out how to use our own free market ideology against us. Now.
Speaker 1: The company also took advantage of the relative poverty of
Speaker 1: the county that their farm is in to attempt to
Speaker 1: foster goodwill. They donated few thousand dollars the local high
Speaker 1: school for sports programs, pony up the cached by White
Speaker 1: paint needed for a local landmark purchased company branded face
Speaker 1: Mass for local distribution during the COVID pandemic. The patoes
Speaker 1: for them, but a big deal for a local community
Speaker 1: that was starved for funds. In this program of buying
Speaker 1: politicians and buying local goodwill, it worked for years, but
Speaker 1: as drought, heat, and scarcity had become urgent problems, the
Speaker 1: company has come under some increasing scrutiny. Accordingly, the new
Speaker 1: Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, has signaled a tougher line. In
Speaker 1: assign of mounting pressure, the company was forced for the
Speaker 1: first time to reveal just how much water it is
Speaker 1: actually sucking up, and the number is pretty shocking. They
Speaker 1: announced they had used sixteen thousand, four hundred and fifteen
Speaker 1: acre feet of water in a single year. Now, from perspective,
Speaker 1: that's equivalent to the water usage of an entire city
Speaker 1: of fifty thousand people. Just this one company. It's enough,
Speaker 1: as the Post put it, to cover twelve thousand, five
Speaker 1: hundred football fields with a foot of water again in
Speaker 1: a single year. And this did not go to feed,
Speaker 1: bathe or cool human beings. It went to feed cows
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia because that country has wisely decided to
Speaker 1: conserve their own resources, while of course guzzling ours. Goes
Speaker 1: without saying that in a drought strictened state, this astonishing
Speaker 1: level of water usage is a threat local farmers and
Speaker 1: city dwellers are facing alike. In fact, it's already having
Speaker 1: major impacts locally, where wells are running dry and the
Speaker 1: very workers who tend those alfalfa fields have to whul
Speaker 1: buckets of water for showers and cooking. According to a
Speaker 1: proposal that the Post was able to get their hands on.
Speaker 1: Governor Hombps is considering taking significant action, potentially even blocking
Speaker 1: Fondamante's land leases when they expire. It's not so easy
Speaker 1: to take on big business, so if she does, she
Speaker 1: should definitely be applauded. We need a whole mental shift, though,
Speaker 1: on how these questions are handled. How do we handle
Speaker 1: competing interests in a time of resource scarcity, what core
Speaker 1: interests need to be protected from the whims of the
Speaker 1: free market, and who should our economy and regulatory environment
Speaker 1: actually be set up to serve. As our world warms
Speaker 1: and disasters become more common, more devastating, these questions are
Speaker 1: only going to become more difficult to resolve, and the
Speaker 1: stakes that much more catastrophic. Sager really fits with the
Speaker 1: conversation we had earlier about property owners insurance and how
Speaker 1: just and.
Speaker 2: If you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 1: All right, sorry, were looking at well.
Speaker 2: Perhaps the most frustrating part of the entire war in
Speaker 2: Ukraine to me is how much it has scrambled the
Speaker 2: minds of American voters and American foreign policy elites to
Speaker 2: our priorities. Walking around Washington today, you would think that
Speaker 2: the year is nineteen sixty one, that our principal adversary
Speaker 2: is Russia, that the booming center of the world is
Speaker 2: Central Europe, which is both economically dynamic prospering and a
Speaker 2: sure bet to pay major economic dividends for our relationship
Speaker 2: in the years to come. Basically, none of that is
Speaker 2: true anymore. You can think that Ukraine is important for
Speaker 2: your own reasons if you want, but here's the truth.
Speaker 2: Whether Kiev remains under Ukrainian hands or Russian hands has
Speaker 2: zero impact on our way of life. Ukraine in twenty
Speaker 2: nineteen was our sixty seventh largest trading partner. Russia was
Speaker 2: our twenty sixth. This isn't even to say that shouldn't
Speaker 2: help Ukraine. It is simply a truth though, that it
Speaker 2: doesn't really matter that much to us. Same with Russia.
Speaker 2: It is only important because of its nuclear weapon status
Speaker 2: and oil reserves. And as we have all found out,
Speaker 2: we can effectively blockade the entire country and it will
Speaker 2: not change anything about the way that we do business here.
