5-1-25 - 9am - More Ukraine, Waltz Out and Spain Blackout

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The word that bugs me is constituent. What is a
constituent of the United States? Immigration says constituency constituents sorry,
has basic rights. But is constituent defined anywhere? I think
it's a condendrum.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Well, I don't think that an illegal alien, as is
the term used in federal law there, an illegal alien
is not a constituent. Let me just see if constituent

(00:54):
being a part of a whole. Okay, Well, maybe they're
a part of the whole of the humans that.

Speaker 3 (01:04):
Are part of a geographical area.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Or a constituent I'm looking at the dictionary being a
voting member of a community or organization and having the
power to appoint or elect. Okay, so clearly they're not.
So in the most broad sense of the term constituent,
an illegal alien is a member of a is a
part of a whole, unless you say that whole is

(01:33):
the whole of American citizens, in which case they're not
a constituent. Now, if you're just talking about humans, well yeah,
they're a constituent of the body of human beings on
the planet. They're a constituent of the body of human
beings that occupy the contiguous area of the lower forty

(01:53):
eight of the United States of America plus Alaskan Hawaii,
or they are a constituent of the human beings occupy
all of that land mass, you know, north of the equator. Soy, yeah,
so they could be a consituent of that, but being
a part of a whole when the whole wholi that
we're talking about are American citizens, they're not constituents because

(02:18):
they're not a voting member of that community or organization,
and they don't have the power to appoint or elect.
Which is another great example of the deceitful use of
language by Democrats to soften the idea that somehow those
illegal aliens are part of our constituency. No, they're not,

(02:41):
because a politician speaking of his constituency are those voters
for which he has a fiduciary responsibility, a relationship. Now,
as a human being, he might see a illegal alien
just as I see any human being. If I see

(03:04):
someone on the side of the road.

Speaker 3 (03:07):
That's been involved in an I don't wanbile accident.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
And I'm the first person on the scene, I'm going
to get out, and I don't care whether they're illegal
aliens or Martians or anything else or or what their
political affiliation is. I'm going to stop and try to
renderate and try to help politicians use language all the
time to try to confuse you. So that would be

(03:32):
my response to your talkback before we move on, because
I want to move on to Spain and Portugal because
there's more news out about that. But before I do,
I want to go back to Ukraine for a moment,
because I want to give you some of the details
about what's been offered here in terms of not necessarily
this this economic agreement, but the peace deal. So they've

(03:57):
put the Trump administration put forward a ceasefire proposal, obviously
to halt the ongoing war between the two countries. The plan,
the details of which have only been partially leaked, has
started this really fierce debate. Critics to accused the administration

(04:19):
of favoring Russia. Supporters argue that it represents a pragmatic
step toward peace in Ukraine, and Ukraine is obviously struggling
to win that war.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
So I think the best.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
Way to start is to recognize that this really has
become a war of attrition and use that word specifically.
So when Russia launched the war in February twenty twenty two.
It was a war of aggression, obviously a war intending
to take over and make Ukraine a satellite, a pupplic

(04:56):
government of the old Soviet Union, to make it a
puppet government of Putin's Russia. But it has since evolved
into a grueling war of attrition. Despite some early successes
by Ukraine, both by Our support and NATO support it,
then Ukraine then began began losing ground, and they lost

(05:20):
They've lost ground over the past two years. Russia has
a population that is four times larger, and they have
a leadership that's unencumbered by any sort of domestic political constraints.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
Now people can.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
Look at Zelensky and call him a dictator, which in
many ways he is acting as a dictator, some of
which is justified by the constitutions their constitutions, which is
not justified by their constitution. But nonetheless Zelenski does have
some domestic political constraints.

