February 18, 2025 • 53 mins
Is the U.S. military support the lifeline Ukraine desperately needs to survive? Explore the critical role of American assistance as President Zelensky navigates the dangers of potential peace deals without Ukraine's say. We'll dissect NATO's vulnerability if U.S. backing falters and analyze the shifting dynamics within Europe, with Vice President Vance urging Europe to step up its defenses. This episode shines a spotlight on the complex web of international relations, the specter of Russia's ambitions, and the democratic values at stake.
Prepare for a deep dive into the Trump administration's chaotic handling of the Ukraine crisis. Mixed signals and diplomatic chaos have left allies on edge, especially after Vice President JD Vance's controversial remarks at the Munich Security Conference. Could Trump be gearing up for a major concession to Moscow, risking Ukraine's security and critical resources? We weigh the uncertainties of his negotiation style, examining whether Trump's role as a pragmatic dealmaker or hard-right ideologue could reshape transatlantic alliances amidst Putin's aggression.
Shifting focus to the home front, we tackle the constitutional turmoil under President Trump's leadership. With Elon Musk at the helm of the Department of Government Efficiency and a flurry of executive orders, the echoes of Andrew Jackson's presidency reverberate through American politics. Meanwhile, the Trump era's impact on agricultural policies has left farmers in a paradox—voting against "handouts" that sustain them. We unravel the irony of this economic landscape, exploring how subsidies and social welfare programs like WIC intertwine with the realities of American farming. Join us as we unpack these intricate layers of political and economic decisions shaping both the global stage and the heartland of America.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can Ukraine survive without US military support?
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Probably it will be very, very, very difficult.
Of course, in all the difficultsituations you have a chance,
but we will have a low chance.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
I'm your host, darrell McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving.
Let us reason together, episode445.
So of course, that was VladimirZelensky talking about how
Ukraine is utterly dependent onhelp from the United States to
(00:45):
survive.
And he is saying that becausethe tone and tenor of the
president, the vice presidentand the new secretary of defense
is somewhat looking like thatRussia is going to get
everything and Ukraine is goingto get nothing.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Let's get into the episode.
Can you accept any peace dealthat is cut without Ukraine?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
No, I'm sure that we have to be there, otherwise it's
not acceptable.
But if there is a decisionwithout us and Putin will go out
from all our land, we will bein NATO and Putin will be in the
prison.
So President Trump can do itwithout us.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
You had a message to Vice President Vance about the
potential implications ofpulling out of NATO.
What was your message to thevice president?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
That will be destroying of NATO.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Is it true that you told president Trump during that
phone call that Putin is onlypretending to want peace because
he's afraid of Mr Trump?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Yes, yes, I said that he's a liar and he said I think
that my feeling.
He said that he's ready forpeace negotiations and I said to
him no, he's a liar, he doesn'twant any peace.
But I think he's really alittle bit scared about the
President Trump and I think thePresident has this chance and
(02:24):
he's really a little bit scaredabout President Trump and I
think the president has thischance and he's strong and I
think that really he can pushPutin to peace negotiations.
Yes, I think so.
I think so he can, but don'ttrust him, Don't trust Putin.
Let's be honest Now.
(02:44):
We can't rule out thepossibility that America might
say no to Europe on an issuethat threatens it.
We must build the armed forcesof Europe so that Europe's
future depends only on Europeans.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
No, of course, Ukraine is in a very difficult
position here because everybodyhas been saying for a very long
time that it would be verydifficult for Ukraine to beat
(03:22):
Russia in a head-on-headcollision.
What's actually been veryamazing to me and to a lot of
military analysts is, if youremember the first few weeks of
the conflict between Russia andUkraine, there was post even
(03:45):
suggesting that VladimirZelensky was going to be
assassinated, that he would bekilled by Russia, etc.
And Russia somewhat thoughtthis would be a cakewalk, that
they would roll in, take overUkraine, that they could use
(04:05):
propaganda under the notion thatUkraine and the people in
Ukraine spoke Russian, becauseUkraine was once a part of, you
know, the official government ofRussia.
It was a part of the Russianterritory as a part of the
Russian territory.
And instead of Ukraine foldingin a matter of weeks, like a lot
(04:32):
of people thought, instead ofZelensky being killed, he's
actually been going to the frontlines with his soldiers and
Ukraine has withstood the attackfrom russia for three years and
, of course, that has been withhelp from the united states.
(04:53):
Now, of course, as what happenswith a lot of superpowers, the
united states is grown war weary.
Uh, you, you could say, on onehand.
On the other hand, you couldsay that it's just that donald
trump does not have the capacityor the will to stand up to
(05:16):
gladimir putin.
And that is only because and Ionly say that because, in this
example, um, you have theSecretary of Defense going and
saying it's naive for Ukraine tothink it's going to go back to
its 2014 borders.
You have a peace deal that doesnot have our peace negotiations
(05:38):
.
I should say that does not haveUkraine sitting at the table.
Have Ukraine sitting at thetable and still getting to keep
(06:10):
everything that it took, gettingthe land?
Uh, there's no punishment forthe people that have been killed
and there's no conversationabout the return of the children
, and it makes you have toquestion um, what, what sort of
piece is this?
If the deterrence is gone, ifthere is no real punishment or
(06:41):
sanction for the invading ofyour neighbors and taking their
land, what is it going to take?
How long will it be before, uh,vladimir Putin does it again?
Is he simply going to wait tillin two years, when Donald Trump
is a lame duck president,before he pops off another war?
(07:04):
Is he going to wait till themidterm elections?
Is he going to wait till DonaldTrump leaves office.
We had to remember that this isa game that Vladimir Putin has
been playing for a very longtime.
When George Bush was president,he invaded Georgia Got to keep
(07:24):
the land.
When Barack Obama was president, he invaded Georgia got to keep
the land.
When Barack Obama was president, he invaded Kiev got to keep
the land.
When Joe Biden was president,he goes into Ukraine.
And if he gets to keep the land, if that is what is going to be
the model, that is going to bethe response when Vladimir Putin
(07:49):
or any country does a oldschool style colonial takeover,
if there is no punishment, thenthere will be no stop to the
actions.
Now the Vice President of theUnited States, jd Vance hada
(08:12):
trip, where he went to Europeand, instead of talking about
Vladimir Putin and talking aboutwhat he's done, somewhat seemed
to point the finger at theEuropeans because they're not
doing enough.
I talked about the europeansand them uh, stopping elections
(08:33):
sometimes.
Uh, even in one part of hisconversation basically said if
your democracy can beinterrupted by internet
campaigns, it wasn't much of ademocracy at all.
So this has caused ripplesthrough Europe, where Vladimir
(08:53):
Zelensky even is said to thatthey're going to have a
different summit, the Europeansummit, that does not involve
the United States of America.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
For years, we've been told that everything we fund
and support is in the name ofour shared democratic values.
Everything from our Ukrainepolicy to digital censorship is
billed as a defense of democracy.
But when we see European courtscanceling elections and senior
officials threatening to cancelothers, we ought to ask whether
we're holding ourselves to anappropriately high standard.
(09:54):
And I say ourselves because Ifundamentally believe that we
are on the same team.
We must do more than talk aboutdemocratic values.
We must live them.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
So, of course, all the people in Europe, who are
our allies, were shocked, notused to being spoken to in this
manner.
A lot of them felt like we wereparroting Russian talking
points.
The President of the UnitedStates, donald Trump, was asked
about some of the comments andhe was talking about the freedom
(10:41):
of speech and migration inEurope.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Do you believe that European leaders have a
fundamentally different view ofthe world than this
administration's?
Speaker 6 (10:49):
Well, I heard his speech and you're talking about
JD's speech, right?
Yes, sir, I heard his speechand he talked about freedom of
speech and I think it's true, inEurope, it's losing their
wonderful right of freedom ofspeech.
I see it.
I mean, I thought he made avery good speech, actually a
very brilliant speech.
(11:09):
Europe has to be careful, andhe talked about immigration and
Europe has a big immigrationproblem.
Just take a look at what'shappened with crime.
Take a look at what's happeningin various parts of Europe.
I thought his speech was verywell received, actually.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
I've heard very good remarks.
Chaotic approach has alliesrattled.
Trump has raised fears he mightbe preparing to sell out kiev
to placate moscow's latimer uhzielinski um trading him over to
(11:56):
president putin.
The trump administration beganits first week of negotiations
to end the war in Ukraine with adizzling array of mixed signals
that confused and worriedAmericans, european allies, and
seemed to reward chiefly RussianPresident Vladimir Putin.
(12:18):
Even by President Trump'sdisruptive standards, the
opening bargaining processverged on anarchy.
The messages and the messengerschanged almost daily.
Concessions to Putin wereoffered and then withdrawn.
The administration seemed to beexcluding Ukrainian President
Vladimir Zelensky, then wooinghim, then fending him off again.
(12:42):
The diplomatic roadshow centeredon this weekend's Munich
Security Conference, the annualcelebration of the Transatlantic
Alliance.
Vice President JD Vance hasbizarrely used the gathering to
hang-rang Europeans and insulthis German host.
His remarks offended even someof the fellow Republicans, and
Germany's Defense Minister BorisPerros was heard saying during
(13:06):
the speech this is unacceptable.
Sheldon Whitehouse from RhodeIsland, the most senior Democrat
on the Senate delegation here,summed up the reaction to
Vance's speech this way it'sfair to be say he bombed Of the
disarray in the trump'sentourage.
