February 20, 2025 • 57 mins
Who really holds the reins in the Ukraine-Russia conflict? We make a controversial claim that challenges the prevailing narrative by suggesting President Zelensky's leadership in Ukraine has played a pivotal role in the ongoing tensions with Russia. Join the conversation as we explore missed diplomatic opportunities and question the current strategies employed to resolve the crisis. We also tackle the pressing issue of Ukraine's political stability, exacerbated by the lack of recent elections, and discuss how this situation impacts both the Ukrainian populace and the international stage.
Navigate the complexities of Russian aggression with us, as we dissect the historical patterns of warfare and debunk the myth that NATO expansion justifies such actions. We contrast these patterns with parallels in U.S. politics, contemplating scenarios where leaders might prioritize conflict over democracy. Expect a thorough analysis that sets the record straight on misinformation about President Zelensky's approval ratings and lays bare the intricacies of U.S.-Ukraine relations amidst a backdrop of geopolitical tension and ideological battles within American conservatism.
Intrigued by the intersection of business and politics? We shed light on a substantial $400 million Tesla contract for armored vehicles, illustrating the blurred lines between political agendas and corporate interests. Further intrigue comes in the form of Elon Musk's controversial claims surrounding government savings, leading us to question the integrity behind such assertions. We also peel back the layers on the societal impacts of privatization, exposing its potential to undermine democracy and public accountability. Join us for a riveting exploration of geopolitics, ethics, and the shifting ideologies in our modern world.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What we're about to do here is a neighborly act.
We're like a group ofhouseholders living in the same
locality who decide to expresstheir community interests by
entering into a formalassociation for their mutual
self-protection.
All free men, wherever they maylive, are citizens of Berlin
(00:22):
and therefore, as a free man, Itake pride in the words Ich bin
ein Berliner.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I've spoken of a shining city all my political
life.
In my mind, it was a tall,proud city built on rocks
stronger than oceans, windswept,god-blessed and teeming with
people of all kinds living inharmony and peace.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
It's more important for them than it is for us.
We have an ocean in between andthey don't.
Today I heard oh, we weren'tinvited.
Well, you've been there forthree years.
You should have ended it threeyears.
You should have never startedit.
You could have made a deal.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Welcome to the Jerome McLean show.
Independent media that will notreinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We are at episode 446, as westart off with the 47th
president of the United Statesmaking somewhat the pivot that I
told you that was going to bemade on yesterday, where it now
seems as if President DonaldTrump is trying to basically say
(01:33):
Russia is not the problem,Vladimir Zelensky, and Ukraine
is the problem.
Let's get into the episode.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
I hear that you know they're upset about not having a
seat.
Well, they've had a seat forthree years and a long time
before that.
This could have been settledvery easily.
Just a half-baked negotiatorcould have settled this years
ago without, I think, withoutthe loss of much land, very
little land, without the loss ofany lives and without the loss
(02:08):
of cities that are just layingon their sides.
You have those magnificentgolden domes that are shattered,
will never be replaced.
You can't replace them.
Thousand-year-old domes thatare so beautiful, you can't
replace that.
The whole civilization haschanged.
Because of what?
So when they're worried aboutnot being seated, you mean
(02:28):
somebody that should have gonein and made a deal a long time
ago, and I think I have thepower to end this war and I
think it's going very well.
But today I heard oh, weweren't invited.
Well, you've been there forthree years.
You should have ended it.
Three years, you should havenever started it.
You could have made a deal.
I could have made a deal forukraine that would have given
(02:48):
them almost all of the land,everything, almost all of the
land, and no people would havebeen killed and no city would
have been demolished and not onedome would have been knocked
down, but they chose not to doit that way.
Well, we have a situation wherewe haven't had elections in
ukraine, where we have martiallaw essentially martial law in
(03:10):
ukraine, where the leader inukraine I mean, I hate to say it
, but he's down at four percentapproval rating and, yeah, I
would say that you know whenthey want a seat at the table,
you could say the people have to.
Wouldn't the people of Ukrainehave to say, like you know, it's
been a long time since we'vehad an election.
That's not a Russia thing,that's something coming from me
(03:31):
and coming from many othercountries also.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
So, yeah, that is a Russia thing, and I don't know
why the president is saying thisstuff.
I think a historical contextwould be the way we look at this
.
When george bush was president,uh, gladimer putin invaded
georgia.
When barack obama was president, uh, he invaded kiev.
(03:56):
And when biden was president,he went and tried to invade
other parts of the donbass inukraine.
This is not a who is thepresident thing when it comes to
Ukraine.
This is about the who is incontrol of Russia.
Now, I think, like I saidbefore, I think this fails to
(04:23):
really say who was the aggressorhere.
Now I have some friends on theleft and on the right who say
that this is about the natoexpansion.
Okay, well, we can say it'sabout nato expansion, but
ukraine is not a part of nato.
Ukraine has never been a partof nato, so it was.
(04:43):
Was the invasion of georgiawhen george bush was president
about nato expansion?
Was the invasion when barackobama was president of part nato
expansion?
You can kind of say thatforever, but the point is that,
uh, russia keeps invadingukrainian territory.
Ukraine is not invading Russianterritory.
(05:07):
We have had, since thebeginning of this conflict, no
point in time where Ukrainecrept closer and closer and
closer to Russia's border, wherethey did anything to provoke
the Russian attack.
And if you're saying it's aboutNATO expansion and you would
(05:30):
you seriously take that tact andyou have to wrestle with the
fact that the US funds most ofthe NATO budget so it wouldn't
be an attack on US colonialpower.
I suppose this is very seriousstuff here Because, like I said
(05:54):
on a previous episode, there isa no-win situation here for
Ukraine, and now we're talkingabout elections.
Uh, and now we're talking aboutelections.
Vladimir putin's name has beenmentioned in russia as the
leader of russia for most of myadult life.
(06:15):
Um vladimir zelensky, on theother hand, is a fairly new
leader in the scene in thisconflict.
Do you really look at Russiaand think of the democratic
elections?
Do you look at Russia and thinkof free society?
(06:37):
Do you look at Russia and thinkparliamentary system?
Anybody that's taken a hardlook at russia knows it is an
authoritarian regime.
The elections are a sham.
There has been leaders who were, who were very popular in
russia, who were probably goingto take vladimir putin out of
(07:03):
power through the electoralprocess, who wound up being
poisoned, arrested, killed.
A lot of flying out of windowsstill happens in Russia.
It is not a democracy, it isnot a republic.
It is not a republic, it is nota parliamentary system, it is a
(07:27):
dictatorship for all intentsand purposes.
So, yes, the question is whyare we talking about during a
war?
We have to get rid of VladimirZelensky.
Let me ask a serious question tothe audience.
Do you think right now, ifAmerica was attacked let's just
(07:49):
say, canada got its stones anddecided to roll in and attack
America and at the same time,canada got its stones and
attacked America on its northernborder, mexico rolled in and
attacked America on his southernborder Does anybody think that
Donald Trump and his cabinetwould take any time, any thought
(08:15):
, before they tried to suspendelections until after the
conflict was over?
You already know the answer.
You know full well Donald Trumpwould do everything in his
power to try to suspendelections to stay in power.
So the fact that VladimirZelensky, when his country is
attacked, suspends elections tofocus on the war, I'm not saying
(08:40):
whether it's right or wrong.
Saying whether it's right orwrong, I'm saying that I fully
believe the same thing wouldhappen in this country and not
in the past.
The same thing would happenwith this current president and
I don't know why President Trumpsaid that he was at 4 percent,
(09:08):
I think.
I think because he was caughtoff guard, probably being
pressed by the media.
I think he was trying to say hehas dropped 4%, but the guy
Amir Zelensky's approval ratingin Ukraine is currently at 52%,
not 4% 52%.
So Richard Engel, thecorrespondent for NBC, is on the
front line and he has been incontact with Ukrainian soldiers
and he kind of tried to give alittle bit of analysis of what
(09:33):
they've been thinking about whenthey hear these issues.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
So Ukrainian soldiers are watching this very closely,
or as close as they can, infront line positions.
They don't always have Internet, but they do have cell phone
connections generally andthey've been watching this with
a lot of concern.
They are worried that decisionsabout Ukraine are being made
without Ukrainians input.
They worry that PresidentsTrump and Putin are in the
(10:01):
process of chopping up thiscountry.
Currently, russia controlsabout 20% of Ukraine's territory
in the east, where I am rightnow, also in the south, and
they're deeply concernedwatching this process,
considering the fact thatPresident Trump has already
spoken with Vladimir Putin, thefact that he started these
negotiations by talking to theRussian side, excluding
(10:24):
President Zelensky, and then, asyou said last night, blaming
the entire war on Ukraineinstead of on the Russians who
actually invaded.
Soldiers here are watching thisand thinking they're on the
chopping block, they're about tobe divided and have territories
ceded to Russia.
(10:44):
As you know, there's an oldexpression in negotiations If
you're not at the table, you'reon the table, and people here
feel very much that Ukraine ison the table right now.
President Zelensky commentedjust a short while ago about
those comments from PresidentTrump, saying that he's
responsible for this war If he'donly done some sort of deal
(11:05):
early on.
It never would have happened ifhe had ceded territory.
And he said that PresidentTrump is in a disinformation
bubble parroting it sounds likeRussian disinformation taking
Russia's take on the war.
And he said that he wants USofficials, particularly Trump's
envoy, to come hear more andlearn more truth about the facts
(11:26):
on the ground.
And Trump's envoy, formerGeneral Kellogg, has just
arrived in Ukraine and theUkrainians are eager to take him
out to places like this to tryand rewrite the narrative that
President Trump is describingright now.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
So again, that was Richard Engel from NBC, who is
currently on the ground inUkraine.
So of course, this is going tospark, or has sparked, a fight
between the conservatives andthe neoconservatives versus the
isolationist conservatives,paleoconservatives, etc.
America has a long tradition ofboth camps.
(12:04):
Now I do think Russia's endgameis exactly what Putin said.
I also don't see a win forUkraine if the president doesn't
support it.
I don't see a win if Putin isnot going to back off.
I don't see a win for Ukrainethat doesn't eventually pull the
United States and Europeanallies directly into the
(12:25):
conflict.
The former vice president towhen Donald Trump was a 45th
president, the former presidentMike Prince, stepped up to say
Mr President, ukraine did notstart this war.
Russia launched an unprovoked,brutal invasion claiming
(12:48):
hundreds of thousands of lives.
The road to peace must be builton truth.
Speaker 6 (12:53):
Published a significant news story over at
Dropside News, and that's thatElon Musk's Tesla is forecast to
win a $400 million contractfrom the State Department in Q4
for, quote, armored Tesla.