Speaker 2: So why are we spending some ninety percent of our
Speaker 2: foreign policy thinking and obsession over Ukraine and Russia. The
Speaker 2: answer is two. Part One is we share a long
Speaker 2: cultural heritage with Europe. Many Americans are of European descent.
Speaker 2: Of course, our histories are long intertwined, going back to
Speaker 2: our founding.
Speaker 3: We fought side by side in two Great.
Speaker 2: Wars, and the United States saved the entire continent from
Speaker 2: Hitlerism and Soviet Communism. Two, though, is frankly a Russian
Speaker 2: obsession infecting the entire American foreign policy elite. It goes
Speaker 2: back to the Cold War had gasoline poort on the
Speaker 2: fire by Russia Gate. Post Trump, those two conditions have
Speaker 2: created the perfect storm. All the dreams of the old
Speaker 2: Cold War hawks are being fulfilled. Americans are being gas
Speaker 2: lit into thinking are most important global relationship is with
Speaker 2: the European continent. From NATO to the EU to the
Speaker 2: bilateral meetings that our President Biden spends all this time on.
Speaker 3: It is Europe, Europe, Europe.
Speaker 2: And yet by almost every available metric, Europe has never
Speaker 2: mattered less to the United States. Note at the beginning
Speaker 2: of this monologue, I said Ukraine or Russia does not
Speaker 2: impact US.
Speaker 3: It does impact Europe though it's their land.
Speaker 2: They have long shared bad blood, and frankly, if it's
Speaker 2: a problem, it's really only a problem for them.
Speaker 3: And yet, as I've covered here ad nauseum, they don't
Speaker 3: pay for it. We pay the vast.
Speaker 2: Majority of expenses of the Ukrainian military that we remain
Speaker 2: the main diplomatic interlocutar, even though it matters the least
Speaker 2: to us. The trend is only going in the wrong direction.
Speaker 2: NATO is expanding, meaning our obligation to defend even more
Speaker 2: European territory is somehow extending, And how is the continent
Speaker 2: that we are apparently wasting so much time and money
Speaker 2: protecting even doing Europeans are poorer than ever before, and
Speaker 2: they only getting even more so. As the Wall Street
Speaker 2: Journal Rights quote, Europe's current predicament predicament has been long
Speaker 2: in the making. An aging population with a preference for
Speaker 2: free time and job security over earnings has ushered in
Speaker 2: years of lackluster economic and productivity growth. Then came a
Speaker 2: one to two punch of the COVID nineteen pandemic and
Speaker 2: Russia's protracted war in Ukraine. It's actually very simple. They
Speaker 2: have huge welfare states, they don't make very many goods.
Speaker 2: They also don't innovate very much. Most of their energy
Speaker 2: also came from Russia. Zoom ount and it's clear. The
Speaker 2: Eurozone economy grew six percent over the last fifteen years,
Speaker 2: the United States has grown by eighty two percent. Now, look,
Speaker 2: America's got a lot of problems, but ours mostly boils
Speaker 2: down to proper distribution of our riches rather than being
Speaker 2: actually poor in the aggregate. As the journal so aptly
Speaker 2: puts it, quote, if the current trend continues, by twenty
Speaker 2: thirty five, the gap between economic output per capita in
Speaker 2: the US and EU will be as large as that
Speaker 2: between Japan and Ecuador today. I will take the action
Speaker 2: on that, considering the state of politics on the continent. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: let's check in on the rest of the world. You
Speaker 2: couldn't see a more different picture. A new demographic analysis
Speaker 2: shows that by twenty fifty, people above the age of
Speaker 2: sixty five and older will make up forty percent of
Speaker 2: the entire European population. For context, as Time notes, this
Speaker 2: is twice the current old population of Florida. It effectively
Speaker 2: will become a retirement colony, as will the major countries
Speaker 2: in East Asia, including China, Japan, and South Korea. So
Speaker 2: who's actually growing now, As the chart shows, by twenty fifty,
Speaker 2: the countries with the largest working AIG shares of population
Speaker 2: will be South Africa, me and mar India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Pakistan, Kenya, Indonesia, Egypt,
Speaker 2: and Ethiopia. So basically South Africa, North Africa, Southeast Asia
Speaker 2: and India. How much time do we spend thinking about
Speaker 2: our bilateral relationships with these countries the importance that they
Speaker 2: have to the current and the future of US economy
Speaker 2: and our way of life. Already it is clear the
Speaker 2: top ten trading partners of the United States in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, whereas follows Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea,
Speaker 2: the UK, Taiwan, India, and Vietnam.