White house told severaljournalists, trump's uh,
(13:30):
marginal and managerial style isto let his subordinates say
very discordant things.
The challenge was separatingthe signal from the noise in the
Trump's team's messaging.
Probably that clarity doesn'texist yet in Trump's own mind In
negotiation.
(13:50):
He likes to conduct areconnaissance through fire A
Polish foreign minister raidinga circus put in the Munich
gathering using a Russianmilitary expression.
As the shells explode, he willthen redirect his fire.
Trump began bracketing thetarget with his Wednesday phone
(14:14):
call to Putin, which wasaccompanied by the Defense
Secretary, pete Hankins'concession that day of two key
negotiating points that Ukrainecouldn't keep all this territory
and that the nato membershipwas a non-starter.
Now that amplified fears amongukrainians and ukrainian
(14:36):
americans and europeansupporters that trump was
preparing to sell out kiev toplacate moscow.
I'm not the world's mostimportant and famous dealmakers,
petrus sarcastically told theMunich audience.
But if I were, I would knowthat I don't take any
extensional point ofnegotiations off the table
(14:57):
before the negotiations begin.
Trump's call to Putin accusedof war crimes by the
International Criminal Court mayhave been the biggest
concession of all.
Champagne corks are popping allover Moscow, the White House
told the team.
(15:18):
Trump's team also tried to shakedown Zelensky's before the
Ukrainian leader left for Munich.
Down Zelensky's before theUkrainian leader left for Munich
.
Zelensky told an astonishedgroup of senators at the
treasury Scott Bitson hadvisited him in Kiev and
pressured him to sign over theright of half of Ukraine's
critical minerals as a price ofAmericans' support in
(15:41):
negotiation.
For me this is very strange,zelensky said several times in
describing the scene for theSenate group.
Despite the hard sell, zelenskyrefused.
By the time Zelensky arrived inGermany, the Trump
administration seemed to havesoftened his term.
Hesek walked back some of hisinitial comments and said Trump
(16:03):
would make a final decisionabout NATO.
Trump himself said Kiev wouldbe a part of any negotiation and
Vance said Trump's goal was adurable peace.
That would presumably requiresecurity guarantees from Ukraine
.
Our security guarantees forUkraine, I should say guarantees
for Ukraine, I should say.
(16:26):
As the weekend progressed,zelensky and his supporters
seemed to be warming to the ideathat trading mineral wealth for
American support were stilltalking, he said of the Bisset
proposal.
A properly negotiated mineraldeal between the US and Ukraine
could be extremely beneficialfor both sides, said the White
House, a strong Ukrainiansupporter the origin of the 21st
(17:13):
century.
Now that's fired Trump'stransactional passion.
Graham said the criticalmineral deal is a Putin
nightmare.
It turns Ukraine into abusiness deal, explained Graham,
who led the Senate delegationthere.
As for the future securityguarantees, graham urges Trump
to declare that if Putin attacksUkraine again after a
(17:46):
Trump-brokered peace deal, itwould mean a automatic NATO
membership for Kiev.
That may be a way of finessingthe issue of a security
guarantee and NATO membership.
The key would be that Trumpowns it.
Graham said If Putin doesn'twant or doesn't take what Trump
(18:08):
thinks is a good deal, trumpwill crush him.
Graham said it will make Trumplook weak.
Even Zelensky seems to thinkthat Putin is scared of Trump
saying on stage this is his callWednesday, when Trump offered
that Putin is afraid.
This talk of fear factorignores the reality that Putin
(18:30):
has waged a bloody war ofaggression for three years and
there is no sign yet that he isready to concede his basic goal
of making Ukraine a neutralbuffer zone as opposed to a
quasi-member of NATO.
In neutral buffer zone asopposed to a quasi-member of
NATO, putin still thinks he'swinning, despite more than
(18:55):
700,000 casualties, effectivelyconfirming that Zelensky
concedes that in recent fighting, ukraine has lost more than
4,000 square kilometers.
Zelensky hopes troops will hangtough, but he offered a painful
reality check in his speech tothe conference.
Let's be honest now.
We can't rule out that Americamight say no.
In that case, he urged, europewould stand alone against Putin.
(19:15):
With Ukraine as his backbone.
They would together form anarmy of Europe.
After watching the first turn ofthe diplomatic dance, people
are left wondering which versionof Trump will prevail.
Is this the pragmatic dealmakerwho Graham describes?
Or is this the hard rightideologue who saw in the Vance
(19:37):
speech pleading to take ourshared civilization in a new
direction?
In any case, the audiencereaction to the speech was
mostly stunned silence.
The only time we can remember asimilar attack on the core
transatlantic values was put in2007 speech in effect, declaring
(19:57):
war on the west.
At some point, the erroneous ofthe erosion of trust is going to
affect the alliance.
Senator Mark Warner, theDemocrat for Virginia, told the
gathering of journalists theconstant undermining of
alliances as a long-term verydangerous Of the Trump's team's
performance last week here.
(20:18):
It appears to me that thisdiplomacy is at odds and it is
more of an ad hoc basis.
The negotiation train willaccelerate as the secretary of
state, marco rubio, and therussian foreign minister, sergey
liverov, meet in saudi arabiato discuss the preliminaries.
At writing it.
(20:40):
It appears that no seniorukrainian representative will
present.
This is a very bad sign.
Zielinski insisted in hismunich speech that ukraine will
never accept deals behind uhclosed doors, behind our backs,
without our involvement.
What, what betrayals may lieahead if trump's defaults on his
(21:02):
promises a peace throughstrength?
Zielinski forces may victoryday visit Moscow by Trump, who
will be invited by Putin as aprop.
Trump supporters might forgivehim for that, but history won't.
Now this is coming out of theWashington Post, and that was a
(21:22):
reporting done by David Ignatius.
Now David Ignatius is a writerat the Post that I read and he
writes twice a week on foreignaffairs.
He also wrote a book that I'mthinking about buying, and it is
the Phantom Orbit.
If you want to follow DavidIgnatius he's regularly on
(21:44):
Morning Joe Follow DavidIgnatius.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
He's regularly on Morning Joe and he also has a
Twitter account at Ignatius Post, we'll be back with more of the
Darrell McLean Show, trump,andrew Jackson and the Trail of
Tears.
I'm Amy Goodman, host ofDemocracy Now with Dennis
(22:06):
Moynihan and our weekly Breakingthe Sound Barrier podcast.
The United States is in aconstitutional crisis with scant
historical precedent.
President Donald Trump haslaunched a power grab through
executive orders andproclamations.
He's installed the world'srichest man, his principal
campaign donor, elon Musk, torun the Department of Government
(22:26):
Efficiency, or DOGE.
Musk, who some now call theex-president after his platform,
formerly known as Twitter, isthe largest government
contractor, with his SpaceXserving as the sole launch
provider for NASA and Pentagonspace operations.
Musk is eviscerating almostevery federal agency that's
(22:46):
either investigated, fined orsought to regulate his business
empire, all while avoidinginvestigation into conflicts of
interest.
Trump's fiats from his attemptto overturn the constitutional
(23:06):
right to birthright citizenshipto freeze trillions of dollars
of federal funds alreadyapproved by Congress and signed
into law, including foreign aid,science funding and DEI
initiatives.
His mass firings of civilservants.
His attack on immigrants andtrans people, and Doge's
unfettered access to the privaterecords of millions of federal
(23:28):
workers and regular Americans.
Many federal judges have issuedinjunctions, at least
temporarily, halting Trump'srampage.
When a federal court issues anorder.
According to US constitutionallaw, a president must obey.
At an Oval Office newsconference on Wednesday, when he
and Musk took questions, trumpwas asked if he would abide by
(23:50):
court orders.
Speaker 6 (23:52):
Yeah, the answer is I always abide by the courts,
always abide by them and willappeal.
Speaker 7 (23:58):
Yet a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the
administration to restorefederal funding after 22 states
sued and followed up a weeklater, accusing the White House
of ignoring his order.
He then denied Trump's requestto allow the freeze to stay in
place during the appeal.
As of Thursday, february 13th,reports are that the funds are
(24:19):
still not flowing, violating thecourt's order.
Vice President JD Vance, whowas educated at Yale Law School,
has encouraged Trump's defiance.
In response to the slew ofrestraining orders halting
Trump's executive orders, vancetweeted quote if a judge tried
to tell a general how to conducta military operation, that
(24:40):
would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command theattorney general how to use her
discretion as a prosecutor,that's also illegal.
Judges aren't allowed tocontrol the executive's
legitimate power, vance said.
Vance's view of extremeexecutive power is not new.
In a 2021 interview, vanceoffered this advice to Trump,
(25:02):
who he predicted would win in2024.
Speaker 8 (25:06):
Fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every
civil servant in theadministrative state.
Replace them with our people.
And when the courts because youwill get taken to court and
when the courts stop, you standbefore the country, like Andrew
Jackson did, and say the chiefjustice has made his ruling, now
let him enforce it.
Speaker 7 (25:23):
Andrew Jackson became the seventh president of the
United States in 1829 afterrunning as an anti-establishment
candidate who would fightcorruption and the entrenched
aristocracy.
He was a hero of the War of1812, had little formal
education, a fierce temper andtwo bullets lodged in his body,
one from a duel and another froma brawl with Thomas Hart Benton
(25:47):
, who would later become asenator and a key Jackson ally.
Jackson also owned a plantationand enslaved people of African
descent.
He sold some, breaking upfamilies and brought a number of
them to work in the White House.