It is forecast to be thelargest contract delivered by
the State Department in 2025.
(13:14):
Now this is according toprocurement documents that we've
reviewed.
The procurement documentsthemselves say they were revised
as of late December 2024,meaning that this came after
President Donald Trump'selection and after Elon Musk
became the head of this DOJcommittee.
Because this is such a wildstory, I wanted to take you into
(13:38):
how you can go and confirm thisyourself.
So here's the URL that you cango to at the State Department
stategov slash procurementhyphen forecast.
Go down here and click on theDepartment of State procurement
forecast for year 2025, revisedas of December 23rd 2024.
You click on that.
It's going to bring you aspreadsheet.
(14:00):
You sort the spreadsheet bydollar value and you'll find
here this top contract is a $400million contract, and then you
just have to bounce over to thisside to find out who this is
for.
It's FY 2025, target awardquarter.
It's fourth quarter.
(14:20):
Armored Tesla is what's listedas.
There's another column on herethat says competition and for
that it says TBD, so there youhave it.
Congratulations to Mr Elon Musk.
(14:41):
Special government employeeElon.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Musk special government employee.
More than 1,000 new workerswere dismissed as part of a new
wave of layoffs, and that cameout of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Now, that was said in astatement Thursday evening.
Speaker 7 (15:05):
Mitch McConnell has just announced he will not run
for re-election next year andwill retire after more than four
decades in the Senate.
Speaker 8 (15:10):
Representing our commonwealth has been the honor
of a lifetime.
I will not seek this honor aneighth time.
My current term in the Senatewill be my last.
Speaker 7 (15:30):
And let's bring in Jay O'Brien on Capitol Hill and
White House correspondent.
Speaker 9 (15:33):
Mary.
Speaker 7 (15:33):
Alice Parks for more.
Jay McConnell already steppeddown from Senate leadership.
What's the reaction to him nowstepping down from politics in
general, and what does this meanfor the future of the
Republican Party?
Speaker 9 (15:46):
Well, this is something that Hill Republicans
had expected when McConnellstepped down from leadership.
Remember, he was formerly thetop Republican in the Senate.
He is not for this Congress.
There was another topRepublican John Thune in that
chamber Mitch McConnell, makingit official today that he won't
run for reelection.
He was up for reelection justnext year, november 2026.
(16:08):
And when his term is over, inJanuary 2027, he will no longer
be a United States senator.
He leaves behind this longlegacy of bending, in some
instances, senate Republicans tohis political will, not just
confirming hundreds of judges tothe federal bench, but serving
as a key opponent of PresidentObama's.
(16:28):
Think back he was a thorn inPresident Donald Trump's side.
They had a very public breakafter January 6th.
They came back together to adegree in this election.
There was that notable photo,remember, of them shaking hands
as Donald Trump was running forthe White House yet again.
But just in recent weeks andmonths, mitch McConnell has been
another thorn in Donald Trump'sside when it comes to his
(16:49):
controversial cabinet picks.
He has voted against three ofDonald Trump's cabinet picks,
from RFK Jr to Tulsi Gabbard toPete Hegseth.
All of them were ultimatelyconfirmed despite McConnell's
opposition.
But that has been really apublic breaking point with the
rest of his party, andspecifically the White House,
just in recent weeks.
(17:10):
When Mitch McConnell leaves,ultimately it will mean that one
of those in recent weeks atleast moderating political
voices in the Republican Party,a longtime advocate for Ukraine,
someone who has not gone alongwith these controversial cabinet
picks, will be gone.
But we'll see today, becauseMitch McConnell will have
another test of whether or nothe's going to break with
President Trump in just a fewhours from now when Kash Patel,
(17:33):
donald Trump's controversialpick to run the FBI, has his
final confirmation vote on theSenate floor.
Speaker 7 (17:38):
Diane and Mary Alice, what are you hearing from the
White House about this meetingwith Zelensky and the US special
envoy to Ukraine, and whycancel the news conference?
Speaker 10 (17:48):
We don't know, we don't have many details yet.
The White House press secretaryis set to give a press briefing
in just a little bit.
She's going to be joined, we'retold, by advisers both on
foreign policy and domesticpolicy.
But look, it's hard to imaginethat President Zelensky wanted
to come in front of the cameraswhen the relationship between
the Ukraine and the UnitedStates is at this new, at least
(18:10):
in terms of rhetoric, all-timelow.
Such a backer, such a supporter, working so hard at lockstep
with the Ukrainians as they tryto defend against this Russian
invasion, as they try to holdtheir sovereign territory, to
(18:31):
the last 24 hours, wherePresident Trump has been bashing
Zelensky by name, lobbying,insults and really sort of
seeming, in his words andlanguage at least, to side with
Russia and Putin instead.
So we're seeing those picturesof Zelensky shaking the hands of
of Kellogg there, of Trump'senvoy to Ukraine.
They had a meeting, we're told.
(18:52):
They're still meeting, but, yes, the press conference
afterwards canceled, we're told.
Speaker 7 (18:58):
Mary Alice Doge posted on its website a list of
more than a thousand federalcontracts it claims to have
terminated, including whatappeared to be an $8 billion DHS
contract.
Doge then changed it to $8million, calling it a clerical
error.
Any more from the White Houseon that.
Speaker 10 (19:15):
No, look, the White House has defended Doge time and
time again.
We've heard the presidentdefend Elon Musk, but the
reality is Musk and his teamhave promised transparency and
accountability.
There Musk is in the OvalOffice.
When he claimed that they werebeing completely transparent, it
actually took reporterspressing and pressing and
pressing for any receipts fromhis team before they finally
(19:38):
posted a few and then almostimmediately had to admit huge
clerical error.
So it raises real questionsstill about what exactly they
are finding, what exactly theyare cutting, who is doing that
kind of accountability and stillwhether Musk and their team has
this kind of authority.
We've heard the White House sayrepeatedly that Musk is only
(19:59):
basically an advisor at theWhite House, that he doesn't
have statutory authority to bemaking cuts, but we're hearing
agencies say that they arecaught off guard by some of
these cuts.
So still serious questionsabout Musk's legal authority and
what proof and evidence he hasand is providing to the American
people.
Diane All right.
Speaker 7 (20:16):
Mary Alice Parks, Jay O'Brien, thank you both.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
So anyway, I let all that play out because I wanted
you guys to hear the doge part.
A lot of uh numbers have beenflying around.
I did a show on the um some ofthe alleged numbers and trying
to clear some of the some of thethings that are being that have
been said.
(20:40):
Yeah of you just heard theexample where they claimed that
they saved $8 billion and thenturns out, oh, actually it looks
like it was $8 million.
And, like I said before, whenthe lie gets out, or you could
say the clerical era gets out,how many people are going to
(21:05):
hear the correction?
I don't think a lot of peopleare going to hear the correction
and I somewhat believe thatthat is the point of this entire
to throw out a bunch of stuffto whether it's true or not, to
(21:28):
still have the claim lingeringout there as if it's true,
because most people are notgoing to look and see if the
claim is accurate.
Claim is accurate.
(21:51):
Now I've said a few times andI'll probably say it a million
times more when this companyactually goes through and names
names and says this organizationcommitted this fraud, these
people did it, this is how muchthey used, then that will be a
(22:17):
shot at reality.
What has been happening is, elonwill go on his platform.
Elon will go on his platform,post a spreadsheet that God
knows where it comes from, orsomebody supposedly working in
the organization will postsomething on X, the platform
(22:42):
formerly known as twitter.
Elon will then repost it andthen say something like truth.
A few hours or so later, ajournalist will grab it, look at
it and say well, actually thatthat this turns out that that's
(23:04):
not true.
They said $8 billion, it'sactually $8 million, etc.
And they'll say oh, yes, yes,yes, yes, this was a clerical
era.
Now you're supposed to be incharge of finding fraud, waste
and abuse.
How are you making all of theseclerical errors?
(23:28):
How are we having to have andhave this conversation again
about something is being fraud?
And then you go look it up andit's not fraud.
It's literally a line item thatwas approved by the state
department.
You say something is fraud.
You look it up it's a line itemthat was approved by Congress.
And I've been saying this adnauseum, because you don't like
(23:54):
a program that was approved byCongress does not mean it's
fraud.
It just means it's a programyou don't like that was approved
by Congress the that thechevron deference case, um gave
a lot of organizationsbureaucratic authority and
because legislators don't wantto legislate, that they kind of
(24:16):
gave up a lot of their power.
And an organization sends moneysomewhere and you don't like it
does not make it illegalbecause you don't like it.
That's not how this thing works.
But the thing is there's aplaying around with terms here
(24:39):
and I think this playing aroundwith terms is being done on
purpose.
I also think this throwingthings against the window and
seeing what sticks is being doneon purpose as well these
(25:05):
fraudulent supposedly programsthat they've been, you know,
they've been rooting out, etc.
Speaker 11 (25:07):
Except for the fact that you know all of the
programs that they've suggestedthus far are like well, it's not
really fraud.
It might just be something youdon't like, but it's not
actually fraudulent.
In any case, they finally putout a spreadsheet and, lo and
behold, even the spreadsheetthey put out was blatantly wrong
on any number of levels.
Here's a little Bloomberg Newsreport breaking some of the
numbers down.
Speaker 12 (25:25):
What is the number that we have calculated, and
we'll put this into the contextof the $55 billion that Elon is,
you know, taking credit for.
Yeah, so the Doge on itswebsite says that they've saved
about $55 billion for UStaxpayers, but when you go ahead
and add up all of the contractsthat they list online that they
say they've canceled, it onlycomes to about $8.6 billion.
(25:48):
So you know just a smallfraction of that overall $55
billion.
Also, in going through allthese contracts, it's clear that
there was at least one majorclerical error.
There was one contract that waslisted for $8 billion.
That was actually only an $8million contract, so they had
listed it so about $16 billion,but when you take that away,
it's a much smaller figure.
This is, you know, sort ofreally been a key tension point,
(26:10):
as Doge has gone into federalagencies and started slashing
spending and firing staff.
Of that they said look, this isthe most transparent effort
that's out there.
You can go and read all thisinformation, but when it's both
riddled with errors and thereisn't oversight that normally,
you know, is layered abovefederal agencies, things like
watchdogs and the Office ofGovernment Ethics Doge really
operates independently of thatand that has raised a lot of
(26:32):
concerns, both from members ofCongress as well as other
federal government watchers.
Speaker 11 (26:37):
So it's kind of insulting to all of our
intelligence that they put outthis spreadsheet.