Speaker 3: Already it means six out of the top.
Speaker 2: Ten trading partners that the US has are in Asia,
Speaker 2: only two or in Europe compared to the rest of
Speaker 2: the world.
Speaker 3: This is already the case.
Speaker 2: Asia is forty five percent of global GDP, double the
Speaker 2: measly GDP of Europe, and by twenty thirty, the current
Speaker 2: projection shows that Asia will become a full fifty one
Speaker 2: percent of global GDP, Europe shrinking down to eighteen percent.
Speaker 2: People think I have something personal against Europe. They would
Speaker 2: be right if we were just talking about food and coffee.
Speaker 2: In reality, I have a problem with people who cannot
Speaker 2: do math. You can only pursue existential risk and effort
Speaker 2: when that risk is existential to you. If you think
Speaker 2: of it like business, you would never allocate so much time, effort,
Speaker 2: and money towards a dying share of your business. You
Speaker 2: would look clearly at trends and you would allocate resources
Speaker 2: both for reality today and for the future. If we
Speaker 2: do not change course soon, our future is obvious. We
Speaker 2: will end up like Europe, irrelevant to the affairs of
Speaker 2: the world, arrogant writing our cultural co tales from the past,
Speaker 2: and worst of all, vulnerable to the wants of whomever
Speaker 2: controls Asia. And you know, I was just thinking about
Speaker 2: a crystal in terms of you know, a lot of
Speaker 2: people misunderstand.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: Joining us now is Ali Beth Sucky. She is the
Speaker 2: host of a relatable It's a great show. We're gonna
Speaker 2: have a link down there in the description Ali, we
Speaker 2: decided we wanted to talk to you after you put
Speaker 2: out a reaction to this video about Andrew Tate, the
Speaker 2: Tucker interview and really about conservative embrace of Tait as
Speaker 2: a figure. We're going to play a little bit of
Speaker 2: this video and then we're going to get reaction.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look.
Speaker 5: What are you charged with? That's a really good question.
Speaker 5: I'm charged with being the head of an organized criminal
Speaker 5: group which is in charge of recruiting girls to make
Speaker 5: TikTok videos. BA face charges which include human trafficking, rape,
Speaker 5: and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit OnlyFans.
Speaker 3: Is the best hustle in the world. Are they accusing
Speaker 3: you of using violence or.
Speaker 5: No, accuse me of using the lover boy method cohersing
Speaker 5: them by being nice. So yeah, on cover taktook call
Speaker 5: my my PhD program, and that is a PhD is
Speaker 5: a pimp and hose degree gotam that teaches basically how
Speaker 5: I got girls, how I met girls, how I got
Speaker 5: girls to like me, how I got girls to fall
Speaker 5: in love with me, to work on webcam for me?
Speaker 2: And so Ali, after that video, you put out this,
Speaker 2: she said quote Andrew Tate is evidence that the right
Speaker 2: can be as easily deceived by empty platitudes and virtue
Speaker 2: signaling as the left. All the true things Tate says
Speaker 2: about social issues are just virtue signals to cover for
Speaker 2: his degeneracy. And I was curious, you know, to get
Speaker 2: your perspective on this as a conservative woman kind of
Speaker 2: in our media sphere, and all of that as reaction,
Speaker 2: not to the interview itself, although maybe, but really Andrew Tate,
Speaker 2: some of the embrace that we've seen out there.
Speaker 10: I understand the appeal of Andrew Tate to a certain degree.
Speaker 10: Like if you look at the political landscape, I think
Speaker 10: a lot of young men, a lot of young single men,
Speaker 10: maybe they feel emasculated or they feel definitely at the
Speaker 10: bottom of the intersectional totem pull over the past few years,
Speaker 10: and so to hear someone they think represent masculinity and
Speaker 10: strength and tell them that the problem is progressive is
Speaker 10: the problem is feminism. You need to take responsibility, you
Speaker 10: need to be strong, you need to work out all
Speaker 10: of these things.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 10: I understand that some of the critiques that he has
Speaker 10: of society, certainly of leftism. I would probably agree with
Speaker 10: some of the things that he tells men to do like,
Speaker 10: be strong, take responsibility whatever. I can understand the attractiveness
Speaker 10: of that mesas a method or message to a lot
Speaker 10: of young men. However, he is charged with trafficking. He
Speaker 10: is charged with rape. He is charged and has admitted
Speaker 10: on tape several times that he has manipulated young women.
