It's A Saturday Morning Bonus Podcast For 07-26-25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Michael Berry Show. Welcome to our weekly Saturday podcast,
a bonus podcast that does not air during the week.
This week, it's a speech from Eric Prince. You'll probably
remember him, American businessman, former Navy Seal officer, and founder
of the private security firm did you say it before

(00:22):
I did? Blackwater? He is known for his deep experience
in global security. Controversial figure, he explores how artificial intelligence
is reshaping the future of warfare, from the battlefield to
national defense strategies. This is a speech he gave at

(00:43):
Hillsdale College on AI and what lies ahead for the
future of war. Surely you've thought about how AI is
affecting our lives, whether your job will be redundant, whether
you'll be laid off because of it, whether someone you
love will lose their job because AI will replace them.

(01:04):
But how about in war. Wow, Now it starts to
get real. Now it starts to get real, disturbing, interesting, frightening,
even could alter the very world we live in as
war can do. Shouldn't need to say it, but will

(01:24):
when we air and amplify the words of other people.
We trust that you're an adult. We don't necessarily agree
one hundred percent with one hundred percent of guests that
we have on the air. We believe in the marketplace
of free ideas. So while I may offer you some sushi,
I don't particularly care for it myself. We offer ideas

(01:48):
to expand your mind, to provide an opportunity to think,
to consider, to ponder, and so in this case we
hope you will do so again. As always, I do
love to hear from you. Websites Michael Berryshow dot com.
You can send me an email directly there. You can
buy show gear while you're there, and you can sign
up for our Daily Blast, which Daryl Kunda curates and

(02:10):
we spend a lot of effort on and it is
growing dramatically because of that. It's an update on what
we're doing. Stories, we're talking about, clips, memes, you name
it all right, Eric Prince.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
They wanted me to talk about AI in the future
of warfare. I think it's important to look back to
enable us to look forward, and like, let's start where
we are right now and what's happened in the Ukraine
Russia war has massively accelerated warfare in a way that

(02:44):
I think it's the greatest advancement or it's the greatest
swing in the pendulum really since Jingis Khan puts stirrups
on horses. Now, if you go back that far, I
think there was twelve twelve eighteen or so. He set
off literally the Mongol Empire when he was done, went

(03:08):
from the Pacific to Hungary, and he mauled and terrorized
his way through millions of millions of people and millions
and millions of square miles of terrain.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
What stirrups on.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
Horses did is it allowed instead of walking into battle
or riding and having to get off and fight dismounted,
it allowed people to stand up in the saddle, engage
at a high rate of fire with a bone and
arrow while riding forward and also riding backwards. And so
now you could war so accelerated. Instead of moving at

(03:50):
three to five miles an hour, now you can move
at twenty and thirty miles an hour. And the Mongol armies,
of course, when he moved to one hundred and fifty
thousand people soldiers, each of them had three horses, so
you could ride hard, switch them out, ride hard again.
And so he was moving one hundred plus miles a day,

(04:12):
and he just out maneuvered and wrecked his way through societies.
That's what's happened.

Speaker 3 (04:19):
Now.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
You haven't seen the full effects yet, but I'm telling
you that level of change and black Swan event is
possible because what's happened in Ukraine when.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
The Russian Army.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
Rolled in in February of twenty twenty two. I say,
the only smart thing that Zelensky did the entire war
is he opened up the armories of Ukraine to the citizens,
and the citizens took up arms and defended their country,
whether it's a rocket propelled grenade, an anti tank missile,
a sniper rifle, whatever that was. But the citizen innovation

(05:00):
stop them, and then it started. Then the innovation really started.
If you think about Ukraine was probably responsible for forty
to fifty percent of the science and weapon innovation of
the Soviet Union. Why because Ukraine was on that East
West rub point and you had a lot of European
influence in Ukraine. Aircraft engines, rockets, precision missiles, ballistic missiles.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
All came from Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (05:29):
And so now you had desperate people trying to defend
their area. And we're not going to wait into the
politics of the Ukraine War. I'll get to that at
the end with questions. So I'm going to talk for
about a half an hour and we'll do Q and
A at the end. But these smart innovative people said,
we got to fight all these Russian tanks and stop

(05:49):
this massive onslaught. So they started taking hobbyist drones. And
they first started with grenades, maybe the actual grenade of
an RPG, the shape chart that you can drive into
a tank and clock it off. And now it's to
this point where they take a three D printer print
a canister about this size with a copper cone on

(06:12):
the end. Why the copper cone, because you clack off
the explosive, the explosive wave goes through it turns that
copper cone into a copper slug going about eight thousand
feet per second, and it goes right through that tank armor,
even into the back. It's called the bustle of a
T seventy two. So that little FPV drone, little racing
drone wearing the goggles.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
We can boost the range out.