They're like, oh, we save $55billion.
Ok.
Then you literally just add upthe column and it doesn't add up
to 55 billion, it adds up to16.6 billion.
Then you sort by which you knowmany people online and also
reporters at New York Times andwhatever.
Then you sort by like okay,well, what's the biggest program
(26:59):
that you cut here?
And the one that rises to thetop is this $8 billion program.
But then you dig into that andit turns out that is a complete
error.
It's actually not $8 billion.
It's $8 million.
A little bit of a differencethere.
And now your spreadsheet, whichyou claimed, indicated savings
of $55 billion, which onlyactually added up to $16.6
(27:23):
billion, which only actuallyadded up to $16.6 billion, now
only totals to $8.6 billion.
So one of the sleuths onlinewho was digging into this let's
put this up on the screenindicates that with that $8
billion to $8 million thing,apparently there was originally
some typo on the contract, sothe contract value was listed at
$8 billion rather than $8million.
Then it was corrected.
(27:43):
The real TCV I don't know whatthat stands for was $8 million,
corrected in January.
Three years.
Only $3.5 million was awarded.
So it was very easy to discern,as someone even here on the
outside was doing, that this wasnot the correct amount of money
.
And then, in addition, ryan,even with the $8 million amount,
(28:04):
if they've already spent $3.5million, then you're not saving
even an entire $8 million.
And that rationale actuallyapplies to all of the other
things that were in thisspreadsheet.
So basically, it's a completeexaggeration.
Parts of it are just completelywrong, and many of these things
(28:25):
too.
As I said before, they framethem as like fraud, but in
reality it's just stuff thatElon doesn't particularly like.
Speaker 6 (28:33):
And it was Customs and Border Protection, I think.
Speaker 11 (28:36):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 6 (28:37):
So people also need to use their common sense and
when we think through thesenumbers, Customs and Border
Protection's entire budget isnot that high Like it's.
I don't know offhand exactlywhat it is.
You can Google that and find it.
Eight billion would be a hugeportion of their like entire
(29:00):
budget, and this was like someDEI thing or something.
Speaker 11 (29:02):
Yeah, some DEI training or whatever.
It was Something like that,something like that.
Speaker 6 (29:05):
Yeah, then, you have to ask yourself what are the
chances that, like two-thirds ofthe border protectionist budget
is this dei training.
You don't even have to then likegoogle and like, follow the
charts and the contracts all theway back to the source.
You can just be like.
That's probably not true, andthere are a lot of people that
are frustrated that musk isn'tgetting all the flowers that he
deserves for this.
I think what they need to thinkabout is that probably not true
(29:26):
, and there are a lot of peoplethat are frustrated that musk
isn't getting all the flowersthat he deserves for this.
I think what they need to thinkabout is that he's a government
worker and if you think aboutit from the perspective of
people who don't necessarilytrust all government workers
without having their work beverified and checked and don't
necessarily trust themotivations that they have
(29:47):
because they have their owninterests at play play, any
government agency that made thetypes of errors that Doge is
making at this point would beconsidered waste, fraud and
abuse of the most obvious scale.
Yes, and you would say, well,cut this one.
(30:09):
They don't have people who canfact check their work before
putting it up to the public tolook at.
Speaker 11 (30:15):
Or who can use basic common sense.
Speaker 6 (30:18):
And who appear to be lying like, actively lying,
about what they have found Now.
At the same time, I don't wantto do much taunting of their
inability to find savings.
I don't want them to get moreserious about life, to then go
crazy, be like all right, fine,entire Department of Education
Nuked, gone, which is not legal.
Like you, you want to do that.
You got to go through congressbut anyway.
(30:39):
So think about the doge peopleand if you're if you're on this
side that thinks all governmentis like corrupt and and wasteful
, think about doge as what it is.
It is a government agency thatis in competition with these
other departments for moneybecause it is run by a
government contractor who wantsto go to Mars and needs federal
(31:03):
resources to do that.
Speaker 11 (31:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (31:06):
And so that agency has every incentive to tell you
that all this other spending iswasteful and we need to suppress
it so that we can and this iswhat you'll eventually hear so
that we can invest, you know,trillions in this project to go
to Mars.
Speaker 11 (31:22):
That's exactly right , and I do think that that I'm
reading his biography right now.
The Walter Isaacson one and youknow have been trying to
research this creature, who isnow in charge of all of us, and
I do think that that is like hisprimary driving goal, which
sounds I mean, it sounds sort ofinsane.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
At least it's a goal.
Speaker 11 (31:41):
He has a point in himself the savior of humanity.
He believes the thing that weshould be driving.
That's exactly right.
Savior of human consciousness.
He believes the thing we shouldbe driving towards is being an
interplanetary species.
He talks about this all thetime and you know, when he
started SpaceX it really was asort of preposterous boondoggle,
(32:01):
but he does it anyway.
He's able to persist, he's ableto get billions of dollars
already in federal governmentcontracts.
And you know you should takenote of the fact that you've got
SpaceX engineers now in at theFAA.
Well, the FAA had beeninvestigating Elon and SpaceX
for one of their launches thatcame apart midair, which caused
(32:22):
huge damage.
I mean, they had to scramble,they had to reroute some 12
commercial flights, it wasactually very dangerous, and so
that agency was investigatinghim.
Now he's got SpaceX engineerswho were there inside.
I have a feeling thatinvestigation isn't going to go
very far and they're making cutsat NASA.
Well, guess what?
Again, if you strip down thecapacity of the government,
(32:45):
suddenly you need SpaceX evenmore than they already do.
And I do think a big part ofhis rationale and motivation
here is basically like herealized he needed the nearly
limitless resources of thefederal government treasury to
pursue his goal for humanity ofputting us all on Mars, and that
(33:05):
is a lot of what is drivingthis, and he sort of latched on
to this you know darkenlightenment, like Curtis
Yarvin oh, we need a CEOdictator thing because it helps
him, it enables him in that goal, so it's a convenient ideology
for him to get what he wants.
And so all of these littlepiddling, cuts and things that
are going on like that is notthe ballgame.
(33:26):
I don't even think you shouldreally consider what's happening
right now as any attempt atcutting government or efficiency
.
It's about consolidating poweron behalf of Elon Musk and his
goals, and one of the ways weknow that is because, listen,
they put out their spreadsheet,which claimed 55 billion, which
only actually showed 8 billionin cuts.
The government accountabilityoffice, on an annual basis,
(33:49):
finds some $150 billion inimproper in actual fraud, not
just things that somebody theredidn't like, but in actual
fraudulent payments.
So we have a government agencythat does this stuff.
Now, if you want to beef thatup and make it more effective,
fine, go to it.
But you also know, ryan, thatthey're not actually interested
in like effective andaccountable government, because
(34:11):
one of Trump's very first moveswas to fire almost all of the
inspectors general that aresupposed to oversee these
agencies and make sure that theyare being run effectively and
without corruption and graft,and which have been, you know,
have actually done someimportant investigations for
journalists like yourself intopresidents on both the
Democratic and Republican side.
Speaker 6 (34:31):
Right and cutting a tiny amount of subscriptions to
like Thomson Reuters andBloomberg, like bond markets for
regulators, so like SEC, ftc,cftc, cfpb these people are now
they don't have access to, likeyou, that Musk is not the first
person to have thesegenerational megalomaniacal
(34:59):
views of present humanity versusfuture humanity.
I think it was Kim Jong Il, kimJong Un's grandfather, but it
might have been Chairman Mao,who said, when he was confronted
with the vast amount ofcasualties that were involved in
the creation of the communistproject, either in China or
North Korea, I forget which oneUm, he said basically, you know
(35:23):
what is.
You can find this quote outthere somewhere.
He's like what is 50 milliondeaths when we are fighting for
untold billions of people in thefuture?
Like Mao or Kim Jong-il,whichever one it was, was
arguing we are fighting for analmost infinite number of future
(35:43):
people who will live in thecommunist paradise that we
produce through this revolution.
So how can you tell me thatit's a problem that 50 million
people, innocent people, diedright?
50 million against billions, soall the people of the earth
against the infinite expansionof consciousness yes
(36:06):
interplanetarily.
Speaker 11 (36:08):
Those things like if you believe, if that's your
ethic, we are not the ones thatmatter and this is the type of
ideology that has been verypervasive in silicon valley in
recent years that, like sam bankand bankman freed um, was an
adherent of this um effectivealtruist ideology, which argues
exactly that.
(36:29):
Now I don't think elonnecessarily thinks of himself
exactly as an effective altruist, because they were concerned
specifically about thedevelopment of ai destroying
humanity, which seems to be likeactually a reasonable thing to
be concerned about also, they'remore earthly based yes, um, but
elon has a version of that andexact does exactly the calculus
that you are describing right,which you can see quickly how
(36:51):
that leads to justifying anysort of level of death, cruelty,
et cetera in the short term.
So when you look, for example,at, like you know, cutting USAID
funding, so now you've got kidsin Africa who are going to die
of HIV and AIDS, it's like, ohwell, that's small potatoes in
the grand scheme of, you know,generations and generations,
(37:11):
tens of thousands of years ofhuman civilization.
So Elon's perfectly willing topay that price, let alone any
sort of law breaking.
He doesn't care about it.
None of these CEOs care aboutlaw breaking.
To them, that's just the costof doing business and that's
what.
Move fast and break thingsUltimately.
That's core to that ethos isbasically break whatever laws,
(37:31):
do whatever you need to do, soit'll work out in the end.
So, yeah, it is the type ofideology that intellectually
intelligent people can use tojustify absolute monstrosities
on a world historic level.
Speaker 6 (37:56):
Yeah, whereas from.
Actually, if you want to goafter USAID for being a tool of,
like American imperialismthrough a soft power, okay,
that's great, that's a greatpoint.
Speaker 11 (38:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (38:01):
I'm not sure that's the one they're making.
Speaker 11 (38:02):
Yeah, when you're taking it and putting it under
Marco Rubio's State Departmentsomething tells me that's not
really the end goal.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Let's take a visit to this president that a lot of
people may remember.
He was president so long agoand that was Joseph R Biden.
So a US appeals court hasblocked the Biden save plan for
student loans.
So a US appeals court onTuesday blocked the Biden
administration's student loanrelief plan, known as SAVE, a
move that will likely lead tohigher monthly payments for
(38:39):
millions of borrowers.
The 8th US Circuit Court ofAppeals sided with seven
Republican-led states that filedlawsuits against the US
Department of Education's plan.
The states had argued that theformer President, joe Biden,
lacked the authority toestablish the student loan
relief plan.