Speaker 10: In one video, he slips up and he says, oh,
Speaker 10: you know, it's normal for fifteen sixteen. I mean, wait,
Speaker 10: it's the age of consent eighteen year old girls to
Speaker 10: come and work for me.
Speaker 6: And how he.
Speaker 10: Does it is he gets them to fall in love
Speaker 10: with him. He promises them some kind of future relationships,
Speaker 10: some kind of long term commitment, has sex with them,
Speaker 10: and then after that uses another woman to convince this
Speaker 10: girl to then do webcam work for him, and then
Speaker 10: takes over half of their money. And he says this
Speaker 10: repeatedly on tape on camera. He's not ashamed of it,
Speaker 10: or hasn't been ashamed of it, I guess, until he
Speaker 10: was charged recently, and he calls it a pimp and
Speaker 10: this degree he calls himself a pimp.
Speaker 6: And so I can't speak to Romanian law.
Speaker 10: I don't know exactly what's going to happen in this case.
Speaker 10: But at the very least, the very very least, he
Speaker 10: is not a hero. He's not someone just because he
Speaker 10: says some true things sometimes should be hoisted up in
Speaker 10: any way as an exemplar of virtue or strength or morality.
Speaker 6: At the end of the day, like he.
Speaker 10: Is a very dangerous, narcissistic dork who has attracted a
Speaker 10: lot of attention for just being a degenerate that makes
Speaker 10: himself sound virtuous.
Speaker 1: We have another clip from that Tucker interview that I
Speaker 1: wanted to get you to react to Ali because you
Speaker 1: know his defense and what his supporters will say is, oh,
Speaker 1: the reason that they arrested him. They're going after him
Speaker 1: some matrix. Right, He's saying things that are dangerous and
Speaker 1: so they're trying to take him down. Let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to how Andrew himself framed this in that interview.
Speaker 5: The overall understand my understanding of it. They're saying that
Speaker 5: human trafficking is when you convince a woman to do
Speaker 5: something she doesn't want to do for financial gain. And
Speaker 5: there's different methods you can do that. You can do
Speaker 5: that through force, and you can also do that through
Speaker 5: emotional cohersion.
Speaker 7: I think most people are just speaking from the American perspective.
Speaker 7: Most people believe that human trafficking is effectively slavery selling
Speaker 7: human being and.
Speaker 5: That's what I believe as well. Absolutely. And this is
Speaker 5: the thing that's so interesting. When you finally end up
Speaker 5: the enemy of the matrix and they use the legal
Speaker 5: system as a weapon to punish you for having an opinion,
Speaker 5: you realize how subjective the law is, right, because it
Speaker 5: can be a weapon when you have something subjective, you
Speaker 5: can just pick and choose. So they sit and say, ah,
Speaker 5: human trafficking is a woman doing something for financial gain
Speaker 5: against her will via emotional cohersion. Well, he knows these
Speaker 5: two girls, they have TikTok emotional coersion convincing her. That's
Speaker 5: what I'm accused of, because they have no proof of
Speaker 5: me doing anything wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems to me like in another context
Speaker 1: a lot of conservatives would describe emotional coercion as grooming.
Speaker 1: So that's one piece. But I wanted to get you
Speaker 1: to react to this Matrix piece because you know, in
Speaker 1: your comments you were talking about how the left has
Speaker 1: this vulnerability to virtue signaling, which as member of the
Speaker 1: left I've spoken out against, and that there's a similar
Speaker 1: vulnerability on the right. People are susceptible to kind of
Speaker 1: taking mental shortcuts, and so if he sort of signals
Speaker 1: some of the right things and then the people you
Speaker 1: hate seem to be against him, then that's enough of
Speaker 1: like a proof that he's actually on your side. Could
Speaker 1: you talk about, you know, where the some of the
Speaker 1: specific vulnerabilities are on the right, because I just have
Speaker 1: fewer insights, fewer sort of like intel into that world.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think they're right because we are so often
Speaker 10: demonized by the mainstream, whether it's the mainstream media, or
Speaker 10: whether it's Hollywood, whether it's the so called elites, whatever,
Speaker 10: however you want to define that, the people in charge
Speaker 10: of the major corporations, the tech companies, academia.
Speaker 6: All of that.