The Jackson quote that Vancetweeted refers to an 1832 US
Supreme Court decision,worcester v Georgia, penned by
(26:10):
Chief Justice John Marshall.
The court ruled that the stateof Georgia could not impose its
laws on Cherokee Native land,which Georgia wanted to control.
This allegedly promptedPresident Jackson, who sided
with Georgia, to utter thatthreatening line.
Quote the chief justice hasmade his ruling, now let him
enforce it.
Unquote Jackson, it turns out,didn't have to defy the court's
(26:35):
order.
In succeeding years as president, he was able to pack the court,
consolidating a majority whichoverrode the Marshall Court's
precedents.
This allowed Jackson toorchestrate one of the greatest
ethnic cleansings in US historythe Trail of Tears From roughly
1830 to 1850, an estimated60,000 people of the Cherokee,
(26:57):
chickasaw, choctaw, muskogee andSeminole indigenous nations
were forcibly relocated toreservations in what is now
Oklahoma.
Close to 20,000 of them died enroute or shortly thereafter.
This was a central episode inthe US government's genocide
against indigenous people.
Jd Vance's threats to defycourt orders, echoing a dark era
(27:22):
under President Andrew Jackson,are an ominous warning as the
Trump constitutional crisiscontinues to be fought in the
courts and in the streets.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
I'm Amy Goodman with Dennis Moynihan, the historian
Jonathan Meacham, was askedabout what was going on in some
of the summits, what the changein the tone and the tenor of the
Republican Party when it comesto Russia, when it comes to
Europe, and this is what he hadto say.
Speaker 9 (27:53):
It changed the post-World War II order.
It changes the Republican Partyin a deep and fundamental way.
The party of Ronald Reagan isfully the party of Donald Trump,
which is a hugely significanthistorical shift where the
center of gravity moves fromtrust.
(28:13):
But verify, mr Gorbachev, teardown this wall.
Ronald Reagan was one of thegreat negotiators in American
history, the only unionpresident to ever be president
of the United States, unionpresident to ever be president
of the United States, and hestarts out his term in 1981
saying to the Soviet reserveunder themselves the right to
(28:34):
lie, to cheat, to steal, andthen he ends it literally in the
spring of 1988, playing withbabies in red square.
That's where the Republicanparty was 40 years ago.
Now it's in a place where, asyou suggest, jonathan, it
basically is going back to apre-World War II great power
(28:55):
politics where the rule of thestrong predominates and
principle, which is always asDavid knows far better than I do
, principles always a flexiblematter in geopolitics.
But we have at least tried.
Since we entered the SecondWorld War, after Nazi Germany
(29:18):
declared war on us in the firstweek of December 1941.
The United States has attemptedto ground its policy in a
principled ethos.
States has attempted to groundits policy in a principled ethos
.
This becomes a moment where, ifyou are Russia, if you are
China, if you are a foreignpower, what is the lesson of
(29:38):
this?
The lesson is aggression willbe rewarded, and the fundamental
principle since 1945 has beenthat we cannot award reward
aggression.
It's a deep and fundamentalthing, john, since you're right.
Speaker 10 (29:56):
What you're saying is right.
We had 80 years of a wonderfulrelationship, but now it's time
for a rethink and arguably theperson you serve, george W Bush
and then Joe Biden, were thelast transatlantic presidents.
Obama wasn't.
Clearly, donald Trump isn't.
America first is Europe last inDonald Trump's mind.
But what are the specificopenings this gives to in the
(30:17):
short?
We can talk about China later,but in the short term, to Russia
, I mean, if you're sitting inMoscow right now, what are you
thinking beyond Ukraine?
Or are you thinking listen?
I mean, there's another pointof view.
I've lost so much in Ukraine.
It's cost me so much in termsof people.
I really don't want to go anyfurther.
Or do you think Zelensky isright when he starts warning
listen, they're having exercisesin Belarus, just like they did
(30:38):
before they invaded Ukraine.
Where's next?
Speaker 11 (30:41):
Well for Putin.
He sees how a clearlytransactional relationship with
Donald Trump pays off, and healso, though, has to be wary of
what he is causing among theEuropean allies right outside
his borders, who are reallyrising to this moment, and I
think that's what I would askDavid Ignatius Does it seem like
(31:02):
, at the Munich conference, thatour allies are seeing that this
is not just passing talk fromDonald Trump, and they're really
going to have to step up andprovide more of European
security and fill the vacuumthat's going to be left by the
United States?
Speaker 3 (31:19):
The answer to that question is that people are
hoping against hope, especiallyin Europe, that america will
continue its role.
Um, we we learned from thetrump 1.0 that he is very
skeptical of nato, he's veryskeptical of the european
alliance, he's very skeptical ofamerican foreign entanglements.
(31:41):
Now there's some reporting thathad been done by Thomas Hartman
, who basically and that hisposition has somewhat been the
same ever since.
Now it's one of those.
(32:19):
One of those it goes into someof the pathology of the thinking
around Donald Trump and Russia.
Of course, it's been widelydocumented that when the
American banks stopped givingPresident Trump money, he could
only get money from Russia, etc.
Long time he has always beenvery distrustful of a lot of the
(32:51):
foreign alliances that Americahas with some of the closest
allies.
He seems to fundamentallybelieve that America is always
getting the raw end of the deal,and that includes when it comes
to one of our biggest allies.
When it comes to one of ourbiggest allies, canada, which I
(33:16):
had many discussions with mynephews about this past week.
That made me think about this alot, because of course, we
talked about how the Canadianson the last show are feeling
betrayed, etc.
Etc.
And I think it's just part forthe course of what is going to
be possible in thisadministration the questioning
(33:37):
and the reformation and therealignment of a lot of allies.
I've seen people have leftbecause of the usaid um, some
would say debacle, some wouldsay a good deal that they have
decided to leave, um, the teatof america and they have gone
(34:02):
right into the hands, to the arm, to the stomach of uh, the
chinese, and so they they'reusing now the chinese version of
usaid.
Speaking of usaid, um, we haveto talk about this, this uh
(34:23):
program that farmers were usingof usaid without actually
knowing that they were doing it,and now that the subsidies and
et cetera have been cut off fromthese programs, now they're
being forced to face the factthat a lot of the family farms,
(34:44):
et cetera, that a lot of thefamily farms, etc.
Are actually on the choppingboard because there was
contracts that they were gettingfrom USAID that I don't know if
they were aware of or not awareof.
There was also programs fromthe uh reduction act that they
(35:07):
were getting and that has beencanceled.
So now a lot of these farms,family farms, american farms,
from places where they voted forDonald Trump is coming around
to the fact that they are goingto be on the chopping board,
(35:28):
because they thought they wereagainst DEI and they did not
realize that they were the E inthe DEI.
Speaker 12 (35:38):
I should say food stamps are a subsidy to Walmart
and candy companies, chargingthe government $4 for an ounce
of corn syrup.
Okay, I understand where you'recoming from here.
So this was on a video where Iwas saying do folks in America
not realize that food stamps andWIC and other programs like
that for needy families, forhungry people, that those are
(35:59):
actually USDA agriculturalsubsidies?
And so when and so when farmersvote against handouts, when
conservative Republican farmersvoted for Donald Trump, voted
for gutting these programs andlooked to judge hungry folks
call them welfare queens withhow they love to rage against
(36:22):
socialism that those folks areshooting themselves in the foot
because in wanting to do awaywith or cut back these programs,
they are ensuring that thesubsidies that keep their farms
going, those go away.
We are watching America'sfarmers in the heartland start
to wake up to the reality thattheir support of Donald Trump
might cost them their farms.
I'm frankly, surprised theydon't remember all of the
(36:42):
farmers who went out of businessduring the first Trump
administration.
It was a lot, soybean farmersespecially.
Look, I understand the pointthat this person is making.
Right, walmart, which is just aterrible, predatory business on
purpose, pays their employeesso little that they will qualify
for food stamps.
Right, they pay them exploitivewages and they rely on
(37:02):
America's agricultural subsidyprogram to fund their profit
margin.
Right, we are not going to payour families, our employees, a
living wage.
We're going to keep it so lowthat we're going to have the
government subsidize ourbusiness by getting those
families food stamps andMedicaid as well.
We're going to suppress theirpay enough that they qualify for
these programs.
I understand that that's whatthis commenter is saying here,
(37:25):
and they're also saying thatfolks on food stamps this is a
very common belief that folksare just buying soda and candy
and steaks, like theconservative talking point is
that they're just buying junkfood and meat that working class
people can't afford.
By the way, most people whotake food stamps and who take
WIC and are on assistance andwho have kids on free and
reduced lunch, those folks areworking.
(37:46):
They're working for places likeWalmart.
They are working classAmericans.
This is also an opportunity toremind you of who grows the corn
that is turned into corn syrup.
Do you not understand thatallowing folks to buy sugary
things or not allowing them tobuy sugary things is not really
that much about the health ofpeople who are on those programs
.
I would posit that it is farmore about what segment of the
(38:09):
agricultural industry needs moresubsidies.
As a college student in Iowa,we had a train that cut through
our campus and every day itwould just be ka-junk, ka-junk,
ka-junk, these giant tankersfull of corn syrup.
Iowa, nebraska, illinois,minnesota, are main producers of
corn for corn syrup.
Those farmers are also gettingagricultural subsidies, whether
(38:31):
they are small family farms orgiant agribusiness.
But what we're seeing now underTrump is that small family farms
are losing all of theirsubsidies.
They're losing their grantsthat allow them to be
competitive.