The GOP states argued thatBiden would save was essentially
(39:02):
trying to find a roundabout wayto forgive student debt after
the Supreme Court blocked hissweeping debt cancellation plan
in June of 2023.
Save, or the saving on ValueEducation Plan, came with two
provisions that the lawsuitstargeted.
It had lowered monthly paymentsthan any other federal student
(39:25):
loan repayment plan, and it ledto quicker debt erasure for
those with a small business.
Implementing SAVE could cost asmuch as $475 billion over a
decade.
An analysis by the Universityof Pennsylvania Penn Wharton
Budget Model found that made ita target for Republicans, who
(39:47):
argued that taxpayers should notbe asked to subsidize the loan
payments of those who havebenefited from higher education.
However, consumer advocates saythat most families need to
borrow to send their children tocollege today, that they
require more affordable ways torepay their debt.
Research shows that studentloans make it harder for people
to start businesses, buy a houseand have children.
(40:11):
The court's ruling comes at thesame time that Republicans are
floating proposals that couldraise the federal student loan
bills for millions in borrowers.
The student average loanborrower could pay nearly $200 a
month more if the GOP plans toreshape student loan repayments
succeed.
(40:32):
According to an early estimateby the institute for college
access and success, republicanlawmakers want to use the extra
revenue to fund president donaldtrump's tax cuts for the top of
the american uh financialechelons.
(40:53):
I was joking with one of myfriends about this meme that I
saw online and it just saidsomething like believing that a
small group of billionaires aresuddenly working tirelessly for
the benefit of the working classreally does require a
spectacular level of stupid.
Now I was joking with one ofthem when I said I think it's
(41:16):
because we were raised on Batmanand now Iron man, that we
believe that billionaires aregoing to come and saved us.
I watched these games for years, from Warren Buffett to Bill
Gates to Charles and David Kochto Shelton Adelson, and I
fundamentally believe that theyare not going to your
(41:39):
politicians because they arealtruistic and they are not
trying to save you from anything.
They are not trying to save you.
They're actually fighting forownership over you.
They are buying your electedofficials.
They are poisoning your water.
They are poisoning your food.
They are poisoning your air.
They are buying your electedofficials.
They are poisoning your water.
They are poisoning your food.
They are poisoning your air.
They are sending your childrento fight in wars for minerals,
(42:02):
oils, etc.
Etc.
So I say that also to say thatwhen you have to look for news
organizations, you have to lookfor news organizations.
(42:38):
Look at news organizations thatare owned by billionaires and
all the pundits are millionaires.
You need to be fully aware thatwhat you are hearing is what
the millionaires and thebillionaires want you to hear.
I think this is time for us tolook into certain things, like
the famous book by linguisticsprofessor and activist, noam
Chomsky.
Manufacturing.
Consent is a good book, and Ithink this will let you know how
sometimes what you think youare hearing in the free press is
actually not so free.
The narrative has already beenset inside of a particular
(42:58):
framework that you are allowedto argue.
In a rare pushback againstPresident Trump, a coalition of
congressional Republicans fromthe New York area rebuked the
president for cuts to a federalprogram that administrators say
helps to aid emergency workersand others suffering from toxins
(43:20):
related to the terrorist attack.
Back in september 11th, in aletter to president trump, seven
republicans urged trump, as anative new yorker who lived in
new york city as it recoveredfrom the 9-11 terrorist attack,
to reverse the cuts to the WorldCenter Health Program and
rehire staff members who werefired several days ago.
(43:42):
They echoed an immediate outcryfrom the Democratic lawmakers
and advocates when the cuts weremade, beginning last week as a
part of Elon Musk's so-calledDepartment of Government
Offenses, cr DOGE, which iscutting the spending and
limiting jobs across a wideswath of federal agencies.
On Monday, new York'sDemocratic Senator, chuck
(44:02):
Schumer, kristen Gillibrand,issued a letter demanding the
cuts be restored.
Kristen Gillibrand issued aletter demanding the cuts be
restored.
The initial recognition fromRepublicans was more muted, but
Wednesday it became clear thatthe blowback to the firings was
widespread.
The Republican resistance grewmore vocal, especially from
(44:27):
districts in and around New YorkCity where the memory of 9-11
still is very powerful.
This staff reduction will onlymake it more difficult for the
program to survive and for theprogram to supervise its
contracts and to care for itsmembers who are compromised and
they are made up of brave menand women who ran towards danger
(44:49):
and helped in the aftermath ofthe 9-11 terrorist attack.
It was largely written byRepresentatives Andrew R
Guerrero, a Republican from LongIsland, and co-signed by five
of the members from the New YorkRepresentatives Chris Smith
from New Jersey, the New Yorkrepresentatives Chris Smith from
(45:10):
New Jersey.
The New York co-signers wereNick Lalito, mike Laura or Mike
Lawler, I should say ClonadaTenney, nicole Malakitis and
Nick Langworthy, all supportersof President Trump.
Of course, they all had to havedifficult names, so you could
hear me trying to figure out howto pronounce them.
(45:31):
The world trade center healthprograms 90 members staff was
reduced by about 20 percent and16 promotionary staff members
who oversees theadministration's program were
fired and others took buyouts.
According to congressionalrepresentatives, terminated
employees and advocates for theprogram.
(45:52):
The program is overseen by thecenter for disease control and
prevention and the department ofhealth and human services,
which was recently taken over byrobert f kennedy jr, who trump
named as the secretary.
The cuts were a part of awidespread agency layoffs in
which several thousandsprovisionary health and human
(46:12):
service workers were terminatedlast week.
York Fire Department thatcompares the indices rates of
illnesses in their ranks withthose other of other urban
(46:35):
departments a grant that wasdeemed unnecessary and
non-extensial.
This could not be further fromthe truth, the letter said.
Dr David J Prizet, chiefmedical officer for the fire
department, said on Wednesdaythat this study is critical
because without it, we cannotdefinitely prove that the health
(46:57):
impact of the attacks relatedto the condition.
Advocates say the cuts woulddelay a new enrollment and make
fewer staffers available toaddress patients' problems and
assist with diagnosis treatments.
(47:17):
So there we go, there we go,there we go.
The program, which now helps137,000 members, was created by
Congress in 2011 as a part ofthe James Zadruga 9-11 Health
Compensation Act, to provide atreatment for emergency workers,
cleanup crews and those livingin lower Manhattan who were
sickened by airborne toxins atground zero.
(47:43):
Ending the show today with ourblast from the intellectual past
.
Ending the show today with ourblast from the intellectual past
.
We're going to go to nine yearsago at least, when the video
was posted Classroom Hours.
Noam Chomsky on privatization.
Thank you for tuning in andwe'll see you on the next
episode.
Speaker 3 (48:02):
There's a standard way of privatizing, something
Like when Margaret Thatcherwanted to privatize the British
railroads.
The technique was defund them.
And then, when they don't work,people get angry and say let's
do something.
So you hand it over to privateenterprise, which totally ruins
them.
And then the state has to comeback in because to try to
(48:24):
reconstruct it somehow it'sknown as privatization, the uh
the.
And that's exactly what'shappening with social.
Somehow it's known asprivatization.
And that's exactly what'shappening with Social Security.
It's in good shape.
Now, when you read in thenewspapers as you do, that the
big problem of the deficit isentitlements, social Security,
medicare, medicaid SocialSecurity is a zero problem.
(48:46):
For one thing, it doesn't addanything to the deficit because
people pay for it, and foranother thing, it's in pretty
good shape.
Certainly, the last of thefamous baby boomers will be gone
before there's any problem init.
That's why there's a bigpayroll tax increase 30 years
(49:07):
ago to ensure that.
But if it's defunded it'll be aproblem.
Then there'll be pressure toprivatize it.
That's a huge bonanza for thefinancial institutions.
They'll put trillions ofdollars into their hands which
they can then use to make a tonof money with risky investments
(49:28):
which are therefore veryprofitable and when it tanks as
it will.
When the economy tanks, there'sa technique you pick up your
copies of Milton Friedman andHayek and Ayn Rand and you run
to the nanny state that you'venurtured and you make sure that
they bail you out.
That's really existingcapitalism and it means that the
(49:51):
scam can go on Like takeprivatizing schools.
What's the point of privatizingschools?
Well, you know, the idea is toinstill in people the idea that
all you care about is yourself.
So I don't happen to havechildren of school age.
So therefore, according to theideology that's implanted in you
(50:13):
, I'm not supposed to carewhether the kid down the street
has school to go to.
So I don't want to pay taxesand I don't want to cut taxes
because I don't care if that kidgoes to school and if you know,
since I have enough money, Icould send my kid to private
school if I wanted to.
So who cares if they're publicschools?
So we should privatize schoolsto eliminate the conception that
(50:35):
we should care if some otherkid goes to school, which
everybody has.
You've got to drive it out oftheir heads.
The same is true I don't knowif it's happening here of
efforts to privatize pension andsecurity systems.
What's the point of that, likein the US, these big efforts to
try to privatize Social Security?
I mean, financially speaking,it's ridiculous.
(50:56):
It's a huge cost and everythingelse, but there are reasons for
it.
Social Security is based on anunacceptable principle, namely
that each person that you shouldcare if the disabled widow
across town survives and you'renot supposed to care about that.
You're supposed to care aboutwhether you have enough pairs of
(51:17):
shoes and stuff like that.
You know enough cars and videogames or whatever it is.
That's all you're supposed tocare about.
So you, you've got to privatizeSocial Security.
Also, another advantage toprivatizing Social Security is
that it has the brilliantconsequence of turning working
people against their owninterests.
Because if your pension is tiedup in stocks, you want to make
(51:41):
sure those stocks go up, and theway those stocks go up is by
cutting wages and reducingworking conditions and sending
jobs to Chinese sweatshops andso on.
So as a working person, youhave to be committed to
undermining your own interestsand that's important.
So for reasons like that, youwant to privatize Social
(52:03):
Security and privatize water andschools and everything else.
By definition, privatizationundercuts democracy.
It takes something out of thepublic arena and puts it into
the hands of unaccountableprivate tyrannies that are
created and supported by thestate, which is what
corporations are.
You remember all thisprivatization you hear about?
(52:24):
It's supposed to be veryefficient and by some measure,
you know, by some ludicrousmeasure it probably is efficient
.
You know, then, they're part ofthe reason why it's efficient
is you don't count the costs.
Okay, so, like, if you exposethis, they're talking about
privatizing the MTA around.
You know the publictransportation thing?
All right, suppose youprivatize the system.
(52:45):
You and I know how to make itmore efficient.
By the economist's measures,you throw out union workers and
you get temps for half the price.