Speaker 3 (05:54):
That he has.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
He has to be concerned if he wants to remain
in power so that he can negotiate or either win
the war or negotiate. I don't think he can win
the war, but negotiate some sort of an agreement. He's
got to have the support of the population, and he's
on the verge of losing some of that. I think
now we've been the primary backer. We provided billions of
military economic aid, and the European allies, despite vocal support,

(06:22):
they have justly been criticized for their limited military contributions.
The Germans, for instance, have not deployed to Ukrainian front lines.
Broader European military supports often been described, as many critics,
as being insufficient. So it's against that backdrop that Trump

(06:43):
has made ending the conflict one of his priorities, and
his stance reflects a shift from Biden's open ended policy
of support and Trump's emphasizing a rapid resolution over prolonged engagement.
So there are I would say maybe six key elements.

(07:11):
The first one is he just wants to preserve the
current front lines. It would maintain the existing This is
why compare it to North and South Korea. Trump wants
to maintain the existing territorial boundaries, meaning that Russia would
retain control of parts of the eastern Ukrainian territories that

(07:33):
it currently occupies, as well as Crimea, which it annected
in twenty fourteen. The second one would be that there
would be US recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. We
would formally recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and that
is a diplomatic concession, but it does not require Ukraine

(07:57):
or any other nation to follow suit. It's just saying
that we're going to recognize that Crimea belongs to Russia
at this point, or I should say, recognize crime as
part of Russia, maybe a distinction without a difference. So
that would be the second part. The third the third
part of this agreement is that there are no restrictions

(08:21):
on Ukrainian military capacity, because on the other hand, Russia
is demanding on their side a complete elimination of the
Ukrainian military, and we're saying no, whatever Ukrainian people want
in terms of a military, they're entitled to have, and

(08:42):
if they want to spend part of their GDP on
rebuilding their military, then they should be allowed to do that.
And that would allow Ukrainians to maintain and potentially expand
their defensive forces. And I think that's perfectly reasonable. Russia
doesn't like it, but that's the way.

Speaker 3 (09:03):
It's going to be.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
Again, it's very similar to North and South Korea. So
that's what that's three. Here's a fourth one. There is
no requirement at all in this ceasefire peace agreement for
Ukrainians to make any sort of political concessions. It doesn't
mandate that Zelenski resign, it doesn't mandate that they hold

(09:26):
immediate elections. It actually preserves the current leadership structure and
allows them to whatever transition they want to enter into
or whatever the people demand. In other words, it's it's
kind of a soft landing for Ukraine to re establish
and get back to their you know, pre constitutional requirements

(09:46):
that they not hold elections and that they not change anything.
It allows them to ease back into a into some
form of democratic government. So that's that's what the fourth
one I've done. Here's the fifth I would do. We
maintain neutrality on NATO membership.

Speaker 3 (10:07):
Now.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
Some reports say that there's a clause that prevents Ukraine
from joining NATO in the in the near term now,
and that aligns with pre war realities. By the way,
that's something that was given before the war started, even
before twenty twenty two.

Speaker 3 (10:29):
In the invasion in February of that year.

Speaker 2 (10:32):
Ukraine's NATO membership was considered a very distant prospect, if
at all. So we don't impose any specific no, you
can never join NATO. We just say there's no requirement
for Ukrainian political concessions, and there's neutrality on NATO membership.

(10:54):
So that's what four or five. The last one is
potential sanctions relief for Russia. So this is Trump negotiating
both sides. So and again this is not confirmed, but
there are indications that the deal could involve easing some

(11:15):
Western sanctions on Russia, which so far I failed to
significantly alter Moscow's behavior.