The DEI, the E in DEI, isequity for small farmers, and
that has all gone away underTrump.
And small farmers voted forthat.
They voted for their ownability to compete in the
(38:52):
marketplace with bigagribusiness, for that to be
obliterated, because they didn'twant hungry people to not be
hungry.
They didn't want to seechildren be fed.
I don't know, but now bigagribusiness is going to be able
to out-compete family farms,buy up those family farms.
When those folks have to sell,when they lose their family farm
, when they lose their legacy,big corporations also hedge
(39:14):
funds waiting to sweep in andbuy up that land.
The goal here is to drivelittle family farms out of
business and to consolidate allof the government funding under
big agribusiness and to have allof us be workers for these
giant corporations.
If you think I'm wrong, justread anything that Elon Musk has
written about what he thinksabout workers.
I'm going to keep ranting aboutthis subject today because I
(39:35):
didn't know how many people werelike this is the first I have
heard of this or come tounderstand that all of these
welfare programs are really agsubsidies.
And America's farmers are nowincredibly conservative by and
large, and the way they justvoted in this election, despite
the fact that so many of us werescreaming at them like this is
going to hurt your farm.
They didn't believe it, and nowthey're waking up, they're
(39:55):
finding out.
So is this a moment whenAmerica's farmers return to
their roots as members of theworking class and unite with the
rest of us?
I sure hope so.
So I made a quick little videoyesterday that I didn't realize
was going to pop off.
I didn't know that it wasn'tcommon knowledge that so many of
our welfare programs, ourhandouts that so many
(40:15):
conservative Americans areopposed to, are all agricultural
subsidies food stamps, wic, youknow, free and reduced lunch,
as well as a lot of our overseasaid programs for hungry
communities, for strugglingcommunities, communities in
conflict.
Those are all agriculturalsubsidies.
We buy things like powderedmilk, dried grains, rice, beans,
(40:38):
ship them overseas as part ofour food aid package.
Those are all things that aregrown in the United States by
America's farmers Food stampmoney, states by America's
farmers Food stamp money.
The milk, cheese, peanut butter, beans, cereals that folks get
from WIC those are all USDAagricultural subsidies.
Which is why it blows my mindthat so many conservative
(41:01):
farmers are opposed to what theysee as handouts, not
understanding that thosehandouts are actually to them,
the farmer.
They are taking the handoutthat those handouts are actually
to them, the farmer.
They are taking the handout.
Those are agriculturalsubsidies.
That is, the government payingfor the foods that America's
farmers grow and redistributingthem to needy people here and
abroad.
Without those programs, a lot ofsmall family farms are about to
(41:22):
be real screwed and I thinkit's so crucial, as we're having
this conversation about theways that this regime is harming
every working class American,to gain some awareness of how
all of these programs areinterconnected and organized and
designed to benefit workingclass folks all over the place.
They are connected so that whenfarmers over here benefit,
hungry people over here get fed,and that all of these programs
(41:45):
that Musk and Trump are cuttingare for one thing, and that is
for tax cuts for billionaires.
Men who have more money thanthey can spend in 10 lifetimes
are seeking to enrich themselvesby gutting the infrastructure,
the funding that Congress hasallocated that they know keeps
America running, that keepsfarmers in business and keeps
people fed.
(42:05):
We're going to find out moreand more.
I think more and more workingclass Republicans are going to
find out how many of theseprograms benefited their
communities in ways that theyhad not previously understood.
This is an opportunity for usto get educated about what these
programs really are, ratherthan just listening to Musk's
tweets where he regurgitateslies, some of them 10-year-old
(42:29):
nonsense.
No, the government didn't spend$600 billion on sushi.
No, chelsea Clinton didn't get$84 million.
But do you know that the moneyfor USAID and food stamps and
free and reduced lunch and WICthat fed hungry people kept
America's farmers in business?
The more folks are impacted bythe disastrous gutting of the
federal government.
(42:50):
Elon Musk unilaterally decidingthat all of these things that
Congress had passed because theyunderstand the value of them,
him deciding he's going to cutall those things in order to
fatten his big, fat, chonkywallet even more.
The more folks realize, themore they feel the impact of
that, the more there's anopportunity for education and
awareness.
And out of that I hope therecomes awareness and solidarity
(43:11):
and a united front.
And I hope out of this can comeworking class solidarity, a
united front where we allunderstand who our common enemy
is, we understand who our commonoppressor is and we work to
once again make this a countryof the people, by the people and
for the people, not for aforeign billionaire.
Food stamps were never aboutfeeding the hungry.
It was 100% to subsidizefarmers.
(43:32):
Yeah, I will never understandRepublican farmers who are like
I'm voting to end these handouts.
First of all, your farm takes agajillion subsidies, as this
young man, skyler, is findingout, he's losing his $80,000 in
subsidies from the government.
But also, I used to work forWIC and wick is really it really
is an agricultural subsidy.
It started that way, that's forsure.
You ever wonder why moms on wickget far more milk than any
(43:56):
family can possibly consume?
I know, when we were on it Iwas making yogurt and cheese out
of it because it's just vastquantities of milk.
Yeah, it's, because it's reallya subsidy for dairy farmers.
You ever wonder why the mainthings you get on wick are
formula cow's milk cheese?
You ever wonder why the mainthings you get on WIC are
formula cow's milk cheese,cereals, wheat, corn, soybean
(44:17):
dairy farmers?
I made a video talking about howWIC is actually an agricultural
subsidy and so many folks inthe comments were like that
blows my mind.
I was today years old when Ilearned that WIC and food stamps
and free and reduced lunch areall programs that are meant to
be agricultural subsidies thatjust happen to also feed hungry
people.
These are USDA programs thatdirectly funnel money into
America's farms.
(44:37):
So when farmers are againstwelfare, against handouts, they
are shooting themselves in thefoot.
Farmers who voted for DonaldTrump, who is now gutting all of
these programs, y'all shotyourselves in the foot.
And in talking about WIC, Iworked for WIC.
Briefly, there is a ton of milkthat you get more than a lot of
families can use.
Also tons of peanuts and beanscereals, because they're ag
(45:00):
subsidies.
These aren't convenience foods.
These are foods that have to becooked from scratch.
I used to use WIC milk to makehomemade cheese and homemade
yogurt, because there was sixgallons of it and we ate a ton
of beans and split peas.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
So, of course, the farmer she alluded to was a
gentleman who got online becausehe now realized that he is
losing, but I think it was$80,000 in funding to his farm
from USAID.
Speaker 4 (45:31):
I need your help to save my farm and many other
farms.
I wanted to give you guys anupdate on what we figured out
with our contract through NRCSso to give you some backstory.
If you haven't watched theprevious video, please go out,
watch that previous video.
I've got on there.
We are possibly going to loseour farm if NRCS doesn't hold up
their contract with us on theEQIP program.
So the reason that they're notable to hold up the contract is
(45:55):
our EQIP program, which is costsharing on fences, waters, a
well and some seedings, wasfunded by the Inflation
Reduction Act.
Because of the executive orders,there's a pause or a freeze on
the funding through theInflation Reduction Act and
they're not able to pay freezeon the funding through the
inflation reduction act andthey're not able to pay out on
the stuff that we completed oranything going forward.
But the issue I have is is I'vealready paid, I've already done
(46:17):
a bunch of the work, alreadypaid for the material, already
paid for the labor.
So I'm out all that cost and Iuse my farm operating expenses
in order to do those projectsbecause per contract I knew that
I was going to get cost sharingrefunds on the stuff once
completed.
But now that it's completed,they're saying that they're
unable to provide the fundsbecause of the freeze on the
(46:38):
inflation reduction act funds.
So I reached out to a coupledifferent senators and congress
people.
So I reached out to AnnWagner's office.
I have not heard back from them.
I reached out to Josh Hawley'soffice.
I have not heard back from them.
I reached out to Josh Hawley'soffice.
Speaker 7 (46:51):
I have heard back from him, not from him
personally, but from his office.
Speaker 4 (46:53):
And they are looking into it because they said that
this should not be happening.
The intention was not to takeaway the funding from the
farmers, but doing the InflationReduction Act, cutting those
costs.
Then it's also taken away fromthe programs that those programs
helped out.
So it's in the works.
But what I need from you guysis if you could please share
(47:14):
this.
Tag your representatives, tagyour senators.
I need to get some ground onthis because I'm not the only
one that this is affecting.
So there are other farmers inthe comments saying that they're
in the same boat that I'm in,because they signed these
contracts and the contracts evenlike.
Whenever I looked into thecontracts, I made sure that that
funding was set aside.
It wasn't funding that.
Oh, we hope it's there wheneverit's done, I made sure that
(47:35):
that funding was set aside.
So that way, before I madethese business decisions, I knew
that funding was there percontract.
So they're backing out on thecontract because they don't have
the funding.
They can't release the funds.
So please tag therepresentatives, Please tag the
senators.
So please tag yourrepresentatives, Please tag the
senators.
I need to get some ground onthis.
We need to help me and otherfarmers out.
We've got to get this fundingpaid out.
I don't care if they don't doit in the future.
The problem is there wascontracts in place, Multiple
(47:58):
farms made business decisionsand multiple farms are going to
sink if we don't get traction onthis and get those funds
unfrozen.
Speaker 3 (48:07):
So, basically, what is being said here?
What is being said is fairlysimple.
He and a lot of other farmswere wholly dependent, or
largely dependent, on governmentsubsidies.
And now they probably didn'tthink about it, because people
don't regularly look at publicpolicy.