Speaker 2 (06:35):
To fifteen kilometers so that each one of you in
this room can carry six of them on your back.
So imagine the democratization of precision strike that that enables
and it's cheap.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
Right.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
You take a five to eight hundred dollars drone, you
the bottomize, you put some different software in it, three
D printed canister, and also you have an extra shell.

Speaker 3 (06:57):
That you fill with.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
With steel shot, and now you have a very potent
anti tank, anti personnel weapon which costs you all up
probably three grand versus one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
for a javelin missile from raytheon with a two hundred
thousand dollars launcher. So that's the kind of pendulum swing
you're seeing. And that's before you even apply AI. The

(07:22):
thing that the Russians are very good at is electronic warfare.
A lot of American stuff javelin missile, high mars copperhead missiles,
which is a guide at artillery shell. It works for
a week or two, and the Russians figured out how
to jam the navigation or the command link and the

(07:45):
stuff goes blind. And so the most leading edge innovation
at the bleeding edge of battle is really on the
Ukraine front right now, and it's literally the people operating
out of their garages figuring out how to survive and
innovate as compared to the hyper bloated Pentagon, which has

(08:05):
not really delivered a lot of innovation and certainly good
value of late and so even into that Russian brick
wall of electronic warfare, they've developed another thing called a
you've heard maybe of a of a tow missile. It's
an old American missile from the eighties, tube launched, optically tracked,

(08:29):
wire guided.

Speaker 3 (08:30):
It's a little fiber optic that pays.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
Out of the back of it as the missile's on
its way. Now you can put that little canister of
fiber optic on the drone and fly it in a
zero radio, zero communication environment out to ten kilometers.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
Literally, if you had an open.

Speaker 2 (08:46):
Window, you could fly it deep inside this building.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
To hunt.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
And so that's the kind of change in warfare that's
accelerated and democratized precision strike. What you see awe in
Syria just a few weeks ago, that was not some
spontaneous jihadi uprising that was actually organized and sponsored by
Turkish intelligence and Turkish special operations equipped with small, simple drones,

(09:16):
and they smashed their way through a significant Soviet era
supplied Russian supplied military of the Syrian Arab Army, and
they conquered it. So you're going to see that kind
of change now even worse if you apply and the
AI is being applied already on the edge, meaning you

(09:38):
can put the processing of imagery teach the device to think,
and that's also been done and I've had teams operating
in Ukraine learning trying to extract the right lessons learned
for this. On the ground and maritime side, you saw

(10:00):
the jet skis that had significant damage in the in
the Western Black Sea. Imagine taking a jet ski, putting
a NAB system on it with a payload, and you
send three against a Russian vessel. One of them is
going to get through. It's this significant value uh payback

(10:22):
for the for the cost of doing those jet skis.
And now literally that AI is put onto onto effectively
water drones like that, or air aircraft or or small drones,
meaning you can give it an opt an image capture
where you teach it to drive to a certain area
and look to say that's a truck, that's a tank,

(10:42):
that's a ship, and at that point, the the the
jet ski, whatever the device is is on its way.
It's thinking for itself, guiding itself in for the kill.
So what does this mean to modern warfare? It means
our trillions of dollars of installed capacity of US stuff

(11:03):
is in high danger of being obsolescent. Anything that can
be located can be targeted by not tens, but hundreds
of devices. And you know, quantity has what did silent say?
Quantity has a quality all its own. You throw enough

(11:24):
of low cost missiles at it, it really becomes a problem.
As you've seen in the Red Sea. You have the Hutis,
a Iranian sponsored Shia surrogate operating right along the coast
on the Red Sea, one of the major shipping ways,
and they've been shooting suicide drones, cruise missiles, even ballistic

(11:49):
missiles at ships, dozens hundreds of ships. The US Navy
acknowledges that they have fired a billion dollars worth of
US missiles at those incoming devices to try to shoot
them down.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
That's a false number.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
It's more like four or five billion, because the Navy
accounts for what they bought it for back in nineteen
ninety five, not what they have to replace it for
in twenty twenty five or twenty twenty eight, by the
time the vendor would actually deliver.