Speaker 3 (11:22):
Now, the.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
Opposite of that is, and I do believe based on
reporting stories that I've read, is that if Putin remains
intransient and won't do anything, that Trump is prepared to
impose really harsh sanctions that would, you know, could topple Putin.
I don't think that's as objective, but that's the reality
of what could happen. I think Trump really does want

(11:48):
to impose harsh economic sanctions that would force the Russians
they would be cut off from their ability to fund
the war, and I think Trump's willing to do that.
So those are the five or six terms that I've
been able to find that I think are part of

(12:09):
this peace plan.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
But the reaction is pretty polarized. Really.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
The critics will tell you this is a complete capitulation
to Russia. If you read the New York Times, they
criticized the plan as overly favorable to Russia. There was
a headline recently, Trump's Ukraine peace plan gives Russia everything
at once, warnings of a deal that sharply favors Russia.
I mean, the usual Holloliah chorus over there is saying

(12:42):
what you would expect them to say. And critics also
argue that by allowing Russia to retain the occupied territories
that that somehow legitimizes Trump's slam grat.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
Elizabeth Warren, Oh, this is a dangerous precedent.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
It tells autocrafts worldwide that aggressian pays well. The recognition
of Crimea as Russian territory that draws iire. The opponents
of that argue that it undermines international law and it
undermines Ukraine's sovereignty. I might actually somewhat admit to that,
but I'm also a realist and recognize that you know,

(13:20):
after eleven years of occupation, the the lift to get
Russia out of Ukraine is something that I think would
ultimately result in. I don't think Trump would do it,
but I think it would ultimately result in You're going
to have to push Russia out, and I don't think
Ukraine has the ability to do that on its own,

(13:43):
and I don't think NATO is interested in doing that.
I don't think the American people are interested in doing that.
It's kind of like, Okay, you know we took over well,
we bought the Northwest territories, but we you know, we
took over the the Gadsden purchase, although it wasn't technically
it was technically a purchase. But for for Hispanics or

(14:08):
Mexicans now come in and claim, oh, you've taken over
our territory. Well, you know what, should have done something
a long time ago. We're now here, We're now established.
It is what it is. Sucks to be you. We won.
It's over. And I kind of feel that way about CRIMEA.
You can kind of say that's some sort of superiority complex,

(14:32):
but that's just that's the way I feel about it now.

Speaker 3 (14:35):
Now.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
The critics would argue that the inclusion of the NATO
membership band is symbolic, but it gives Ukraine some sort
of distant prospect for joining the alliance. But the critics
say that that's an unnecessary capitulation. Well, when you look

(14:59):
at who making that kind of criticism, it really comes
from the Obama and Biden former National Security Council people.
They call it a symbolic win for putin it handed
handed handed to him on a platter I've read somewhere.
But so what I'm ad to I really do say.

(15:20):
So what it's like, they conquered it. It's been more
than a decade. So it is what it is. But
there are supporters of the plan, obviously, some conservative commentators,
some obviously in the Trump administration. Ukraine cannot retake those
lost territories without some sort of catastrophic escalation. Secretary of

(15:46):
State said that. He also said that this ceasefire stops
the bloodshed while preserving Ukraine's ability to defend itself, recognizing
that it can't go further. It's it's on the defensive now,
so let's just draw the lines and say that's it.
And that fits in with the idea that the purpose

(16:07):
of a ceasefire, the purpose of the peace agreement, is
what to stop the war. So if you if you
stop the game, if you stop the football game, you
decide that for whatever reason, let's just say the NFL
rules allowed this that you know, there's thunder and lightning.
We're gonna stop this game right now. So we're gonna
stop it. And the scory is what it is. We're

(16:30):
not gonna we're not gonna come back and replay the game.
We're not gonna restart the game. We're just gonna stop it.
And whoever wants Beney at that point won, Well, we're
gonna try to stop this war. And Russia's got that territory,
and you know what, a lot of those territories, a
lot of those oblasts are Russian speaking and Russian culture
and Russian everything else. So boom there it is. So

(16:53):
it's in a geopolitical context. It's a really tight rope
walk that Trump doing. And I still maintained that the historic president.
Here's the Korean War armistice, So let's just stop it.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Stop.

Speaker 4 (17:18):
Good morning, Michael, Good morning Dragon.

Speaker 3 (17:21):
Michael.