(48:28):
They just gotta have a strawman that they want to ran
against.
And now he has to live with theconsequences of his, of the
rhetoric.
He had to live with theconsequences of who he voted for
, just like the people who votedfor the venezuelan people and
the yada yada who voted acertain way.
(48:49):
And now they're gettingdeported and you just look at
them and you just say this wasnot a secret.
This is what the president ranon.
Um, I'm very sad that it lookslike he's gonna lose his farm.
He called Josh Hawley andreached out to Josh Hawley's
office.
Josh Hawley voted against thatbill.
(49:12):
You're not going to find alikely ally in Josh Hawley.
Josh Hawley was not for thatfunding going to the farms, so
it looks like that this personis SOL.
See you on the next episode.
Can Ukraine survive without US military support?
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Probably it will be very, very, very difficult.
Of course, in all the difficultsituations you have a chance,
but we will have a low chance.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
I'm your host, darrell McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving.
Let us reason together, episode445.
So of course, that was VladimirZelensky talking about how
Ukraine is utterly dependent onhelp from the United States to
(00:45):
survive.
And he is saying that becausethe tone and tenor of the
president, the vice presidentand the new secretary of defense
is somewhat looking like thatRussia is going to get
everything and Ukraine is goingto get nothing.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Let's get into the episode.
Can you accept any peace dealthat is cut without Ukraine?
Speaker 2 (01:15):
No, I'm sure that we have to be there, otherwise it's
not acceptable.
But if there is a decisionwithout us and Putin will go out
from all our land, we will bein NATO and Putin will be in the
prison.
So President Trump can do itwithout us.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
You had a message to Vice President Vance about the
potential implications ofpulling out of NATO.
What was your message to thevice president?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
That will be destroying of NATO.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Is it true that you told president Trump during that
phone call that Putin is onlypretending to want peace because
he's afraid of Mr Trump?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Yes, yes, I said that he's a liar and he said I think
that my feeling.
He said that he's ready forpeace negotiations and I said to
him no, he's a liar, he doesn'twant any peace.
But I think he's really alittle bit scared about the
President Trump and I think thePresident has this chance and
(02:24):
he's really a little bit scaredabout President Trump and I
think the president has thischance and he's strong and I
think that really he can pushPutin to peace negotiations.
Yes, I think so.
I think so he can, but don'ttrust him, Don't trust Putin.
Let's be honest Now.
(02:44):
We can't rule out thepossibility that America might
say no to Europe on an issuethat threatens it.
We must build the armed forcesof Europe so that Europe's
future depends only on Europeans.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
No, of course, Ukraine is in a very difficult
position here because everybodyhas been saying for a very long
time that it would be verydifficult for Ukraine to beat
(03:22):
Russia in a head-on-headcollision.
What's actually been veryamazing to me and to a lot of
military analysts is, if youremember the first few weeks of
the conflict between Russia andUkraine, there was post even
(03:45):
suggesting that VladimirZelensky was going to be
assassinated, that he would bekilled by Russia, etc.
And Russia somewhat thoughtthis would be a cakewalk, that
they would roll in, take overUkraine, that they could use
(04:05):
propaganda under the notion thatUkraine and the people in
Ukraine spoke Russian, becauseUkraine was once a part of, you
know, the official government ofRussia.
It was a part of the Russianterritory as a part of the
Russian territory.
And instead of Ukraine foldingin a matter of weeks, like a lot
(04:32):
of people thought, instead ofZelensky being killed, he's
actually been going to the frontlines with his soldiers and
Ukraine has withstood the attackfrom russia for three years and
, of course, that has been withhelp from the united states.
(04:53):
Now, of course, as what happenswith a lot of superpowers, the
united states is grown war weary.
Uh, you, you could say, on onehand.
On the other hand, you couldsay that it's just that donald
trump does not have the capacityor the will to stand up to
(05:16):
gladimir putin.
And that is only because and Ionly say that because, in this
example, um, you have theSecretary of Defense going and
saying it's naive for Ukraine tothink it's going to go back to
its 2014 borders.
You have a peace deal that doesnot have our peace negotiations
(05:38):
.
I should say that does not haveUkraine sitting at the table.
Have Ukraine sitting at thetable and still getting to keep
(06:10):
everything that it took, gettingthe land?
Uh, there's no punishment forthe people that have been killed
and there's no conversationabout the return of the children
, and it makes you have toquestion um, what, what sort of
piece is this?
If the deterrence is gone, ifthere is no real punishment or
(06:41):
sanction for the invading ofyour neighbors and taking their
land, what is it going to take?
How long will it be before, uh,vladimir Putin does it again?
Is he simply going to wait tillin two years, when Donald Trump
is a lame duck president,before he pops off another war?
(07:04):
Is he going to wait till themidterm elections?
Is he going to wait till DonaldTrump leaves office.
We had to remember that this isa game that Vladimir Putin has
been playing for a very longtime.
When George Bush was president,he invaded Georgia Got to keep
(07:24):
the land.
When Barack Obama was president, he invaded Georgia got to keep
the land.
When Barack Obama was president, he invaded Kiev got to keep
the land.
When Joe Biden was president,he goes into Ukraine.
And if he gets to keep the land, if that is what is going to be
the model, that is going to bethe response when Vladimir Putin
(07:49):
or any country does a oldschool style colonial takeover,
if there is no punishment, thenthere will be no stop to the
actions.
Now the Vice President of theUnited States, jd Vance hada
(08:12):
trip, where he went to Europeand, instead of talking about
Vladimir Putin and talking aboutwhat he's done, somewhat seemed
to point the finger at theEuropeans because they're not
doing enough.
I talked about the europeansand them uh, stopping elections
(08:33):
sometimes.
Uh, even in one part of hisconversation basically said if
your democracy can beinterrupted by internet
campaigns, it wasn't much of ademocracy at all.
So this has caused ripplesthrough Europe, where Vladimir
(08:53):
Zelensky even is said to thatthey're going to have a
different summit, the Europeansummit, that does not involve
the United States of America.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
For years, we've been told that everything we fund
and support is in the name ofour shared democratic values.
Everything from our Ukrainepolicy to digital censorship is
billed as a defense of democracy.
But when we see European courtscanceling elections and senior
officials threatening to cancelothers, we ought to ask whether
we're holding ourselves to anappropriately high standard.
(09:54):
And I say ourselves because Ifundamentally believe that we
are on the same team.
We must do more than talk aboutdemocratic values.
We must live them.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
So, of course, all the people in Europe, who are
our allies, were shocked, notused to being spoken to in this
manner.
A lot of them felt like we wereparroting Russian talking
points.
The President of the UnitedStates, donald Trump, was asked
about some of the comments andhe was talking about the freedom
(10:41):
of speech and migration inEurope.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Do you believe that European leaders have a
fundamentally different view ofthe world than this
administration's?
Speaker 6 (10:49):
Well, I heard his speech and you're talking about
JD's speech, right?
Yes, sir, I heard his speechand he talked about freedom of
speech and I think it's true, inEurope, it's losing their
wonderful right of freedom ofspeech.
I see it.
I mean, I thought he made avery good speech, actually a
very brilliant speech.
(11:09):
Europe has to be careful, andhe talked about immigration and
Europe has a big immigrationproblem.
Just take a look at what'shappened with crime.
Take a look at what's happeningin various parts of Europe.
I thought his speech was verywell received, actually.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
I've heard very good remarks.
Chaotic approach has alliesrattled.
Trump has raised fears he mightbe preparing to sell out kiev
to placate moscow's latimer uhzielinski um trading him over to
(11:56):
president putin.
The trump administration beganits first week of negotiations
to end the war in Ukraine with adizzling array of mixed signals
that confused and worriedAmericans, european allies, and
seemed to reward chiefly RussianPresident Vladimir Putin.
(12:18):
Even by President Trump'sdisruptive standards, the
opening bargaining processverged on anarchy.
The messages and the messengerschanged almost daily.
Concessions to Putin wereoffered and then withdrawn.
The administration seemed to beexcluding Ukrainian President
Vladimir Zelensky, then wooinghim, then fending him off again.
(12:42):
The diplomatic roadshow centeredon this weekend's Munich
Security Conference, the annualcelebration of the Transatlantic
Alliance.
Vice President JD Vance hasbizarrely used the gathering to
hang-rang Europeans and insulthis German host.
His remarks offended even someof the fellow Republicans, and
Germany's Defense Minister BorisPerros was heard saying during
(13:06):
the speech this is unacceptable.
Sheldon Whitehouse from RhodeIsland, the most senior Democrat
on the Senate delegation here,summed up the reaction to
Vance's speech this way it'sfair to be say he bombed Of the
disarray in the trump'sentourage.
White house told severaljournalists, trump's uh,
(13:30):
marginal and managerial style isto let his subordinates say
very discordant things.
The challenge was separatingthe signal from the noise in the
Trump's team's messaging.
Probably that clarity doesn'texist yet in Trump's own mind In
negotiation.
(13:50):
He likes to conduct areconnaissance through fire A
Polish foreign minister raidinga circus put in the Munich
gathering using a Russianmilitary expression.
As the shells explode, he willthen redirect his fire.
Trump began bracketing thetarget with his Wednesday phone
(14:14):
call to Putin, which wasaccompanied by the Defense
Secretary, pete Hankins'concession that day of two key
negotiating points that Ukrainecouldn't keep all this territory
and that the nato membershipwas a non-starter.