Speaker 3 (12:17):
So you have a huge asymmetry.

Speaker 2 (12:22):
Iranians, through the Hooties, are shooting a twenty thousand dollars
drone at our billion dollar warship, and the Navy is
shooting that twenty thousand dollars drone down with not one,
but two one million dollar standard missiles.

Speaker 3 (12:38):
And so.

Speaker 2 (12:40):
It really speaks to the value of some new leadership
at the Pentagon, because we are really on the wrong
path in terms of procurement and mentality and discipline.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
A tragedy happened even a couple of.

Speaker 2 (12:54):
Weeks ago where the Navy shot down one of its
own airplanes.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Did you hear about that?

Speaker 2 (13:02):
Well, now only did they shoot one down, they having
shot the first one down, they fired missiles at the
second guy. He saw the missiles launch, I saw the
message traffic from him, and he got on the after
burner and and got away, and the missile ran out
of juice uh and and hit.

Speaker 3 (13:19):
The hit the water underneath him again.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
And those aircraft were not far off flying some patrol.
They were literally in the traffic pattern, both of them
on final approach to land on the carrier, and the
Navy still shut down their own stuff. So the the
the misalignment of the Pentagon and the the the adriftness

(13:47):
of discipline, recruiting, the diversity, equity inclusion stuff is really
distracted from the Navy or the military focusing on lethality
and merit.

Speaker 3 (13:58):
And I'm optimist.

Speaker 2 (14:00):
Think that Secretary of Hegseth is gonna push hard to
put them back on track.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
I did not apply for a DoD job, but there
are forty two some boards that.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
Oversee the Pentagon, and I did volunteer to take on
all forty two of those boards and help them restaff
and refocus.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
On lethality and merit.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
So what does this future of warfare look like? You know,
as you as you look at even what's happening in Ukraine.
First of all, don't listen to the idiot politicians and say, yeah,
we've degraded the Russian army.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
No, we have chewed up a lot of material.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
The Ukrainians have killed a lot of people unnecessarily. It's
a really dumb war. The Russian army has gotten infinitely smarter.
If you shot at a Russian with artillery in March
or April of twenty twenty two, it would take them

(15:14):
an hour and a half to shoot back accurately.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
Now about two minutes.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
Which means if you shoot at them, you better be
in your vehicle and haul an ass because they're going
to get you otherwise. So it is and really, and
I think this speaks to old weapons new weapons. The
tactics or sorry, the tools may change, but a lot

(15:41):
of the tactics remain the same. Because you know, if
you've heard of the Maxim machine gun, which was literally
Hiram Maxim, really the first widely fielded machine gun in
the colonial wars of the late nineteenth century to World
War two, just what the even used by the Germans
for a while. The Ukrainians had tens of thousands of

(16:04):
those left over in inventory from the old pre Soviet
Russian army, and they've wheeled all those out because they've
been buying eight millimeter ammunition for those machine guns. Why,
because they're making quadmounts of Maxim machine guns to shoot
down incoming drones.

Speaker 3 (16:23):
Again, old made new.

Speaker 2 (16:27):
And it's not just in the Ukraine theater where the
drones have been a problem. The IDF in Israel has
had a hell of.

Speaker 3 (16:37):
A problem with the small, cheap drones.

Speaker 2 (16:40):
Literally, fifty percent of the small, low cost drones launched
by Hezbola coming across.

Speaker 3 (16:46):
We're getting in and hitting their targets in Israel at
tactical level or even at strategic level.

Speaker 2 (16:54):
Look, the Israelis have done a magnificent job with iron
dome and the high altitude defense, but the super low
like meter off the ground drones were really causing mayhem.
And again coming back to innovation and adapting to those realities.
My friend is the kind of the leading demolition contractor

(17:18):
for quarries in Israel, and he was just disgusted of
seeing attack after attack after attack, and so.