Speaker 10: We're we kind of, I think, get embarrassed by only
Speaker 10: being represented by like Christian conservatives. So when someone throws
Speaker 10: us a bone, when someone who doesn't fit this standard
Speaker 10: mold of conservative, some you know, white Christian conservative who
Speaker 10: espouses all these traditional values, we kind of get excited.
Speaker 10: We're like, oh, maybe this person is going to make
Speaker 10: us cool. Maybe maybe it's not just the religious writer,
Speaker 10: maybe it's not just Christian conservatives who have the same
Speaker 10: ideas about feminism or masculinity or family or whatever as
Speaker 10: we do. So when we get like one comedian or
Speaker 10: one celebrity or one person who happens to express a
Speaker 10: kind of heterodox, almost conservative opinion, like, we get really
Speaker 10: excited about that, and we like, you.
Speaker 6: Know, put them on some kind of.
Speaker 10: Pedestal as our hero, and then we always end up
Speaker 10: being disappointed.
Speaker 6: The same thing kind of happened with Kanye West. Not
Speaker 6: comparing Kanye.
Speaker 10: West and Andrew Tate, but that's the principle that I'm
Speaker 10: talking about here, so I think a little bit of.
Speaker 6: That is coming into play.
Speaker 10: But then, of course, when you add on top of
Speaker 10: it that I think Andrew Tate much better than some
Speaker 10: of the other celebrities that the right kind of clings
Speaker 10: on too so hastily. He really does understand the language
Speaker 10: like he does understand the concerns of a lot of
Speaker 10: conservative or at least non leftist young men.
Speaker 6: I think he is in some ways.
Speaker 10: Very different and as I said, degenerate version of Jordan Peterson,
Speaker 10: and that he appeals to like very real emotions, very
Speaker 10: real feelings of loneliness, of lack of value, of disrespect
Speaker 10: of being kind of lost in the world and wanting
Speaker 10: to feel value, feel purpose, feel like you're adding something,
Speaker 10: feel like you're pushing back against darkness, like he really.
Speaker 6: Appeals to that.
Speaker 10: And because he says things that are true, and because
Speaker 10: he captures that like pathos so quickly, which is really
Speaker 10: the sign of like a good communicator, the rest of
Speaker 10: this stuff just kind of gets justified. They either say, well,
Speaker 10: it's just part of his persona, or that's lacking context somehow,
Speaker 10: or it's he's joking or whatever it is. But look,
Speaker 10: it's difficult to detach yourself from someone who has emotionally
Speaker 10: appealed to you and kind of placed himself in the
Speaker 10: position of mentorship.
Speaker 6: So I think that's what happens to.
Speaker 10: A lot of young men who have become kind of
Speaker 10: his disciples.
Speaker 2: If you will, Ali, let me hate you with another one.
Speaker 2: I hear this all the time, which is, why are
Speaker 2: you spending time even going after someone who is tangentially
Speaker 2: aligned with us. You're doing the left job for them.
Speaker 2: I've rejected that, but I'm curious. You know, I think
Speaker 2: you're probably someone more in the movement than me. What's
Speaker 2: your response to that type of criticism.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I wouldn't say that he's aligned with me at all.
Speaker 10: Like I'm sure that there are some people on the
Speaker 10: laft to say things that I agree. There are probably
Speaker 10: some people who espouse the tenets of gender ideology, which
Speaker 10: I think are extremely destructive, especially for children, that might
Speaker 10: say something sometimes that I agree with. I'm still going
Speaker 10: to criticize them when they say something that I not
Speaker 10: only disagree with but vehemently oppose. And look, I'm a
Speaker 10: I'm a Christian conservative and so or a conservative Christian.
Speaker 6: Maybe that's the better way to say it.
Speaker 10: So to me, when I'm thinking about truth and goodness
Speaker 10: and beauty, the things that I want to aspire to,
Speaker 10: the things I want society to aspire to, I see
Speaker 10: Andrew Tate as just as far from that is any
Speaker 10: you know, secular left wing person espousing and ideas that
Speaker 10: I don't like, Like I see his promotion of pornography,
Speaker 10: of basically polygamy or at least from men anyway, and
Speaker 10: just moral rot. It's just as dangerous, just as destructive
Speaker 10: as any form of like, of any form of progressivism.
Speaker 3: That I like.
Speaker 10: And so when I am trying to aspire to hire things,
Speaker 10: good things, I mean, it doesn't really matter what the
Speaker 10: ideology is of the people who are opposing those hiring
Speaker 10: good things, but as long as they are opposing them, And.