Now that amplified fears amongukrainians and ukrainian
(14:36):
americans and europeansupporters that trump was
preparing to sell out kiev toplacate moscow.
I'm not the world's mostimportant and famous dealmakers,
petrus sarcastically told theMunich audience.
But if I were, I would knowthat I don't take any
extensional point ofnegotiations off the table
(14:57):
before the negotiations begin.
Trump's call to Putin accusedof war crimes by the
International Criminal Court mayhave been the biggest
concession of all.
Champagne corks are popping allover Moscow, the White House
told the team.
(15:18):
Trump's team also tried to shakedown Zelensky's before the
Ukrainian leader left for Munich.
Down Zelensky's before theUkrainian leader left for Munich
.
Zelensky told an astonishedgroup of senators at the
treasury Scott Bitson hadvisited him in Kiev and
pressured him to sign over theright of half of Ukraine's
critical minerals as a price ofAmericans' support in
(15:41):
negotiation.
For me this is very strange,zelensky said several times in
describing the scene for theSenate group.
Despite the hard sell, zelenskyrefused.
By the time Zelensky arrived inGermany, the Trump
administration seemed to havesoftened his term.
Hesek walked back some of hisinitial comments and said Trump
(16:03):
would make a final decisionabout NATO.
Trump himself said Kiev wouldbe a part of any negotiation and
Vance said Trump's goal was adurable peace.
That would presumably requiresecurity guarantees from Ukraine
.
Our security guarantees forUkraine, I should say guarantees
for Ukraine, I should say.
(16:26):
As the weekend progressed,zelensky and his supporters
seemed to be warming to the ideathat trading mineral wealth for
American support were stilltalking, he said of the Bisset
proposal.
A properly negotiated mineraldeal between the US and Ukraine
could be extremely beneficialfor both sides, said the White
House, a strong Ukrainiansupporter the origin of the 21st
(17:13):
century.
Now that's fired Trump'stransactional passion.
Graham said the criticalmineral deal is a Putin
nightmare.
It turns Ukraine into abusiness deal, explained Graham,
who led the Senate delegationthere.
As for the future securityguarantees, graham urges Trump
to declare that if Putin attacksUkraine again after a
(17:46):
Trump-brokered peace deal, itwould mean a automatic NATO
membership for Kiev.
That may be a way of finessingthe issue of a security
guarantee and NATO membership.
The key would be that Trumpowns it.
Graham said If Putin doesn'twant or doesn't take what Trump
(18:08):
thinks is a good deal, trumpwill crush him.
Graham said it will make Trumplook weak.
Even Zelensky seems to thinkthat Putin is scared of Trump
saying on stage this is his callWednesday, when Trump offered
that Putin is afraid.
This talk of fear factorignores the reality that Putin
(18:30):
has waged a bloody war ofaggression for three years and
there is no sign yet that he isready to concede his basic goal
of making Ukraine a neutralbuffer zone as opposed to a
quasi-member of NATO.
In neutral buffer zone asopposed to a quasi-member of
NATO, putin still thinks he'swinning, despite more than
(18:55):
700,000 casualties, effectivelyconfirming that Zelensky
concedes that in recent fighting, ukraine has lost more than
4,000 square kilometers.
Zelensky hopes troops will hangtough, but he offered a painful
reality check in his speech tothe conference.
Let's be honest now.
We can't rule out that Americamight say no.
In that case, he urged, europewould stand alone against Putin.
(19:15):
With Ukraine as his backbone.
They would together form anarmy of Europe.
After watching the first turn ofthe diplomatic dance, people
are left wondering which versionof Trump will prevail.
Is this the pragmatic dealmakerwho Graham describes?
Or is this the hard rightideologue who saw in the Vance
(19:37):
speech pleading to take ourshared civilization in a new
direction?
In any case, the audiencereaction to the speech was
mostly stunned silence.
The only time we can remember asimilar attack on the core
transatlantic values was put in2007 speech in effect, declaring
(19:57):
war on the west.
At some point, the erroneous ofthe erosion of trust is going to
affect the alliance.
Senator Mark Warner, theDemocrat for Virginia, told the
gathering of journalists theconstant undermining of
alliances as a long-term verydangerous Of the Trump's team's
performance last week here.
(20:18):
It appears to me that thisdiplomacy is at odds and it is
more of an ad hoc basis.
The negotiation train willaccelerate as the secretary of
state, marco rubio, and therussian foreign minister, sergey
liverov, meet in saudi arabiato discuss the preliminaries.
At writing it.
(20:40):
It appears that no seniorukrainian representative will
present.
This is a very bad sign.
Zielinski insisted in hismunich speech that ukraine will
never accept deals behind uhclosed doors, behind our backs,
without our involvement.
What, what betrayals may lieahead if trump's defaults on his
(21:02):
promises a peace throughstrength?
Zielinski forces may victoryday visit Moscow by Trump, who
will be invited by Putin as aprop.
Trump supporters might forgivehim for that, but history won't.
Now this is coming out of theWashington Post, and that was a
(21:22):
reporting done by David Ignatius.
Now David Ignatius is a writerat the Post that I read and he
writes twice a week on foreignaffairs.
He also wrote a book that I'mthinking about buying, and it is
the Phantom Orbit.
If you want to follow DavidIgnatius he's regularly on
(21:44):
Morning Joe Follow DavidIgnatius.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
He's regularly on Morning Joe and he also has a
Twitter account at Ignatius Post, we'll be back with more of the
Darrell McLean Show, trump,andrew Jackson and the Trail of
Tears.
I'm Amy Goodman, host ofDemocracy Now with Dennis
(22:06):
Moynihan and our weekly Breakingthe Sound Barrier podcast.
The United States is in aconstitutional crisis with scant
historical precedent.
President Donald Trump haslaunched a power grab through
executive orders andproclamations.
He's installed the world'srichest man, his principal
campaign donor, elon Musk, torun the Department of Government
(22:26):
Efficiency, or DOGE.
Musk, who some now call theex-president after his platform,
formerly known as Twitter, isthe largest government
contractor, with his SpaceXserving as the sole launch
provider for NASA and Pentagonspace operations.
Musk is eviscerating almostevery federal agency that's
(22:46):
either investigated, fined orsought to regulate his business
empire, all while avoidinginvestigation into conflicts of
interest.
Trump's fiats from his attemptto overturn the constitutional
(23:06):
right to birthright citizenshipto freeze trillions of dollars
of federal funds alreadyapproved by Congress and signed
into law, including foreign aid,science funding and DEI
initiatives.
His mass firings of civilservants.
His attack on immigrants andtrans people, and Doge's
unfettered access to the privaterecords of millions of federal
(23:28):
workers and regular Americans.
Many federal judges have issuedinjunctions, at least
temporarily, halting Trump'srampage.
When a federal court issues anorder.
According to US constitutionallaw, a president must obey.
At an Oval Office newsconference on Wednesday, when he
and Musk took questions, trumpwas asked if he would abide by
(23:50):
court orders.
Speaker 6 (23:52):
Yeah, the answer is I always abide by the courts,
always abide by them and willappeal.
Speaker 7 (23:58):
Yet a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the
administration to restorefederal funding after 22 states
sued and followed up a weeklater, accusing the White House
of ignoring his order.
He then denied Trump's requestto allow the freeze to stay in
place during the appeal.
As of Thursday, february 13th,reports are that the funds are
(24:19):
still not flowing, violating thecourt's order.
Vice President JD Vance, whowas educated at Yale Law School,
has encouraged Trump's defiance.
In response to the slew ofrestraining orders halting
Trump's executive orders, vancetweeted quote if a judge tried
to tell a general how to conducta military operation, that
(24:40):
would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command theattorney general how to use her
discretion as a prosecutor,that's also illegal.
Judges aren't allowed tocontrol the executive's
legitimate power, vance said.
Vance's view of extremeexecutive power is not new.
In a 2021 interview, vanceoffered this advice to Trump,
(25:02):
who he predicted would win in2024.
Speaker 8 (25:06):
Fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every
civil servant in theadministrative state.
Replace them with our people.
And when the courts because youwill get taken to court and
when the courts stop, you standbefore the country, like Andrew
Jackson did, and say the chiefjustice has made his ruling, now
let him enforce it.
Speaker 7 (25:23):
Andrew Jackson became the seventh president of the
United States in 1829 afterrunning as an anti-establishment
candidate who would fightcorruption and the entrenched
aristocracy.
He was a hero of the War of1812, had little formal
education, a fierce temper andtwo bullets lodged in his body,
one from a duel and another froma brawl with Thomas Hart Benton
(25:47):
, who would later become asenator and a key Jackson ally.
Jackson also owned a plantationand enslaved people of African
descent.
He sold some, breaking upfamilies and brought a number of
them to work in the White House.
The Jackson quote that Vancetweeted refers to an 1832 US
Supreme Court decision,worcester v Georgia, penned by
(26:10):
Chief Justice John Marshall.
The court ruled that the stateof Georgia could not impose its
laws on Cherokee Native land,which Georgia wanted to control.
This allegedly promptedPresident Jackson, who sided
with Georgia, to utter thatthreatening line.
Quote the chief justice hasmade his ruling, now let him
enforce it.
Unquote Jackson, it turns out,didn't have to defy the court's
(26:35):
order.
In succeeding years as president, he was able to pack the court,
consolidating a majority whichoverrode the Marshall Court's
precedents.