Speaker 3 (17:26):
What did he do.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
He drove to the Israeli Air Force Museum and he
dragged an old sixty one vulcan cannon okay, which is
a six barrel twenty milimeter cannon off of a tank
that was sitting at the museum that hadn't.

Speaker 3 (17:40):
Been used in forty years.

Speaker 2 (17:42):
And in a month lobottomized it, put a Tesla battery
pack on the system, with a new fire control system
and a new infrared camera. And you know what that
thing is sitting on post just inside the Israel border
up by Lebanon on the coast. I saw it, and
he's shooting down drones every day when they fire, Innovation

(18:08):
and discipline and focus still matters. So China has an
enormous industrial base, Okay, forty to fifty times.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
The shipbuilding rate that we have.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
Obviously in drones and components, a lot of those things that.

Speaker 3 (18:28):
Hollowed out the Midwest.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
In some i'd say some misguided trade efforts over the
last thirty years have moved all that manufacturing to China.
That has definitely accrued to their advantage. I think it's
very important to understand, you know, World War two. It's
in no way insulting any veterans service, but we lost

(18:54):
while we were still messing around in North Africa, in Algeria,
in Tunisia nineteen forty three, that same February March period,
the Soviets erased eight hundred thousand Germans from the German
order of battle at the Battle of Salgrad. They lost

(19:15):
a million two of their own people doing it. We
lost a total of two hundred and fifty thousand people
in the for the duration of the European theater of operations.
What really helped America, will really helped with the Allies
win World War two, was American industry. If you haven't
read the book, Freedom's Forge. I highly encourage you to

(19:38):
do it. A lot of you are from the Midwest.
I'm from the Midwest from an automotive manufacturing family background.
That makes me really proud to realize all those factories
really cranked out and delivered that kind of capability. It
made it possible for Marshal Zukov of the Soviet Union
to go all the way from Moscow to Berlin with

(19:58):
six hundred thousand vehicle trucks.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
To remember the.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
German army that back then was only about half mechanized.
We made it possible with tens of thousands of aircraft
and hundreds of thousands of vehicles for the Soviets to win.
So our industrial base now is nowhere near what it
needs to be right now to be competitive, and I

(20:23):
think there's some great efforts underway. There's a Reindustrialized conference
that participated in about six months ago.

Speaker 3 (20:29):
They're having another one.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
If you're in the manufacturing space, I think it's a
great time to add plant capacity because there's going to
be I don't know, I feel a much different vibe
and a lot of demand coming back from China. I've
stayed in the manufacturing business ourselves with plants in the
US and in Mexico, and there's just a lot of
volume coming back from Asia AI and battle as you see.

(21:00):
Well now looking back, when you went from from spears, bows,
swords to gunpowder in about eleven or twelve hundred, and
you start getting the match locks and the wheelock muskets,
it literally affected society. Why because now you had to
feel much bigger armies, and you start increasing the sophistication

(21:27):
of the weapon systems.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
And as.

Speaker 2 (21:31):
Small arms became, artillery became big, complex artillery became siege
artillery became then aircraft than ironclad dreadnaughts. The sophistication, the cost,
the size of the state grew unfortunately, and I think
it's as we've seen, our government manages to spend unlimited

(21:57):
amounts of money doing stupid things, especially when it tries
to go to war, and we have politicians that completely
lose lose any idea of what something should cost. And
I guess maybe that's why doctor Arn wanted to be
back here, because I'm at least having come here as
an Austrian economics major. Really, in fact, I remember doctor Ebling,

(22:20):
who's my professor in the day, I like right before
I graduated. He said, mister Prince, you've just come to
a school that accepts no federal funding, and you're going
to join the largest socialist organization in the world. I said, yes, sir,
but it's the only thing that's provided. It's the only
part of the military that's actually specified in the Constitution.
Congress shall raise a navy. But that convergence of trying

(22:49):
to bring some kind of market solutions into a truly
a a Congress and a military industrial complex that's run wild.
The amount of spending and waste that occurred in a
Rock and Afghanistan as you're seeing now with a doze effort.
God blessed Elon Musk for cutting it down across the board.

(23:11):
I hope we have the same opportunity to do something
similar in the Pentagon.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
Yeah, cheer for Elon. I have such.

Speaker 2 (23:20):
Respect for that guy. Or when he looks at spacecraft
and he said, look, we have to lower the cost
of launch to get into altitude by one thousand.