Speaker 6: So I see Entrewtaate.
Speaker 10: As just as much of an enemy to those good
Speaker 10: things the society should be aspiring to as any enemy
Speaker 10: that I may.
Speaker 1: Have on the left.
Speaker 3: Got it?
Speaker 1: And Ali, what's the reaction to your comments been, because
Speaker 1: he obviously does have very hardcore group of defenders. But
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, there were a few things that
Speaker 1: struck me. First of all, obviously, this is coming at
Speaker 1: the same moment as like the sound of Freedom discourse,
Speaker 1: and there's been a lot of anti groomor discourse on
Speaker 1: the right. So there's that piece of like, you've got that.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, you're out and out defending
Speaker 1: a man who was actually accused of human trafficking. And
Speaker 1: then the other thing that struck me is just a
Speaker 1: little bit of research. You see, he is just out
Speaker 1: and out lying about what the charges and the allegations
Speaker 1: against him are. And listen, he deserves stay in court.
Speaker 1: We'll see what evidence he brings to be beart et cetera.
Speaker 1: There are seven different victims whose text messages they have
Speaker 1: who you know, have spoken to the prosecution about the
Speaker 1: coercion that was used. He is. There is physical violence
Speaker 1: that is alleged. There is rape that is alleged. There's
Speaker 1: you know, creating fake debts and keeping these women basically
Speaker 1: in hawk to him and to his brother that is alleged.
Speaker 1: So even just the you know, the basics of what
Speaker 1: he was spinning Tucker on are out and out false.
Speaker 3: Why is it?
Speaker 1: Why is it sort of difficult for people to see
Speaker 1: that in this context?
Speaker 6: Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 10: I mean, he's admitted to fraud, and fraud is one
Speaker 10: of the things that they look for when they're looking
Speaker 10: for is this person actually trafficked?
Speaker 6: Is this person actually a victim?
Speaker 10: You don't actually have to be And we don't know
Speaker 10: necessarily if there was physical violence that was used, But
Speaker 10: he's admitted on tape to committing fraud, to line to
Speaker 10: these women, to keep them basically trapped in these kind
Speaker 10: of webcam agreements. I was, you know, I'm a fan
Speaker 10: of Tucker, A big fan of Tucker. I think that
Speaker 10: he has done a lot of good and telling a
Speaker 10: lot of truth, and I think it's fine that he.
Speaker 6: Interviewed Andrew Tate I think reporters.
Speaker 10: Journalists are supposed to interview all kinds of controversial people,
Speaker 10: whether you agree with them or not. But there were
Speaker 10: a lot of lies told in that interview that could
Speaker 10: have been caught that I mean that there was a
Speaker 10: lot that I think could have been pushed back on
Speaker 10: this as Okay, you say that they're not charging you
Speaker 10: with violence, but look right here, like we're talking about rape.
Speaker 6: You say that there are.
Speaker 10: No women who say that they're victims, but look right here,
Speaker 10: we actually have allegations or accusations of having seven victims.
Speaker 6: And so, I don't know.
Speaker 10: I think that it's just a refusal to see things
Speaker 10: as they are, a refusal to kind of get out
Speaker 10: of this idea that the enemy of my enemy is
Speaker 10: my friend and just see things as from a truthful perspective.
Speaker 10: And yeah, I think that people just don't want to
Speaker 10: give credence to anything that they view as a progressive,
Speaker 10: I don't know, perspective or a feminist perspective. You ask
Speaker 10: the reaction, I think most people probably agree with me.
Speaker 10: I think most conservatives probably agree that Andrew Tait is
Speaker 10: a degenerate that shouldn't be voiced up as a hero.
Speaker 6: But There are definitely people who have called me a
Speaker 6: feminist a misinterest.
Speaker 10: Oh, feminism has infected my mind just as much as
Speaker 10: any far leftist, which is just so funny. And so
Speaker 10: there's that, there's always going to be that, there's a.
Speaker 6: Lot of thoughtlessness and yeah, that's just kind of how
Speaker 6: it goes.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's how it is to relate in public discourse.
Speaker 3: You've got this show relatable.
Speaker 2: We'll have a link. As I said in the description,
Speaker 2: we really appreciate your time. I really enjoy talking to.
Speaker 6: You, so thank you, thanks so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pleasure.
Speaker 3: All right, guys, we will see you all later. The
Speaker 3: Crisis
Speaker 1: Inducted to Pulic School