This allowed Jackson toorchestrate one of the greatest
ethnic cleansings in US historythe Trail of Tears From roughly
1830 to 1850, an estimated60,000 people of the Cherokee,
(26:57):
chickasaw, choctaw, muskogee andSeminole indigenous nations
were forcibly relocated toreservations in what is now
Oklahoma.
Close to 20,000 of them died enroute or shortly thereafter.
This was a central episode inthe US government's genocide
against indigenous people.
Jd Vance's threats to defycourt orders, echoing a dark era
(27:22):
under President Andrew Jackson,are an ominous warning as the
Trump constitutional crisiscontinues to be fought in the
courts and in the streets.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
I'm Amy Goodman with Dennis Moynihan, the historian
Jonathan Meacham, was askedabout what was going on in some
of the summits, what the changein the tone and the tenor of the
Republican Party when it comesto Russia, when it comes to
Europe, and this is what he hadto say.
Speaker 9 (27:53):
It changed the post-World War II order.
It changes the Republican Partyin a deep and fundamental way.
The party of Ronald Reagan isfully the party of Donald Trump,
which is a hugely significanthistorical shift where the
center of gravity moves fromtrust.
(28:13):
But verify, mr Gorbachev, teardown this wall.
Ronald Reagan was one of thegreat negotiators in American
history, the only unionpresident to ever be president
of the United States, unionpresident to ever be president
of the United States, and hestarts out his term in 1981
saying to the Soviet reserveunder themselves the right to
(28:34):
lie, to cheat, to steal, andthen he ends it literally in the
spring of 1988, playing withbabies in red square.
That's where the Republicanparty was 40 years ago.
Now it's in a place where, asyou suggest, jonathan, it
basically is going back to apre-World War II great power
(28:55):
politics where the rule of thestrong predominates and
principle, which is always asDavid knows far better than I do
, principles always a flexiblematter in geopolitics.
But we have at least tried.
Since we entered the SecondWorld War, after Nazi Germany
(29:18):
declared war on us in the firstweek of December 1941.
The United States has attemptedto ground its policy in a
principled ethos.
States has attempted to groundits policy in a principled ethos
.
This becomes a moment where, ifyou are Russia, if you are
China, if you are a foreignpower, what is the lesson of
(29:38):
this?
The lesson is aggression willbe rewarded, and the fundamental
principle since 1945 has beenthat we cannot award reward
aggression.
It's a deep and fundamentalthing, john, since you're right.
Speaker 10 (29:56):
What you're saying is right.
We had 80 years of a wonderfulrelationship, but now it's time
for a rethink and arguably theperson you serve, george W Bush
and then Joe Biden, were thelast transatlantic presidents.
Obama wasn't.
Clearly, donald Trump isn't.
America first is Europe last inDonald Trump's mind.
But what are the specificopenings this gives to in the
(30:17):
short?
We can talk about China later,but in the short term, to Russia
, I mean, if you're sitting inMoscow right now, what are you
thinking beyond Ukraine?
Or are you thinking listen?
I mean, there's another pointof view.
I've lost so much in Ukraine.
It's cost me so much in termsof people.
I really don't want to go anyfurther.
Or do you think Zelensky isright when he starts warning
listen, they're having exercisesin Belarus, just like they did
(30:38):
before they invaded Ukraine.
Where's next?
Speaker 11 (30:41):
Well for Putin.
He sees how a clearlytransactional relationship with
Donald Trump pays off, and healso, though, has to be wary of
what he is causing among theEuropean allies right outside
his borders, who are reallyrising to this moment, and I
think that's what I would askDavid Ignatius Does it seem like
(31:02):
, at the Munich conference, thatour allies are seeing that this
is not just passing talk fromDonald Trump, and they're really
going to have to step up andprovide more of European
security and fill the vacuumthat's going to be left by the
United States?
Speaker 3 (31:19):
The answer to that question is that people are
hoping against hope, especiallyin Europe, that america will
continue its role.
Um, we we learned from thetrump 1.0 that he is very
skeptical of nato, he's veryskeptical of the european
alliance, he's very skeptical ofamerican foreign entanglements.
(31:41):
Now there's some reporting thathad been done by Thomas Hartman
, who basically and that hisposition has somewhat been the
same ever since.
Now it's one of those.
(32:19):
One of those it goes into someof the pathology of the thinking
around Donald Trump and Russia.
Of course, it's been widelydocumented that when the
American banks stopped givingPresident Trump money, he could
only get money from Russia, etc.
Long time he has always beenvery distrustful of a lot of the
(32:51):
foreign alliances that Americahas with some of the closest
allies.
He seems to fundamentallybelieve that America is always
getting the raw end of the deal,and that includes when it comes
to one of our biggest allies.
When it comes to one of ourbiggest allies, canada, which I
(33:16):
had many discussions with mynephews about this past week.
That made me think about this alot, because of course, we
talked about how the Canadianson the last show are feeling
betrayed, etc.
Etc.
And I think it's just part forthe course of what is going to
be possible in thisadministration the questioning
(33:37):
and the reformation and therealignment of a lot of allies.
I've seen people have leftbecause of the usaid um, some
would say debacle, some wouldsay a good deal that they have
decided to leave, um, the teatof america and they have gone
(34:02):
right into the hands, to the arm, to the stomach of uh, the
chinese, and so they they'reusing now the chinese version of
usaid.
Speaking of usaid, um, we haveto talk about this, this uh
(34:23):
program that farmers were usingof usaid without actually
knowing that they were doing it,and now that the subsidies and
et cetera have been cut off fromthese programs, now they're
being forced to face the factthat a lot of the family farms,
(34:44):
et cetera, that a lot of thefamily farms, etc.
Are actually on the choppingboard because there was
contracts that they were gettingfrom USAID that I don't know if
they were aware of or not awareof.
There was also programs fromthe uh reduction act that they
(35:07):
were getting and that has beencanceled.
So now a lot of these farms,family farms, american farms,
from places where they voted forDonald Trump is coming around
to the fact that they are goingto be on the chopping board,
(35:28):
because they thought they wereagainst DEI and they did not
realize that they were the E inthe DEI.
Speaker 12 (35:38):
I should say food stamps are a subsidy to Walmart
and candy companies, chargingthe government $4 for an ounce
of corn syrup.
Okay, I understand where you'recoming from here.
So this was on a video where Iwas saying do folks in America
not realize that food stamps andWIC and other programs like
that for needy families, forhungry people, that those are
(35:59):
actually USDA agriculturalsubsidies?
And so when and so when farmersvote against handouts, when
conservative Republican farmersvoted for Donald Trump, voted
for gutting these programs andlooked to judge hungry folks
call them welfare queens withhow they love to rage against
(36:22):
socialism that those folks areshooting themselves in the foot
because in wanting to do awaywith or cut back these programs,
they are ensuring that thesubsidies that keep their farms
going, those go away.
We are watching America'sfarmers in the heartland start
to wake up to the reality thattheir support of Donald Trump
might cost them their farms.
I'm frankly, surprised theydon't remember all of the
(36:42):
farmers who went out of businessduring the first Trump
administration.
It was a lot, soybean farmersespecially.
Look, I understand the pointthat this person is making.
Right, walmart, which is just aterrible, predatory business on
purpose, pays their employeesso little that they will qualify
for food stamps.
Right, they pay them exploitivewages and they rely on
(37:02):
America's agricultural subsidyprogram to fund their profit
margin.
Right, we are not going to payour families, our employees, a
living wage.
We're going to keep it so lowthat we're going to have the
government subsidize ourbusiness by getting those
families food stamps andMedicaid as well.
We're going to suppress theirpay enough that they qualify for
these programs.
I understand that that's whatthis commenter is saying here,
(37:25):
and they're also saying thatfolks on food stamps this is a
very common belief that folksare just buying soda and candy
and steaks, like theconservative talking point is
that they're just buying junkfood and meat that working class
people can't afford.
By the way, most people whotake food stamps and who take
WIC and are on assistance andwho have kids on free and
reduced lunch, those folks areworking.
(37:46):
They're working for places likeWalmart.
They are working classAmericans.
This is also an opportunity toremind you of who grows the corn
that is turned into corn syrup.
Do you not understand thatallowing folks to buy sugary
things or not allowing them tobuy sugary things is not really
that much about the health ofpeople who are on those programs
.
I would posit that it is farmore about what segment of the
(38:09):
agricultural industry needs moresubsidies.
As a college student in Iowa,we had a train that cut through
our campus and every day itwould just be ka-junk, ka-junk,
ka-junk, these giant tankersfull of corn syrup.
Iowa, nebraska, illinois,minnesota, are main producers of
corn for corn syrup.
Those farmers are also gettingagricultural subsidies, whether
(38:31):
they are small family farms orgiant agribusiness.
But what we're seeing now underTrump is that small family farms
are losing all of theirsubsidies.
They're losing their grantsthat allow them to be
competitive.
The DEI, the E in DEI, isequity for small farmers, and
that has all gone away underTrump.
And small farmers voted forthat.
They voted for their ownability to compete in the
(38:52):
marketplace with bigagribusiness, for that to be
obliterated, because they didn'twant hungry people to not be
hungry.
They didn't want to seechildren be fed.
I don't know, but now bigagribusiness is going to be able
to out-compete family farms,buy up those family farms.
When those folks have to sell,when they lose their family farm
, when they lose their legacy,big corporations also hedge
(39:14):
funds waiting to sweep in andbuy up that land.
The goal here is to drivelittle family farms out of
business and to consolidate allof the government funding under
big agribusiness and to have allof us be workers for these
giant corporations.
If you think I'm wrong, justread anything that Elon Musk has
written about what he thinksabout workers.