Speaker 3 (23:28):
And fold, and he's well on his way to doing that.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
And you knows, as I built a private military contractor,
I never really intended to be notorious. I started Blackwater
as a way I had. My time in the seal
teams was cut shorter than I wanted to because my
wife got sick at twenty nine and my dad died,
all within a few months of each other. So I
built Blackwater as a way to stay connected to the

(23:54):
seal teams that I liked. I love that that job,
as him laying it out, and I just looked at you.

Speaker 3 (24:03):
Know, what does the military do.

Speaker 2 (24:04):
It recruits, vets, equips, trains, deploys, and supports people to
do a difficult job in a difficult place.

Speaker 3 (24:11):
And we understood it, kind of.

Speaker 2 (24:12):
Like the toylet production system, how to manage our costs
in a way that big government never was able to
do so. And of course the politician's constant answer to
us was you're doing something inherently governmental. And I counter
that by saying, you know, I was born in the
summer of nineteen sixty nine Woodstock and Apollo eleven. And

(24:36):
if you said that fifty years later, after Apollo eleven,
that the only way the US government gets to the
International Space Station is on a Russian rocket or on
a contractor rocket, they would have laughed you out of
Johnson's Space Center. But so elon Musk has done a
great thing in piercing that veil of government inevitability that
only government can do this. And as we reach an

(24:59):
era of AI where that technical acceleration is really occurring
on the leading on the bleeding edge of battle in theaters.

Speaker 3 (25:09):
Like Ukraine, in.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
Israel where you just saw it, in Syria, and stand by,
there will be four or five other significant changes in
countries that occur this year. That level of innovation and
speed is only going to come from the private sector.
It's not going to come from big government labs. It's
not going to come from it's probably not even going

(25:34):
to come from DARPA. It's going to come from smart
people in America operating from their garages with a dream.

Speaker 3 (25:40):
And I really hope that.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
The Trump team is able to change procurement to allow
for the purchase in innovation that the private sector can do,
because otherwise, you know, as you just see the I
don't really fear as much as people get super hYP
hyperventilated about China with AI, China with this many missiles,

(26:06):
all the rest. It still comes down to individual leadership
in the field. At the sergeant level, at the junior
officer level. We have still the very very finest of
those kind of soldiers in the world. And I see
I see units and people from all kinds of places
as part of my professional life. We don't have a

(26:28):
monopoly in innovation, but we have a critical mass of
it and uh and a lot of that still resides
in the military. And if we can and if if
the innovation the private sector can provide that I know
it can provide. And as long as God opens the
just a little bit opens the tap of money redirecting
from the nonsense, hyper overpriced programs that they like to

(26:51):
spend money on, we can certainly not just catch up,
but surpass any capability that we have to worry about
With China.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
I think China.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
If you look at China itself over the last to millennia,
it's been one of the largest GDPs on earth.

Speaker 3 (27:09):
Always the aberration.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
Of the Chinese Communist Party taking over in forty nine
with the Great Lead Forward, killing fifty million people, and
then the Culture Revolution in the late sixties and seventies,
killing many many more and imprisoning and really jamming up
their society. They have turned towards capitalism, but then now
they're turning away from capitalism. Again with was using paying

(27:33):
and the anti corruption campaign, so they definitely have some issues,
and I think it's appropriate policy for the United States,
as we did with the Soviet Union, encouraging people that
want to breathe free in China to.

Speaker 3 (27:46):
Do so and to be able to buck the over arching, overarching.

Speaker 2 (27:51):
Control, because we really have a competition for governance at
this point in the world, because you either have a
Western republic like the United States, with actual value of
individual liberty, choice, free speech, private property, or something where

(28:13):
you're completely subjugated to.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
An all powerful state and actual.

Speaker 2 (28:16):
Rule of the elites, where you give up pretty much
any of your rights to do anything in exchange for
some hopeful promise of some kind of economic growth.

Speaker 3 (28:28):
And I certainly know which one of those I would choose.

Speaker 2 (28:31):
But just because our forefathers we stand on the shoulders
of giants, have been successful for the last I don't know,
we're coming up on two hundred fifty years. It's an
amazing time for a kind of a not a reset,
but a refocus. And I think Trump is off to
a good start for the first couple of weeks, and
I hope that momentum bills as we go towards a

(28:55):
year from this July.