And if there's an accidentbecause they never had any
training, well, it's just.
People are getting killed.
You don't measure that.
And you cut off the so-calledunprofitable bus routes okay, or
subway routes, like you don'tmake a lot of money at 11 pm,
(53:07):
okay, so let's throw them out.
Well, suppose somebody's stucksomewhere at 11 pm and wants to
get home?
Oh well, you know it'sentrepreneurial values.
You know, let them hire alimousine or something you know.
And in ways like that you canmake the system more efficient
simply by transferring the costsover to the public where you
(53:27):
don't measure the costs.
Okay, so you know, it looksnice and efficient on some
economist's paper, but of courseyou just there's huge costs
transferred over the publicwhich you don't measure.
What we're about to do here is a neighborly act.
We're like a group ofhouseholders living in the same
locality who decide to expresstheir community interests by
entering into a formalassociation for their mutual
self-protection.
All free men, wherever they maylive, are citizens of Berlin
(00:22):
and therefore, as a free man, Itake pride in the words Ich bin
ein Berliner.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I've spoken of a shining city all my political
life.
In my mind, it was a tall,proud city built on rocks
stronger than oceans, windswept,god-blessed and teeming with
people of all kinds living inharmony and peace.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
It's more important for them than it is for us.
We have an ocean in between andthey don't.
Today I heard oh, we weren'tinvited.
Well, you've been there forthree years.
You should have ended it threeyears.
You should have never startedit.
You could have made a deal.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Welcome to the Jerome McLean show.
Independent media that will notreinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We are at episode 446, as westart off with the 47th
president of the United Statesmaking somewhat the pivot that I
told you that was going to bemade on yesterday, where it now
seems as if President DonaldTrump is trying to basically say
(01:33):
Russia is not the problem,Vladimir Zelensky, and Ukraine
is the problem.
Let's get into the episode.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
I hear that you know they're upset about not having a
seat.
Well, they've had a seat forthree years and a long time
before that.
This could have been settledvery easily.
Just a half-baked negotiatorcould have settled this years
ago without, I think, withoutthe loss of much land, very
little land, without the loss ofany lives and without the loss
(02:08):
of cities that are just layingon their sides.
You have those magnificentgolden domes that are shattered,
will never be replaced.
You can't replace them.
Thousand-year-old domes thatare so beautiful, you can't
replace that.
The whole civilization haschanged.
Because of what?
So when they're worried aboutnot being seated, you mean
(02:28):
somebody that should have gonein and made a deal a long time
ago, and I think I have thepower to end this war and I
think it's going very well.
But today I heard oh, weweren't invited.
Well, you've been there forthree years.
You should have ended it.
Three years, you should havenever started it.
You could have made a deal.
I could have made a deal forukraine that would have given
(02:48):
them almost all of the land,everything, almost all of the
land, and no people would havebeen killed and no city would
have been demolished and not onedome would have been knocked
down, but they chose not to doit that way.
Well, we have a situation wherewe haven't had elections in
ukraine, where we have martiallaw essentially martial law in
(03:10):
ukraine, where the leader inukraine I mean, I hate to say it
, but he's down at four percentapproval rating and, yeah, I
would say that you know whenthey want a seat at the table,
you could say the people have to.
Wouldn't the people of Ukrainehave to say, like you know, it's
been a long time since we'vehad an election.
That's not a Russia thing,that's something coming from me
(03:31):
and coming from many othercountries also.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
So, yeah, that is a Russia thing, and I don't know
why the president is saying thisstuff.
I think a historical contextwould be the way we look at this
.
When george bush was president,uh, gladimer putin invaded
georgia.
When barack obama was president, uh, he invaded kiev.
(03:56):
And when biden was president,he went and tried to invade
other parts of the donbass inukraine.
This is not a who is thepresident thing when it comes to
Ukraine.
This is about the who is incontrol of Russia.
Now, I think, like I saidbefore, I think this fails to
(04:23):
really say who was the aggressorhere.
Now I have some friends on theleft and on the right who say
that this is about the natoexpansion.
Okay, well, we can say it'sabout nato expansion, but
ukraine is not a part of nato.
Ukraine has never been a partof nato, so it was.
(04:43):
Was the invasion of georgiawhen george bush was president
about nato expansion?
Was the invasion when barackobama was president of part nato
expansion?
You can kind of say thatforever, but the point is that,
uh, russia keeps invadingukrainian territory.
Ukraine is not invading Russianterritory.
(05:07):
We have had, since thebeginning of this conflict, no
point in time where Ukrainecrept closer and closer and
closer to Russia's border, wherethey did anything to provoke
the Russian attack.
And if you're saying it's aboutNATO expansion and you would
(05:30):
you seriously take that tact andyou have to wrestle with the
fact that the US funds most ofthe NATO budget so it wouldn't
be an attack on US colonialpower.
I suppose this is very seriousstuff here Because, like I said
(05:54):
on a previous episode, there isa no-win situation here for
Ukraine, and now we're talkingabout elections.
Uh, and now we're talking aboutelections.
Vladimir putin's name has beenmentioned in russia as the
leader of russia for most of myadult life.
(06:15):
Um vladimir zelensky, on theother hand, is a fairly new
leader in the scene in thisconflict.
Do you really look at Russiaand think of the democratic
elections?
Do you look at Russia and thinkof free society?
(06:37):
Do you look at Russia and thinkparliamentary system?
Anybody that's taken a hardlook at russia knows it is an
authoritarian regime.
The elections are a sham.
There has been leaders who were, who were very popular in
russia, who were probably goingto take vladimir putin out of
(07:03):
power through the electoralprocess, who wound up being
poisoned, arrested, killed.
A lot of flying out of windowsstill happens in Russia.
It is not a democracy, it isnot a republic.
It is not a republic, it is nota parliamentary system, it is a
(07:27):
dictatorship for all intentsand purposes.
So, yes, the question is whyare we talking about during a
war?
We have to get rid of VladimirZelensky.
Let me ask a serious question tothe audience.
Do you think right now, ifAmerica was attacked let's just
(07:49):
say, canada got its stones anddecided to roll in and attack
America and at the same time,canada got its stones and
attacked America on its northernborder, mexico rolled in and
attacked America on his southernborder Does anybody think that
Donald Trump and his cabinetwould take any time, any thought
(08:15):
, before they tried to suspendelections until after the
conflict was over?
You already know the answer.
You know full well Donald Trumpwould do everything in his
power to try to suspendelections to stay in power.
So the fact that VladimirZelensky, when his country is
attacked, suspends elections tofocus on the war, I'm not saying
(08:40):
whether it's right or wrong.
Saying whether it's right orwrong, I'm saying that I fully
believe the same thing wouldhappen in this country and not
in the past.
The same thing would happenwith this current president and
I don't know why President Trumpsaid that he was at 4 percent,
(09:08):
I think.
I think because he was caughtoff guard, probably being
pressed by the media.
I think he was trying to say hehas dropped 4%, but the guy
Amir Zelensky's approval ratingin Ukraine is currently at 52%,
not 4% 52%.
So Richard Engel, thecorrespondent for NBC, is on the
front line and he has been incontact with Ukrainian soldiers
and he kind of tried to give alittle bit of analysis of what
(09:33):
they've been thinking about whenthey hear these issues.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
So Ukrainian soldiers are watching this very closely,
or as close as they can, infront line positions.
They don't always have Internet, but they do have cell phone
connections generally andthey've been watching this with
a lot of concern.
They are worried that decisionsabout Ukraine are being made
without Ukrainians input.
They worry that PresidentsTrump and Putin are in the
(10:01):
process of chopping up thiscountry.
Currently, russia controlsabout 20% of Ukraine's territory
in the east, where I am rightnow, also in the south, and
they're deeply concernedwatching this process,
considering the fact thatPresident Trump has already
spoken with Vladimir Putin, thefact that he started these
negotiations by talking to theRussian side, excluding
(10:24):
President Zelensky, and then, asyou said last night, blaming
the entire war on Ukraineinstead of on the Russians who
actually invaded.
Soldiers here are watching thisand thinking they're on the
chopping block, they're about tobe divided and have territories
ceded to Russia.
(10:44):
As you know, there's an oldexpression in negotiations If
you're not at the table, you'reon the table, and people here
feel very much that Ukraine ison the table right now.
President Zelensky commentedjust a short while ago about
those comments from PresidentTrump, saying that he's
responsible for this war If he'donly done some sort of deal
(11:05):
early on.
It never would have happened ifhe had ceded territory.
And he said that PresidentTrump is in a disinformation
bubble parroting it sounds likeRussian disinformation taking
Russia's take on the war.
And he said that he wants USofficials, particularly Trump's
envoy, to come hear more andlearn more truth about the facts
(11:26):
on the ground.
And Trump's envoy, formerGeneral Kellogg, has just
arrived in Ukraine and theUkrainians are eager to take him
out to places like this to tryand rewrite the narrative that
President Trump is describingright now.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
So again, that was Richard Engel from NBC, who is
currently on the ground inUkraine.
So of course, this is going tospark, or has sparked, a fight
between the conservatives andthe neoconservatives versus the
isolationist conservatives,paleoconservatives, etc.
America has a long tradition ofboth camps.
(12:04):
Now I do think Russia's endgameis exactly what Putin said.
I also don't see a win forUkraine if the president doesn't
support it.
I don't see a win if Putin isnot going to back off.
I don't see a win for Ukrainethat doesn't eventually pull the
United States and Europeanallies directly into the
(12:25):
conflict.
The former vice president towhen Donald Trump was a 45th
president, the former presidentMike Prince, stepped up to say
Mr President, ukraine did notstart this war.
Russia launched an unprovoked,brutal invasion claiming
(12:48):
hundreds of thousands of lives.
The road to peace must be builton truth.
Speaker 6 (12:53):
Published a significant news story over at
Dropside News, and that's thatElon Musk's Tesla is forecast to
win a $400 million contractfrom the State Department in Q4
for, quote, armored Tesla.
It is forecast to be thelargest contract delivered by
the State Department in 2025.
(13:14):
Now this is according toprocurement documents that we've
reviewed.
The procurement documentsthemselves say they were revised
as of late December 2024,meaning that this came after
President Donald Trump'selection and after Elon Musk
became the head of this DOJcommittee.
Because this is such a wildstory, I wanted to take you into
(13:38):
how you can go and confirm thisyourself.
So here's the URL that you cango to at the State Department
stategov slash procurementhyphen forecast.
Go down here and click on theDepartment of State procurement
forecast for year 2025, revisedas of December 23rd 2024.
You click on that.
It's going to bring you aspreadsheet.