Speaker 4 (17:22):
That was a pretty chilling video you presented in the
first segment. Reminded me of you know, there's always been
crazy people out there in the olden days, the community
would sort of keep them in check because they were
the weird ones. Now they find like minded people online
and they don't think they're crazy.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
And the algorithm reinforces to themselves that they're not crazy,
which is the crazy thing about that it's crazy and
it's scary at the same time. So someone just alerted
me to the fact, speaking of facts, that the National
Security Advisor Mike Waltz has been dismissed along with his

(18:10):
deputy Alex Wan, and they wanted to know what my
thought about it was. I'm not surprised when you may recall,
just for background, that Mike Waltz was at the center
of that signal controversy where Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor at

(18:32):
The Atlantic magazine, was air quotes here inadvertently put into
that chat discussing the attacks on the hoo Thies and
Pete Hegseeth, the Defense Secretary, was the primary target of
most of the outrage when that occurred, because he was
frankly doing most of the talking on the signal chat.

(18:56):
But at the time I thought, but wait a minute,
once it was closed that and Mike Waltz is the
one that admitted that. Yeah, I'm the one that inadvertently
and again in air quotes here, added the Atlantic editor
to the chat. I thought that's kind of difficult to do,

(19:17):
and what you're discussing, in my opinion, even though it
might might not have been quote classified, it was nonetheless
about national security matters, and I think that presented a
real problem for Trump. I know, for example, if if
I were president, I wonder why.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
My mom's trying to FaceTime me right now.

Speaker 2 (19:40):
If that were me and I was president and my
national security advisor had done that, I know he's a
former congressman, I know he's a former Green Beret. I
know all of those things that would have caused doubt.
And if my doubt was strong enough, I would have
gone to Susie Wilds, my chief of staff, and I

(20:03):
would have had her, you know, get with the Director
of the White House Officer Personnel, and I would have
started the process without saying anything to Walter Wrong, to
start searching for a replacement.

Speaker 3 (20:17):
Now.

Speaker 2 (20:17):
I don't know if that's how they did it, because
the way I would have done it would have been
all right, they're short timers, but don't tell them that
and instead start the search for a replacement, and obviously
you've got to be very discreet about searching for those replacements,
because the minute the word gets out that you no

(20:39):
longer had the trust of the president, and word gets
out that they're actively searching for your replacement, you're dead
in the water. You're totally ineffective at that point, and
you're not going to get anything done. And considering that
it's the National Security Advisor, you don't want that. So
you work on background through your chief of staff to
start searching for some names of potential replacements, and then

(21:03):
you start quietly vetting them to the extent that you can,
and then you make the announcement. Now, if that's what happens.
If that's what happened, that means that today's Thursday, you
could actually have the announcement of a replacement by tomorrow,
certainly by the first of next week, and that would
indicate that's exactly the process that took place. I'm not

(21:26):
surprised by it. There's there have been stories about that
Waltz actually was friends or at least acquaintances with Jeffrey
Goldberg at the Atlantic, and not that he purposely put
him in the signal chat, but that it stands to
reason that he could have actually been put in because

(21:48):
he was in his phone, in his contacts. And you know,
there are many times that when I'm texting somebody and
it's something sensitive, I reread it and I think to myself,
if this became public, what would it say? And two,

(22:11):
if it involves a conversation about someone else that's you know,
work related or whatever, Dragon looking at you work related
or whatever. I make very certain that before I hit sinned,
I looked to see, yeah, nobody is on this, just
going straight to Dragon. All right, Moon hit send. I'm

(22:32):
the National Security Advisor, which I'm not. I would be
even more careful, But then I would add one more
comment about what I had. Everything I just said. Trump's
already admitted that he had Pete Haggs that he taught
had a talking to Pete haggeson the Secretary of Defense,

(22:56):
because not only was he involved in that signal chat controversy,
He's also fired his chief of staff. Hesath has fired
his chief of staff and other staffers that he brought on.
So the stories that I've been reading about the Secretary

(23:18):
Defense's office being chaotic and in disarray, and that other
staffers are leaving of their own volition. Uh, And Trump
admitting that he's had a conversation with Hesath, even though
he said in that cabinet meeting, which was what yesterday
or day before that, Oh yeah, you know, I've got