Speaker 3 (28:56):
Think of that two hundred and fifty years. And if we.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Can get back to actually what made America great, which
is our private sector, not government, we will continue to
uh to advance. So again, I'm not so worried about
China militarily. I am worried if we blunder into a dumb,
unnecessary war in Taiwan. The US Navy is not ready

(29:26):
to fight tonight.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
They are they are.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Plagued by bad leadership, a lot of misguided training policies,
and we spent a lot of money and there's not
nearly the readiness that there should be. You know, a
year and a half ago, we lost the ship the
Bonholm Richard. It started, fire started while it was in

(29:52):
dry dock or peer side in repair in San Diego.
It took the Navy and took the crew an hour
and a half to get first water on that fire
on a ship, okay, an active warship. The ship burned
up at the dock because of incompetence of the crew
and the responding fire services.

Speaker 3 (30:13):
That's the kind of nonsense.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
That's a billion, billion and a half dollar rite off,
and that's a big aircraft carrier that's bigger than any
aircraft carrier.

Speaker 3 (30:20):
We used in World War Two, for example.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
So if the Navy runs a traditional playbook, if the
Chinese the Chinese Communist Party, and why do they hate
Taiwan so much because Taiwan is Han China culture, but
on freedom there's only twenty four million people there versus
one point three one point four billion, But it is
a super irritant because they can't take that comparison. They're

(30:47):
free over there in Taiwan, not on the mainland. So
the way that the PLA would do it is they
would do a big blockade.

Speaker 3 (30:56):
They'd surround it.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
They've been exercising that consistently with no pushback from the
US at all, not even any unconventional means to deter them.
And if they do that, so what is the Navy
going to do. They're going to respond with aircraft carriers.
And like I said, you run a twelve billion dollar
aircraft carrier within a range of thousands of precision missiles

(31:19):
that the Chinese can fire, that's going to result in
a very bad image of a US Navy aircraft carrier
with five thousand of our citizens on board smoking or worse,
and that ties directly into the geopolitical consequences that we
would face them, because remember the British Empire, after they

(31:40):
defeated Napoleon at Trafalgar eighteen oh four, ruled the waves
for the next century, and then they got spanked at
the Battle of Jutland during World War One, just off
the coast of Denmark, and that was the beginning of
the end of the British Empire.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
They lost territory, they.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Lost the pound as a dominant currency, and you would
see an unwind in that competition of governance. Is it
our system of Western capitalism?

Speaker 3 (32:08):
Freedom?

Speaker 2 (32:10):
Look, democracy and a republic is a mess. It's messy,
it's imperfect. It does not have the crispness of a dictatorship,
of course. But I would take messy and innovation and
bottoms up approach to problem solving versus top down dictatorship
any day. But we cannot let ourselves blunder into the

(32:30):
stupid things like that, because history shows that can be
the beginning of the end. So you know what, with that,
let me take questions and I can also give you
a tour of the world on problem areas that I
think will flare up. If anybody wants.

Speaker 4 (32:58):
Thank you, mister Prince.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
We now have time for a Q and A. If
you have a question, please make your way to a microphone.
Student questions will be given preference. Who's up send it?

Speaker 5 (33:13):
Thank you so much, doctor Princes for your talk. My
question I'm also in Austrian economics.

Speaker 3 (33:17):
Well it close to your mouth. Thank you so much
for your talk this evening.

Speaker 5 (33:20):
Doctor, I'm also an Austrian economics major here, so we
can always use more of those. My question is about
can you elaborate a little more on the economics of
the privatization of the military industry. You mentioned Elon Musk's
ability to bring down costs of space exploration. How do
we do that in the military industry. Is it more

(33:40):
of a policy change that we need to see or
is it more of entrepreneurs responsibility to make adjustments and
what would those be?

Speaker 2 (33:48):
Sure the simple word for that is actual competition and
really opening up the floodgase. When it comes to producing
missiles or whatever, you have such a narrow field of
that you basically get a duopoly or a monopoly a provider.

Speaker 3 (34:04):
And so they just say, well, this is so much
it costs.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
I remember the first state Department job for security that
we did. They wanted us to train the protective detail
of Columbia. They have issues and Greece right before the Olympics.
It was like two thousand and four or six, and
we trained tens of thousands of people.