(14:00):
You sort the spreadsheet bydollar value and you'll find
here this top contract is a $400million contract, and then you
just have to bounce over to thisside to find out who this is
for.
It's FY 2025, target awardquarter.
It's fourth quarter.
(14:20):
Armored Tesla is what's listedas.
There's another column on herethat says competition and for
that it says TBD, so there youhave it.
Congratulations to Mr Elon Musk.
(14:41):
Special government employeeElon.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Musk special government employee.
More than 1,000 new workerswere dismissed as part of a new
wave of layoffs, and that cameout of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Now, that was said in astatement Thursday evening.
Speaker 7 (15:05):
Mitch McConnell has just announced he will not run
for re-election next year andwill retire after more than four
decades in the Senate.
Speaker 8 (15:10):
Representing our commonwealth has been the honor
of a lifetime.
I will not seek this honor aneighth time.
My current term in the Senatewill be my last.
Speaker 7 (15:30):
And let's bring in Jay O'Brien on Capitol Hill and
White House correspondent.
Speaker 9 (15:33):
Mary.
Speaker 7 (15:33):
Alice Parks for more.
Jay McConnell already steppeddown from Senate leadership.
What's the reaction to him nowstepping down from politics in
general, and what does this meanfor the future of the
Republican Party?
Speaker 9 (15:46):
Well, this is something that Hill Republicans
had expected when McConnellstepped down from leadership.
Remember, he was formerly thetop Republican in the Senate.
He is not for this Congress.
There was another topRepublican John Thune in that
chamber Mitch McConnell, makingit official today that he won't
run for reelection.
He was up for reelection justnext year, november 2026.
(16:08):
And when his term is over, inJanuary 2027, he will no longer
be a United States senator.
He leaves behind this longlegacy of bending, in some
instances, senate Republicans tohis political will, not just
confirming hundreds of judges tothe federal bench, but serving
as a key opponent of PresidentObama's.
(16:28):
Think back he was a thorn inPresident Donald Trump's side.
They had a very public breakafter January 6th.
They came back together to adegree in this election.
There was that notable photo,remember, of them shaking hands
as Donald Trump was running forthe White House yet again.
But just in recent weeks andmonths, mitch McConnell has been
another thorn in Donald Trump'sside when it comes to his
(16:49):
controversial cabinet picks.
He has voted against three ofDonald Trump's cabinet picks,
from RFK Jr to Tulsi Gabbard toPete Hegseth.
All of them were ultimatelyconfirmed despite McConnell's
opposition.
But that has been really apublic breaking point with the
rest of his party, andspecifically the White House,
just in recent weeks.
(17:10):
When Mitch McConnell leaves,ultimately it will mean that one
of those in recent weeks atleast moderating political
voices in the Republican Party,a longtime advocate for Ukraine,
someone who has not gone alongwith these controversial cabinet
picks, will be gone.
But we'll see today, becauseMitch McConnell will have
another test of whether or nothe's going to break with
President Trump in just a fewhours from now when Kash Patel,
(17:33):
donald Trump's controversialpick to run the FBI, has his
final confirmation vote on theSenate floor.
Speaker 7 (17:38):
Diane and Mary Alice, what are you hearing from the
White House about this meetingwith Zelensky and the US special
envoy to Ukraine, and whycancel the news conference?
Speaker 10 (17:48):
We don't know, we don't have many details yet.
The White House press secretaryis set to give a press briefing
in just a little bit.
She's going to be joined, we'retold, by advisers both on
foreign policy and domesticpolicy.
But look, it's hard to imaginethat President Zelensky wanted
to come in front of the cameraswhen the relationship between
the Ukraine and the UnitedStates is at this new, at least
(18:10):
in terms of rhetoric, all-timelow.
Such a backer, such a supporter, working so hard at lockstep
with the Ukrainians as they tryto defend against this Russian
invasion, as they try to holdtheir sovereign territory, to
(18:31):
the last 24 hours, wherePresident Trump has been bashing
Zelensky by name, lobbying,insults and really sort of
seeming, in his words andlanguage at least, to side with
Russia and Putin instead.
So we're seeing those picturesof Zelensky shaking the hands of
of Kellogg there, of Trump'senvoy to Ukraine.
They had a meeting, we're told.
(18:52):
They're still meeting, but, yes, the press conference
afterwards canceled, we're told.
Speaker 7 (18:58):
Mary Alice Doge posted on its website a list of
more than a thousand federalcontracts it claims to have
terminated, including whatappeared to be an $8 billion DHS
contract.
Doge then changed it to $8million, calling it a clerical
error.
Any more from the White Houseon that.
Speaker 10 (19:15):
No, look, the White House has defended Doge time and
time again.
We've heard the presidentdefend Elon Musk, but the
reality is Musk and his teamhave promised transparency and
accountability.
There Musk is in the OvalOffice.
When he claimed that they werebeing completely transparent, it
actually took reporterspressing and pressing and
pressing for any receipts fromhis team before they finally
(19:38):
posted a few and then almostimmediately had to admit huge
clerical error.
So it raises real questionsstill about what exactly they
are finding, what exactly theyare cutting, who is doing that
kind of accountability and stillwhether Musk and their team has
this kind of authority.
We've heard the White House sayrepeatedly that Musk is only
(19:59):
basically an advisor at theWhite House, that he doesn't
have statutory authority to bemaking cuts, but we're hearing
agencies say that they arecaught off guard by some of
these cuts.
So still serious questionsabout Musk's legal authority and
what proof and evidence he hasand is providing to the American
people.
Diane All right.
Speaker 7 (20:16):
Mary Alice Parks, Jay O'Brien, thank you both.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
So anyway, I let all that play out because I wanted
you guys to hear the doge part.
A lot of uh numbers have beenflying around.
I did a show on the um some ofthe alleged numbers and trying
to clear some of the some of thethings that are being that have
been said.
(20:40):
Yeah of you just heard theexample where they claimed that
they saved $8 billion and thenturns out, oh, actually it looks
like it was $8 million.
And, like I said before, whenthe lie gets out, or you could
say the clerical era gets out,how many people are going to
(21:05):
hear the correction?
I don't think a lot of peopleare going to hear the correction
and I somewhat believe thatthat is the point of this entire
to throw out a bunch of stuffto whether it's true or not, to
(21:28):
still have the claim lingeringout there as if it's true,
because most people are notgoing to look and see if the
claim is accurate.
Claim is accurate.
(21:51):
Now I've said a few times andI'll probably say it a million
times more when this companyactually goes through and names
names and says this organizationcommitted this fraud, these
people did it, this is how muchthey used, then that will be a
(22:17):
shot at reality.
What has been happening is, elonwill go on his platform.
Elon will go on his platform,post a spreadsheet that God
knows where it comes from, orsomebody supposedly working in
the organization will postsomething on X, the platform
(22:42):
formerly known as twitter.
Elon will then repost it andthen say something like truth.
A few hours or so later, ajournalist will grab it, look at
it and say well, actually thatthat this turns out that that's
(23:04):
not true.
They said $8 billion, it'sactually $8 million, etc.
And they'll say oh, yes, yes,yes, yes, this was a clerical
era.
Now you're supposed to be incharge of finding fraud, waste
and abuse.
How are you making all of theseclerical errors?
(23:28):
How are we having to have andhave this conversation again
about something is being fraud?
And then you go look it up andit's not fraud.
It's literally a line item thatwas approved by the state
department.
You say something is fraud.
You look it up it's a line itemthat was approved by Congress.
And I've been saying this adnauseum, because you don't like
(23:54):
a program that was approved byCongress does not mean it's
fraud.
It just means it's a programyou don't like that was approved
by Congress the that thechevron deference case, um gave
a lot of organizationsbureaucratic authority and
because legislators don't wantto legislate, that they kind of
(24:16):
gave up a lot of their power.
And an organization sends moneysomewhere and you don't like it
does not make it illegalbecause you don't like it.
That's not how this thing works.
But the thing is there's aplaying around with terms here
(24:39):
and I think this playing aroundwith terms is being done on
purpose.
I also think this throwingthings against the window and
seeing what sticks is being doneon purpose as well these
(25:05):
fraudulent supposedly programsthat they've been, you know,
they've been rooting out, etc.
Speaker 11 (25:07):
Except for the fact that you know all of the
programs that they've suggestedthus far are like well, it's not
really fraud.
It might just be something youdon't like, but it's not
actually fraudulent.
In any case, they finally putout a spreadsheet and, lo and
behold, even the spreadsheetthey put out was blatantly wrong
on any number of levels.
Here's a little Bloomberg Newsreport breaking some of the
numbers down.
Speaker 12 (25:25):
What is the number that we have calculated, and
we'll put this into the contextof the $55 billion that Elon is,
you know, taking credit for.
Yeah, so the Doge on itswebsite says that they've saved
about $55 billion for UStaxpayers, but when you go ahead
and add up all of the contractsthat they list online that they
say they've canceled, it onlycomes to about $8.6 billion.
(25:48):
So you know just a smallfraction of that overall $55
billion.
Also, in going through allthese contracts, it's clear that
there was at least one majorclerical error.
There was one contract that waslisted for $8 billion.
That was actually only an $8million contract, so they had
listed it so about $16 billion,but when you take that away,
it's a much smaller figure.
This is, you know, sort ofreally been a key tension point,
(26:10):
as Doge has gone into federalagencies and started slashing
spending and firing staff.
Of that they said look, this isthe most transparent effort
that's out there.
You can go and read all thisinformation, but when it's both
riddled with errors and thereisn't oversight that normally,
you know, is layered abovefederal agencies, things like
watchdogs and the Office ofGovernment Ethics Doge really
operates independently of thatand that has raised a lot of
(26:32):
concerns, both from members ofCongress as well as other
federal government watchers.
Speaker 11 (26:37):
So it's kind of insulting to all of our
intelligence that they put outthis spreadsheet.
They're like, oh, we save $55billion.
Ok.
Then you literally just add upthe column and it doesn't add up
to 55 billion, it adds up to16.6 billion.
Then you sort by which you knowmany people online and also
reporters at New York Times andwhatever.
Then you sort by like okay,well, what's the biggest program
(26:59):
that you cut here?
And the one that rises to thetop is this $8 billion program.
But then you dig into that andit turns out that is a complete
error.
It's actually not $8 billion.
It's $8 million.
A little bit of a differencethere.
And now your spreadsheet, whichyou claimed, indicated savings
of $55 billion, which onlyactually added up to $16.6
(27:23):
billion, which only actuallyadded up to $16.6 billion, now
only totals to $8.6 billion.