(23:38):
confidence in Pete. You know, he's a smart guy, and
he knows what he's doing. He's got a really tough job.
That doesn't mean that they're not doing the same thing
with Pete Hegsath, because Trump's different this time. He brought
He's brought in really good people. And I've always what

(23:58):
I don't have anything against Heath, and I honor the
fact that he's served in the military. He served in
the army, But managing an organization as diverse, and I
don't mean racially or otherwise. I mean it's it's got
so many different components to it is one hell of

(24:22):
a job. And I just don't think that Pete Heggesath
has the corporate skills to deal with that, the political
skills that it takes to deal with that. And he
might be the next one, very indeed might be the
next one. So hang on to your aps. Sometimes these

(24:47):
things are good. I know it creates controversy. I know
that the media is going to latch onto it. I'm
sure I could go on to X right now and
find all sorts of quotes from the New York Times
and the Hill and the you name it, they're all,
you know, let's see, let me just look at DRUDG
real quickly. Nothing on DRUDG yet, which I think had

(25:13):
a fascinating All right, let's talk about Spain. Let's talk
about Spain. Let's talk about blackouts, because what happened there
last week was it wasn't a fluke, and it wasn't
despite what the Prime Minister says, it was not unrelated
to Spain's really aggressive push toward renewable energy. Pedro Sanchez
keeps insisting that the massive blackout that darkened much of

(25:36):
the Iberian Peninsula was caused by this.

Speaker 3 (25:39):
Rare, isolated technical failure.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
It wasn't the wind, it wasn't solar it but certainly
didn't have anything to do with his government's energy policies.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
He even took.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
The opportunity to double down on his rejection of nuclear energy,
calling it quote far from being a solution. But here's
the thing. What really failed that day wasn't just component.
It was, as I explained what a couple of days ago.
It was inertia. Not political inertia, physical inertia, the kind

(26:10):
of power that grids used to have when energy was
generated by big, heavy machines spinning at thousands of revolutions
per minute. Turbines and gas colon nuclear plants and those
massive rotating shafts didn't just make electricity, they made stbability.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
They acted like shock absorbers.

Speaker 2 (26:31):
They bought all the nanoseconds when something anything would go wrong.
But today's renewables don't do that. Solar panels and modern
wind turbines feed electricity through those inverters.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
I talk to you about.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
Electronic devices that don't spend, they don't weigh very much.
They don't provide the inertia that stabilizes the grid during
any sort of fluctuation. So when the system gets hit
with a shock, just even a miner dropping generation or
a fault of some sort, it's those few seconds that matter,
because without inertia, it's gone now.

Speaker 3 (27:08):
To be somewhat fair.

Speaker 2 (27:09):
Spain's grid operators still have not pinned down the exact
cause of the blackout on the twenty eighth. The full
root cause analysis could take weeks, but the preliminary reports
point to a very strong oscillation that began in the southwest,
likely a dropping solar output. So think about a dropping
solar output means that suddenly the grid's not being fed

(27:33):
and that has a ripple effect. Now, in other reports,
the grid apparently managed to correct itself briefly, but then
was hit again one point five seconds later, and then
just like that, the system buckled. Spain's grid disconnected from

(27:54):
your's grid and the renewables collapsed.

Speaker 3 (27:57):
Power output plant plunged.