I'm going to keep ranting aboutthis subject today because I
(39:35):
didn't know how many people werelike this is the first I have
heard of this or come tounderstand that all of these
welfare programs are really agsubsidies.
And America's farmers are nowincredibly conservative by and
large, and the way they justvoted in this election, despite
the fact that so many of us werescreaming at them like this is
going to hurt your farm.
They didn't believe it, and nowthey're waking up, they're
(39:55):
finding out.
So is this a moment whenAmerica's farmers return to
their roots as members of theworking class and unite with the
rest of us?
I sure hope so.
So I made a quick little videoyesterday that I didn't realize
was going to pop off.
I didn't know that it wasn'tcommon knowledge that so many of
our welfare programs, ourhandouts that so many
(40:15):
conservative Americans areopposed to, are all agricultural
subsidies food stamps, wic, youknow, free and reduced lunch,
as well as a lot of our overseasaid programs for hungry
communities, for strugglingcommunities, communities in
conflict.
Those are all agriculturalsubsidies.
We buy things like powderedmilk, dried grains, rice, beans,
(40:38):
ship them overseas as part ofour food aid package.
Those are all things that aregrown in the United States by
America's farmers Food stampmoney, states by America's
farmers Food stamp money.
The milk, cheese, peanut butter, beans, cereals that folks get
from WIC those are all USDAagricultural subsidies.
Which is why it blows my mindthat so many conservative
(41:01):
farmers are opposed to what theysee as handouts, not
understanding that thosehandouts are actually to them,
the farmer.
They are taking the handoutthat those handouts are actually
to them, the farmer.
They are taking the handout.
Those are agriculturalsubsidies.
That is, the government payingfor the foods that America's
farmers grow and redistributingthem to needy people here and
abroad.
Without those programs, a lot ofsmall family farms are about to
(41:22):
be real screwed and I thinkit's so crucial, as we're having
this conversation about theways that this regime is harming
every working class American,to gain some awareness of how
all of these programs areinterconnected and organized and
designed to benefit workingclass folks all over the place.
They are connected so that whenfarmers over here benefit,
hungry people over here get fed,and that all of these programs
(41:45):
that Musk and Trump are cuttingare for one thing, and that is
for tax cuts for billionaires.
Men who have more money thanthey can spend in 10 lifetimes
are seeking to enrich themselvesby gutting the infrastructure,
the funding that Congress hasallocated that they know keeps
America running, that keepsfarmers in business and keeps
people fed.
(42:05):
We're going to find out moreand more.
I think more and more workingclass Republicans are going to
find out how many of theseprograms benefited their
communities in ways that theyhad not previously understood.
This is an opportunity for usto get educated about what these
programs really are, ratherthan just listening to Musk's
tweets where he regurgitateslies, some of them 10-year-old
(42:29):
nonsense.
No, the government didn't spend$600 billion on sushi.
No, chelsea Clinton didn't get$84 million.
But do you know that the moneyfor USAID and food stamps and
free and reduced lunch and WICthat fed hungry people kept
America's farmers in business?
The more folks are impacted bythe disastrous gutting of the
federal government.
(42:50):
Elon Musk unilaterally decidingthat all of these things that
Congress had passed because theyunderstand the value of them,
him deciding he's going to cutall those things in order to
fatten his big, fat, chonkywallet even more.
The more folks realize, themore they feel the impact of
that, the more there's anopportunity for education and
awareness.
And out of that I hope therecomes awareness and solidarity
(43:11):
and a united front.
And I hope out of this can comeworking class solidarity, a
united front where we allunderstand who our common enemy
is, we understand who our commonoppressor is and we work to
once again make this a countryof the people, by the people and
for the people, not for aforeign billionaire.
Food stamps were never aboutfeeding the hungry.
It was 100% to subsidizefarmers.
(43:32):
Yeah, I will never understandRepublican farmers who are like
I'm voting to end these handouts.
First of all, your farm takes agajillion subsidies, as this
young man, skyler, is findingout, he's losing his $80,000 in
subsidies from the government.
But also, I used to work forWIC and wick is really it really
is an agricultural subsidy.
It started that way, that's forsure.
You ever wonder why moms on wickget far more milk than any
(43:56):
family can possibly consume?
I know, when we were on it Iwas making yogurt and cheese out
of it because it's just vastquantities of milk.
Yeah, it's, because it's reallya subsidy for dairy farmers.
You ever wonder why the mainthings you get on wick are
formula cow's milk cheese?
You ever wonder why the mainthings you get on WIC are
formula cow's milk cheese,cereals, wheat, corn, soybean
(44:17):
dairy farmers?
I made a video talking about howWIC is actually an agricultural
subsidy and so many folks inthe comments were like that
blows my mind.
I was today years old when Ilearned that WIC and food stamps
and free and reduced lunch areall programs that are meant to
be agricultural subsidies thatjust happen to also feed hungry
people.
These are USDA programs thatdirectly funnel money into
America's farms.
(44:37):
So when farmers are againstwelfare, against handouts, they
are shooting themselves in thefoot.
Farmers who voted for DonaldTrump, who is now gutting all of
these programs, y'all shotyourselves in the foot.
And in talking about WIC, Iworked for WIC.
Briefly, there is a ton of milkthat you get more than a lot of
families can use.
Also tons of peanuts and beanscereals, because they're ag
(45:00):
subsidies.
These aren't convenience foods.
These are foods that have to becooked from scratch.
I used to use WIC milk to makehomemade cheese and homemade
yogurt, because there was sixgallons of it and we ate a ton
of beans and split peas.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
So, of course, the farmer she alluded to was a
gentleman who got online becausehe now realized that he is
losing, but I think it was$80,000 in funding to his farm
from USAID.
Speaker 4 (45:31):
I need your help to save my farm and many other
farms.
I wanted to give you guys anupdate on what we figured out
with our contract through NRCSso to give you some backstory.
If you haven't watched theprevious video, please go out,
watch that previous video.
I've got on there.
We are possibly going to loseour farm if NRCS doesn't hold up
their contract with us on theEQIP program.
So the reason that they're notable to hold up the contract is
(45:55):
our EQIP program, which is costsharing on fences, waters, a
well and some seedings, wasfunded by the Inflation
Reduction Act.
Because of the executive orders,there's a pause or a freeze on
the funding through theInflation Reduction Act and
they're not able to pay freezeon the funding through the
inflation reduction act andthey're not able to pay out on
the stuff that we completed oranything going forward.
But the issue I have is is I'vealready paid, I've already done
(46:17):
a bunch of the work, alreadypaid for the material, already
paid for the labor.
So I'm out all that cost and Iuse my farm operating expenses
in order to do those projectsbecause per contract I knew that
I was going to get cost sharingrefunds on the stuff once
completed.
But now that it's completed,they're saying that they're
unable to provide the fundsbecause of the freeze on the
(46:38):
inflation reduction act funds.
So I reached out to a coupledifferent senators and congress
people.
So I reached out to AnnWagner's office.
I have not heard back from them.
I reached out to Josh Hawley'soffice.
I have not heard back from them.
I reached out to Josh Hawley'soffice.
Speaker 7 (46:51):
I have heard back from him, not from him
personally, but from his office.
Speaker 4 (46:53):
And they are looking into it because they said that
this should not be happening.
The intention was not to takeaway the funding from the
farmers, but doing the InflationReduction Act, cutting those
costs.
Then it's also taken away fromthe programs that those programs
helped out.
So it's in the works.
But what I need from you guysis if you could please share
(47:14):
this.
Tag your representatives, tagyour senators.
I need to get some ground onthis because I'm not the only
one that this is affecting.
So there are other farmers inthe comments saying that they're
in the same boat that I'm in,because they signed these
contracts and the contracts evenlike.
Whenever I looked into thecontracts, I made sure that that
funding was set aside.
It wasn't funding that.
Oh, we hope it's there wheneverit's done, I made sure that
(47:35):
that funding was set aside.
So that way, before I madethese business decisions, I knew
that funding was there percontract.
So they're backing out on thecontract because they don't have
the funding.
They can't release the funds.
So please tag therepresentatives, Please tag the
senators.
So please tag yourrepresentatives, Please tag the
senators.
I need to get some ground onthis.
We need to help me and otherfarmers out.
We've got to get this fundingpaid out.
I don't care if they don't doit in the future.
The problem is there wascontracts in place, Multiple
(47:58):
farms made business decisionsand multiple farms are going to
sink if we don't get traction onthis and get those funds
unfrozen.
Speaker 3 (48:07):
So, basically, what is being said here?
What is being said is fairlysimple.
He and a lot of other farmswere wholly dependent, or
largely dependent, on governmentsubsidies.
And now they probably didn'tthink about it, because people
don't regularly look at publicpolicy.
(48:28):
They just gotta have a strawman that they want to ran
against.
And now he has to live with theconsequences of his, of the
rhetoric.
He had to live with theconsequences of who he voted for
, just like the people who votedfor the venezuelan people and
the yada yada who voted acertain way.
(48:49):
And now they're gettingdeported and you just look at
them and you just say this wasnot a secret.
This is what the president ranon.
Um, I'm very sad that it lookslike he's gonna lose his farm.
He called Josh Hawley andreached out to Josh Hawley's
office.
Josh Hawley voted against thatbill.
(49:12):
You're not going to find alikely ally in Josh Hawley.
Josh Hawley was not for thatfunding going to the farms, so
it looks like that this personis SOL.
See you on the next episode.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com