So one of the sleuths onlinewho was digging into this let's
put this up on the screenindicates that with that $8
billion to $8 million thing,apparently there was originally
some typo on the contract, sothe contract value was listed at
$8 billion rather than $8million.
Then it was corrected.
(27:43):
The real TCV I don't know whatthat stands for was $8 million,
corrected in January.
Three years.
Only $3.5 million was awarded.
So it was very easy to discern,as someone even here on the
outside was doing, that this wasnot the correct amount of money
.
And then, in addition, ryan,even with the $8 million amount,
(28:04):
if they've already spent $3.5million, then you're not saving
even an entire $8 million.
And that rationale actuallyapplies to all of the other
things that were in thisspreadsheet.
So basically, it's a completeexaggeration.
Parts of it are just completelywrong, and many of these things
(28:25):
too.
As I said before, they framethem as like fraud, but in
reality it's just stuff thatElon doesn't particularly like.
Speaker 6 (28:33):
And it was Customs and Border Protection, I think.
Speaker 11 (28:36):
Yes, that's right.
Speaker 6 (28:37):
So people also need to use their common sense and
when we think through thesenumbers, Customs and Border
Protection's entire budget isnot that high Like it's.
I don't know offhand exactlywhat it is.
You can Google that and find it.
Eight billion would be a hugeportion of their like entire
(29:00):
budget, and this was like someDEI thing or something.
Speaker 11 (29:02):
Yeah, some DEI training or whatever.
It was Something like that,something like that.
Speaker 6 (29:05):
Yeah, then, you have to ask yourself what are the
chances that, like two-thirds ofthe border protectionist budget
is this dei training.
You don't even have to then likegoogle and like, follow the
charts and the contracts all theway back to the source.
You can just be like.
That's probably not true, andthere are a lot of people that
are frustrated that musk isn'tgetting all the flowers that he
deserves for this.
I think what they need to thinkabout is that probably not true
(29:26):
, and there are a lot of peoplethat are frustrated that musk
isn't getting all the flowersthat he deserves for this.
I think what they need to thinkabout is that he's a government
worker and if you think aboutit from the perspective of
people who don't necessarilytrust all government workers
without having their work beverified and checked and don't
necessarily trust themotivations that they have
(29:47):
because they have their owninterests at play play, any
government agency that made thetypes of errors that Doge is
making at this point would beconsidered waste, fraud and
abuse of the most obvious scale.
Yes, and you would say, well,cut this one.
(30:09):
They don't have people who canfact check their work before
putting it up to the public tolook at.
Speaker 11 (30:15):
Or who can use basic common sense.
Speaker 6 (30:18):
And who appear to be lying like, actively lying,
about what they have found Now.
At the same time, I don't wantto do much taunting of their
inability to find savings.
I don't want them to get moreserious about life, to then go
crazy, be like all right, fine,entire Department of Education
Nuked, gone, which is not legal.
Like you, you want to do that.
You got to go through congressbut anyway.
(30:39):
So think about the doge peopleand if you're if you're on this
side that thinks all governmentis like corrupt and and wasteful
, think about doge as what it is.
It is a government agency thatis in competition with these
other departments for moneybecause it is run by a
government contractor who wantsto go to Mars and needs federal
(31:03):
resources to do that.
Speaker 11 (31:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (31:06):
And so that agency has every incentive to tell you
that all this other spending iswasteful and we need to suppress
it so that we can and this iswhat you'll eventually hear so
that we can invest, you know,trillions in this project to go
to Mars.
Speaker 11 (31:22):
That's exactly right , and I do think that that I'm
reading his biography right now.
The Walter Isaacson one and youknow have been trying to
research this creature, who isnow in charge of all of us, and
I do think that that is like hisprimary driving goal, which
sounds I mean, it sounds sort ofinsane.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
At least it's a goal.
Speaker 11 (31:41):
He has a point in himself the savior of humanity.
He believes the thing that weshould be driving.
That's exactly right.
Savior of human consciousness.
He believes the thing we shouldbe driving towards is being an
interplanetary species.
He talks about this all thetime and you know, when he
started SpaceX it really was asort of preposterous boondoggle,
(32:01):
but he does it anyway.
He's able to persist, he's ableto get billions of dollars
already in federal governmentcontracts.
And you know you should takenote of the fact that you've got
SpaceX engineers now in at theFAA.
Well, the FAA had beeninvestigating Elon and SpaceX
for one of their launches thatcame apart midair, which caused
(32:22):
huge damage.
I mean, they had to scramble,they had to reroute some 12
commercial flights, it wasactually very dangerous, and so
that agency was investigatinghim.
Now he's got SpaceX engineerswho were there inside.
I have a feeling thatinvestigation isn't going to go
very far and they're making cutsat NASA.
Well, guess what?
Again, if you strip down thecapacity of the government,
(32:45):
suddenly you need SpaceX evenmore than they already do.
And I do think a big part ofhis rationale and motivation
here is basically like herealized he needed the nearly
limitless resources of thefederal government treasury to
pursue his goal for humanity ofputting us all on Mars, and that
(33:05):
is a lot of what is drivingthis, and he sort of latched on
to this you know darkenlightenment, like Curtis
Yarvin oh, we need a CEOdictator thing because it helps
him, it enables him in that goal, so it's a convenient ideology
for him to get what he wants.
And so all of these littlepiddling, cuts and things that
are going on like that is notthe ballgame.
(33:26):
I don't even think you shouldreally consider what's happening
right now as any attempt atcutting government or efficiency
.
It's about consolidating poweron behalf of Elon Musk and his
goals, and one of the ways weknow that is because, listen,
they put out their spreadsheet,which claimed 55 billion, which
only actually showed 8 billionin cuts.
The government accountabilityoffice, on an annual basis,
(33:49):
finds some $150 billion inimproper in actual fraud, not
just things that somebody theredidn't like, but in actual
fraudulent payments.
So we have a government agencythat does this stuff.
Now, if you want to beef thatup and make it more effective,
fine, go to it.
But you also know, ryan, thatthey're not actually interested
in like effective andaccountable government, because
(34:11):
one of Trump's very first moveswas to fire almost all of the
inspectors general that aresupposed to oversee these
agencies and make sure that theyare being run effectively and
without corruption and graft,and which have been, you know,
have actually done someimportant investigations for
journalists like yourself intopresidents on both the
Democratic and Republican side.
Speaker 6 (34:31):
Right and cutting a tiny amount of subscriptions to
like Thomson Reuters andBloomberg, like bond markets for
regulators, so like SEC, ftc,cftc, cfpb these people are now
they don't have access to, likeyou, that Musk is not the first
person to have thesegenerational megalomaniacal
(34:59):
views of present humanity versusfuture humanity.
I think it was Kim Jong Il, kimJong Un's grandfather, but it
might have been Chairman Mao,who said, when he was confronted
with the vast amount ofcasualties that were involved in
the creation of the communistproject, either in China or
North Korea, I forget which oneUm, he said basically, you know
(35:23):
what is.
You can find this quote outthere somewhere.
He's like what is 50 milliondeaths when we are fighting for
untold billions of people in thefuture?
Like Mao or Kim Jong-il,whichever one it was, was
arguing we are fighting for analmost infinite number of future
(35:43):
people who will live in thecommunist paradise that we
produce through this revolution.
So how can you tell me thatit's a problem that 50 million
people, innocent people, diedright?
50 million against billions, soall the people of the earth
against the infinite expansionof consciousness yes
(36:06):
interplanetarily.
Speaker 11 (36:08):
Those things like if you believe, if that's your
ethic, we are not the ones thatmatter and this is the type of
ideology that has been verypervasive in silicon valley in
recent years that, like sam bankand bankman freed um, was an
adherent of this um effectivealtruist ideology, which argues
exactly that.
(36:29):
Now I don't think elonnecessarily thinks of himself
exactly as an effective altruist, because they were concerned
specifically about thedevelopment of ai destroying
humanity, which seems to be likeactually a reasonable thing to
be concerned about also, they'remore earthly based yes, um, but
elon has a version of that andexact does exactly the calculus
that you are describing right,which you can see quickly how
(36:51):
that leads to justifying anysort of level of death, cruelty,
et cetera in the short term.
So when you look, for example,at, like you know, cutting USAID
funding, so now you've got kidsin Africa who are going to die
of HIV and AIDS, it's like, ohwell, that's small potatoes in
the grand scheme of, you know,generations and generations,
(37:11):
tens of thousands of years ofhuman civilization.
So Elon's perfectly willing topay that price, let alone any
sort of law breaking.
He doesn't care about it.
None of these CEOs care aboutlaw breaking.
To them, that's just the costof doing business and that's
what.
Move fast and break thingsUltimately.
That's core to that ethos isbasically break whatever laws,
(37:31):
do whatever you need to do, soit'll work out in the end.
So, yeah, it is the type ofideology that intellectually
intelligent people can use tojustify absolute monstrosities
on a world historic level.
Speaker 6 (37:56):
Yeah, whereas from.
Actually, if you want to goafter USAID for being a tool of,
like American imperialismthrough a soft power, okay,
that's great, that's a greatpoint.
Speaker 11 (38:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (38:01):
I'm not sure that's the one they're making.
Speaker 11 (38:02):
Yeah, when you're taking it and putting it under
Marco Rubio's State Departmentsomething tells me that's not
really the end goal.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
Let's take a visit to this president that a lot of
people may remember.
He was president so long agoand that was Joseph R Biden.
So a US appeals court hasblocked the Biden save plan for
student loans.
So a US appeals court onTuesday blocked the Biden
administration's student loanrelief plan, known as SAVE, a
move that will likely lead tohigher monthly payments for
(38:39):
millions of borrowers.
The 8th US Circuit Court ofAppeals sided with seven
Republican-led states that filedlawsuits against the US
Department of Education's plan.
The states had argued that theformer President, joe Biden,
lacked the authority toestablish the student loan
relief plan.
The GOP states argued thatBiden would save was essentially
(39:02):
trying to find a roundabout wayto forgive student debt after
the Supreme Court blocked hissweeping debt cancellation plan
in June of 2023.
Save, or the saving on ValueEducation Plan, came with two
provisions that the lawsuitstargeted.
It had lowered monthly paymentsthan any other federal student
(39:25):
loan repayment plan, and it ledto quicker debt erasure for
those with a small business.
Implementing SAVE could cost asmuch as $475 billion over a
decade.
An analysis by the Universityof Pennsylvania Penn Wharton
Budget Model found that made ita target for Republicans, who
(39:47):
argued that taxpayers should notbe asked to subsidize the loan
payments of those who havebenefited from higher education.