Speaker 2 (27:59):
To virtually zero and red electric to the Spanish grid
operator I told you about confirmed it. It was a
massive loss of renewable generation that triggered the event, and
they said, quote it's very likely solar was to blame.
Shouldn't come as a surprise. Engineers have been warning for

(28:20):
years that reliant on weather dependent energy sources without a
baseline OUTEQUOD backup is a recipe for disaster. The International
Energy Agency, just days before this blackout occurred, was quietly
warning that grids dominated by renewables faced systemic challenges during

(28:41):
low generation periods. They even singled out countries like Germany
where their nuke plants have been shut down without any
without any replacement of anything else. The International Energy Agency
was pointing out as that as an example of what
not to do, which is exactly what what Spain did do,

(29:02):
and the Prime Minister and his allies refused to hear it,
because why they continue even to this day to mantles
Spain's dispatchable low carbon nuclear fleet. They still want to
shut it down. By twenty thirty five, demand continues to surge,
demand continues to grow. Artificial intelligence is not just confined

(29:26):
to our country or to China. Artificial intelligence is taking
hold all over the world. So the part that should
make all of us nervous, not just the Spaniards, is this.
When the GRIG collapsed, it took out almost all of Europe.

(29:46):
So it's not just a Spanish problem. It's a European vulnerability.
And when we're doing what we're doing here, we're creating
the same potential in this country.

Speaker 5 (29:58):
Michael, speaking of the stain issues they had with their
great did in the UK just spray a bunch of
chemicals into the atmosphere to try to quote unquote dim
the sun.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
I don't think they that might have had I don't
think they've done it yet, but I think they we
did that story. I think at the beginning of.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
The week, Yeah, they had gotten approval that they're going
to two million pounds or something here and to go
do that.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
This week, Adam Schiff announced that he was going to
introduce an assault weapons.

Speaker 6 (30:30):
Ban, and from California spearheaded the new bill, two decades
after the first band expired. Senator Shift's bill would ban
the sale of military style assault weapons at high capacity magazines.
According to US Senate Committee study, when the ban was
in effect, mass shootings went down thirty seven percent. When

(30:52):
it was originally introduced in nineteen eighty four and had
bipartisan support. Gallop polls say most Americans do support stricter
laws on assault webs By.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
The way, this is whas Channel eleven reporting.

Speaker 6 (31:03):
Matt Holden survived the Sandy Hook shooting when he was
just six years old, and the sense fought for reform.

Speaker 7 (31:09):
I've spent every day since trying to live in a
world that still allows those weapons of war to be
sold legally to civilians. A world where kids like me
are expected to survive.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
Isn't whas at a Louisville, Kentucky, I think for some reason,
I think that it is man. This is a biased report,
isn't it. But there's a little nugget that I want
to add to in the minute.

Speaker 7 (31:34):
To grow up and you somehow carry this trauma like
it's normal. It is not normal. What happened in my
school should have been the moment this nation changed, but
it wasn't. So survivors like me had to become the change.

Speaker 6 (31:52):
And Congresswoman Lucy McBeth is leading the bill for the
US House of Representatives.

Speaker 3 (31:57):
Well, so there you have.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
So during the break, after talking about the Mike Waltz
firing or resignation whatever it turns out to be the
National Security Advisor, I was on X because I was
really curious what others Blues outlets were saying about it.
But forget that, because what brought me back to the

(32:20):
assault weapons band that Adam Schiff is introducing was a
tweet a post by George Talkie, the congressman from California.
You know it's funny when you accidentally make the perfect
case for the Second Amendment. Because George Talkie decided that

(32:41):
since Adam Shiff had introduced this bill to once again
tried the nineteen ninety four assault weapons ban, which, by
the way, that WHS report talking about how it had
a great effect, studies since then indicate that it didn't
have any effect, no effect whatsoever. So whas I'd say, yeah,
get your research department together anyway. So there they are

(33:05):
pushing on their audience the idea of how great this is,
and George Talkie comes out and thinks he thinks he's
got the bomb the viral tweet of the day when
he wrote this crazy thought. But those twenty million AR
fifteens now in this country could sure arm a lot

(33:28):
of Ukrainians. Huh are you saying that perhaps a armed
civilian society might actually be able to repel a foreign
or domestic enemy. Isn't that funny when you don't really

(33:52):
stop and think about what you're posting to X, and
then you suddenly or he probably hasn't yet realized that
you just made the case for every civilian in every
country owning an AR fifteen.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
Yeah. What a great salesman he is.