However, consumer advocates saythat most families need to
borrow to send their children tocollege today, that they
require more affordable ways torepay their debt.
Research shows that studentloans make it harder for people
to start businesses, buy a houseand have children.
(40:11):
The court's ruling comes at thesame time that Republicans are
floating proposals that couldraise the federal student loan
bills for millions in borrowers.
The student average loanborrower could pay nearly $200 a
month more if the GOP plans toreshape student loan repayments
succeed.
(40:32):
According to an early estimateby the institute for college
access and success, republicanlawmakers want to use the extra
revenue to fund president donaldtrump's tax cuts for the top of
the american uh financialechelons.
(40:53):
I was joking with one of myfriends about this meme that I
saw online and it just saidsomething like believing that a
small group of billionaires aresuddenly working tirelessly for
the benefit of the working classreally does require a
spectacular level of stupid.
Now I was joking with one ofthem when I said I think it's
(41:16):
because we were raised on Batmanand now Iron man, that we
believe that billionaires aregoing to come and saved us.
I watched these games for years, from Warren Buffett to Bill
Gates to Charles and David Kochto Shelton Adelson, and I
fundamentally believe that theyare not going to your
(41:39):
politicians because they arealtruistic and they are not
trying to save you from anything.
They are not trying to save you.
They're actually fighting forownership over you.
They are buying your electedofficials.
They are poisoning your water.
They are poisoning your food.
They are poisoning your air.
They are buying your electedofficials.
They are poisoning your water.
They are poisoning your food.
They are poisoning your air.
They are sending your childrento fight in wars for minerals,
(42:02):
oils, etc.
Etc.
So I say that also to say thatwhen you have to look for news
organizations, you have to lookfor news organizations.
(42:38):
Look at news organizations thatare owned by billionaires and
all the pundits are millionaires.
You need to be fully aware thatwhat you are hearing is what
the millionaires and thebillionaires want you to hear.
I think this is time for us tolook into certain things, like
the famous book by linguisticsprofessor and activist, noam
Chomsky.
Manufacturing.
Consent is a good book, and Ithink this will let you know how
sometimes what you think youare hearing in the free press is
actually not so free.
The narrative has already beenset inside of a particular
(42:58):
framework that you are allowedto argue.
In a rare pushback againstPresident Trump, a coalition of
congressional Republicans fromthe New York area rebuked the
president for cuts to a federalprogram that administrators say
helps to aid emergency workersand others suffering from toxins
(43:20):
related to the terrorist attack.
Back in september 11th, in aletter to president trump, seven
republicans urged trump, as anative new yorker who lived in
new york city as it recoveredfrom the 9-11 terrorist attack,
to reverse the cuts to the WorldCenter Health Program and
rehire staff members who werefired several days ago.
(43:42):
They echoed an immediate outcryfrom the Democratic lawmakers
and advocates when the cuts weremade, beginning last week as a
part of Elon Musk's so-calledDepartment of Government
Offenses, cr DOGE, which iscutting the spending and
limiting jobs across a wideswath of federal agencies.
On Monday, new York'sDemocratic Senator, chuck
(44:02):
Schumer, kristen Gillibrand,issued a letter demanding the
cuts be restored.
Kristen Gillibrand issued aletter demanding the cuts be
restored.
The initial recognition fromRepublicans was more muted, but
Wednesday it became clear thatthe blowback to the firings was
widespread.
The Republican resistance grewmore vocal, especially from
(44:27):
districts in and around New YorkCity where the memory of 9-11
still is very powerful.
This staff reduction will onlymake it more difficult for the
program to survive and for theprogram to supervise its
contracts and to care for itsmembers who are compromised and
they are made up of brave menand women who ran towards danger
(44:49):
and helped in the aftermath ofthe 9-11 terrorist attack.
It was largely written byRepresentatives Andrew R
Guerrero, a Republican from LongIsland, and co-signed by five
of the members from the New YorkRepresentatives Chris Smith
from New Jersey, the New Yorkrepresentatives Chris Smith from
(45:10):
New Jersey.
The New York co-signers wereNick Lalito, mike Laura or Mike
Lawler, I should say ClonadaTenney, nicole Malakitis and
Nick Langworthy, all supportersof President Trump.
Of course, they all had to havedifficult names, so you could
hear me trying to figure out howto pronounce them.
(45:31):
The world trade center healthprograms 90 members staff was
reduced by about 20 percent and16 promotionary staff members
who oversees theadministration's program were
fired and others took buyouts.
According to congressionalrepresentatives, terminated
employees and advocates for theprogram.
(45:52):
The program is overseen by thecenter for disease control and
prevention and the department ofhealth and human services,
which was recently taken over byrobert f kennedy jr, who trump
named as the secretary.
The cuts were a part of awidespread agency layoffs in
which several thousandsprovisionary health and human
(46:12):
service workers were terminatedlast week.
York Fire Department thatcompares the indices rates of
illnesses in their ranks withthose other of other urban
(46:35):
departments a grant that wasdeemed unnecessary and
non-extensial.
This could not be further fromthe truth, the letter said.
Dr David J Prizet, chiefmedical officer for the fire
department, said on Wednesdaythat this study is critical
because without it, we cannotdefinitely prove that the health
(46:57):
impact of the attacks relatedto the condition.
Advocates say the cuts woulddelay a new enrollment and make
fewer staffers available toaddress patients' problems and
assist with diagnosis treatments.
(47:17):
So there we go, there we go,there we go.
The program, which now helps137,000 members, was created by
Congress in 2011 as a part ofthe James Zadruga 9-11 Health
Compensation Act, to provide atreatment for emergency workers,
cleanup crews and those livingin lower Manhattan who were
sickened by airborne toxins atground zero.
(47:43):
Ending the show today with ourblast from the intellectual past
.
Ending the show today with ourblast from the intellectual past
.
We're going to go to nine yearsago at least, when the video
was posted Classroom Hours.
Noam Chomsky on privatization.
Thank you for tuning in andwe'll see you on the next
episode.
Speaker 3 (48:02):
There's a standard way of privatizing, something
Like when Margaret Thatcherwanted to privatize the British
railroads.
The technique was defund them.
And then, when they don't work,people get angry and say let's
do something.
So you hand it over to privateenterprise, which totally ruins
them.
And then the state has to comeback in because to try to
(48:24):
reconstruct it somehow it'sknown as privatization, the uh
the.
And that's exactly what'shappening with social.
Somehow it's known asprivatization.
And that's exactly what'shappening with Social Security.
It's in good shape.
Now, when you read in thenewspapers as you do, that the
big problem of the deficit isentitlements, social Security,
medicare, medicaid SocialSecurity is a zero problem.
(48:46):
For one thing, it doesn't addanything to the deficit because
people pay for it, and foranother thing, it's in pretty
good shape.
Certainly, the last of thefamous baby boomers will be gone
before there's any problem init.
That's why there's a bigpayroll tax increase 30 years
(49:07):
ago to ensure that.
But if it's defunded it'll be aproblem.
Then there'll be pressure toprivatize it.
That's a huge bonanza for thefinancial institutions.
They'll put trillions ofdollars into their hands which
they can then use to make a tonof money with risky investments
(49:28):
which are therefore veryprofitable and when it tanks as
it will.
When the economy tanks, there'sa technique you pick up your
copies of Milton Friedman andHayek and Ayn Rand and you run
to the nanny state that you'venurtured and you make sure that
they bail you out.
That's really existingcapitalism and it means that the
(49:51):
scam can go on Like takeprivatizing schools.
What's the point of privatizingschools?
Well, you know, the idea is toinstill in people the idea that
all you care about is yourself.
So I don't happen to havechildren of school age.
So therefore, according to theideology that's implanted in you
(50:13):
, I'm not supposed to carewhether the kid down the street
has school to go to.
So I don't want to pay taxesand I don't want to cut taxes
because I don't care if that kidgoes to school and if you know,
since I have enough money, Icould send my kid to private
school if I wanted to.
So who cares if they're publicschools?
So we should privatize schoolsto eliminate the conception that
(50:35):
we should care if some otherkid goes to school, which
everybody has.
You've got to drive it out oftheir heads.
The same is true I don't knowif it's happening here of
efforts to privatize pension andsecurity systems.
What's the point of that, likein the US, these big efforts to
try to privatize Social Security?
I mean, financially speaking,it's ridiculous.
(50:56):
It's a huge cost and everythingelse, but there are reasons for
it.
Social Security is based on anunacceptable principle, namely
that each person that you shouldcare if the disabled widow
across town survives and you'renot supposed to care about that.
You're supposed to care aboutwhether you have enough pairs of
(51:17):
shoes and stuff like that.
You know enough cars and videogames or whatever it is.
That's all you're supposed tocare about.
So you, you've got to privatizeSocial Security.
Also, another advantage toprivatizing Social Security is
that it has the brilliantconsequence of turning working
people against their owninterests.
Because if your pension is tiedup in stocks, you want to make
(51:41):
sure those stocks go up, and theway those stocks go up is by
cutting wages and reducingworking conditions and sending
jobs to Chinese sweatshops andso on.
So as a working person, youhave to be committed to
undermining your own interestsand that's important.
So for reasons like that, youwant to privatize Social
(52:03):
Security and privatize water andschools and everything else.
By definition, privatizationundercuts democracy.
It takes something out of thepublic arena and puts it into
the hands of unaccountableprivate tyrannies that are
created and supported by thestate, which is what
corporations are.
You remember all thisprivatization you hear about?
(52:24):
It's supposed to be veryefficient and by some measure,
you know, by some ludicrousmeasure it probably is efficient
.
You know, then, they're part ofthe reason why it's efficient
is you don't count the costs.
Okay, so, like, if you exposethis, they're talking about
privatizing the MTA around.
You know the publictransportation thing?
All right, suppose youprivatize the system.
(52:45):
You and I know how to make itmore efficient.
By the economist's measures,you throw out union workers and
you get temps for half the price.
And if there's an accidentbecause they never had any
training, well, it's just.
People are getting killed.
You don't measure that.
And you cut off the so-calledunprofitable bus routes okay, or
subway routes, like you don'tmake a lot of money at 11 pm,
(53:07):
okay, so let's throw them out.
Well, suppose somebody's stucksomewhere at 11 pm and wants to
get home?
Oh well, you know it'sentrepreneurial values.
You know, let them hire alimousine or something you know.
And in ways like that you canmake the system more efficient
simply by transferring the costsover to the public where you
(53:27):
don't measure the costs.
Okay, so you know, it looksnice and efficient on some
economist's paper, but of courseyou just there's huge costs
transferred over the publicwhich you don't measure.
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