Speaker 3 (34:23):
We knew what we were doing.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
We put the bid together and the State Department said,
we cannot accept your bid. They said why, They said,
because it's so low, it's not deemed credible.

Speaker 3 (34:34):
Like, well, we had thirty five percent margin on.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
It, so we doubled it and they accepted it. That's
the level of insanity and competition solves.

Speaker 5 (34:46):
That contract to exclusivity. That's the problem. Like once once
a private company chose it over, they can't.

Speaker 2 (34:55):
So under the Clintons, we went from about one hundred
major contractors and really consolidated down to five super majors, Lockeyed, Northrop, Boeing,
raytheon General Dynamics. They need to be broken up and
to restore a lot of competition and actually or even

(35:15):
just blow by them and look to the next generation
of private innovative ones and get them the manufacturing.

Speaker 3 (35:23):
Capability to do it.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
That's how you actually bring down significant costs.

Speaker 3 (35:30):
Thank you.

Speaker 6 (35:30):
Very much for speaking now, the United States military is
currently suffering from an ongoing recruitment crisis, not because America
has any shortage of brave young men willing to fight,
but because we know that the military, under the current
guidance of desk jockeys, has been reduced to a little
more than a benefits program and adult daycare, but.

Speaker 3 (35:47):
With camouflage on top.

Speaker 6 (35:48):
Now, which has also been you know, losing wars consistently
for quite some time.

Speaker 3 (35:55):
Now.

Speaker 6 (35:55):
I've been told recently from a reliable source that the
United States is quite behind in a significant drone race.
And while we all have great faith in President Trump
and heg Seth in bringing honor and efficiency back to
our armed forces, we especially at Hillsdale College, fear that
the government, even a well intentioned and well led government,
may not be up to the task of adjusting to

(36:18):
twenty first century warfare without the help of the private sector.
Would you consider founding a private military academy for those
of us who believe that the safety of our nation
would be better achieved by teaching young men Klauswitz and
drone tactics rather than white Fordrill, white fragility, and the
poetry of Maya Angelou.

Speaker 3 (36:39):
Well, thank you for that long question slash statement.

Speaker 2 (36:48):
Look, I loved Blackwater in the team, and I had
the great honor of employing tens of thousands of the
best of Americans. And this day I run into an
airports and some garden spots around the world, and I
missed that. And yes, I will tell you I'm working

(37:08):
on a couple of significant projects overseas which will provide
interesting employment for young men and women sometimes. But yes,
I think, and that's one of the reasons I did
not apply actively for a government job is because I
think there's a lot of ways the private sector, Because
I look, I think the business of America should be business.

(37:29):
And when we lead with the military into all these
countries that have melted down and need stability operations.

Speaker 3 (37:37):
We clearly fail at that.

Speaker 2 (37:40):
And when you think back, how is America founded, it
was founded by three companies, Massachusetts, Bay, Plymouth and Jamestown colonies.
Those companies were actually listed on the City of London Exchange, okay,
effectively a stock exchange. They hired people like Miles Standish
and John Smith, former professional military officers that came and

(38:04):
protected the colony and built it up so and I've said,
with some controversy about bringing back colonialism, to be clear
on that there are millions of people that invade America
every year. Why they're coming for the American dream. They're
coming for American governance. And I think there's lots of

(38:25):
ways we can use market forces to literally do private cities,
private governance of on leased land in melted or desolate
lands around the world to provide security, good governance, the
basic utilities, and the local people will flourish. And that's

(38:47):
the way we can replicate because you know what, I
would take ten thousand mayors from around American cities will
run ten thousand cities.

Speaker 3 (38:56):
In Africa better than there.

Speaker 2 (38:59):
And so replicating the things we take for granted here,
property rights, getting a bank account, title for land, all
the things that you've not read The Mystery of Capital
and the Other Path by hernandoz Soto please do so
really lays out how the basics of why the American

(39:19):
capitalism works, why you have capital formation that works here,
and how to replicate that in other countries.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
So yes, I'm working on that. Hey, thank you for
being here.

Speaker 7 (39:36):
In enjoyed your speech.

Speaker 8 (39:37):
How do we fight communism abroad when so many Americans
here are in love with the idea.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
That's a really good question, because it's it's such a
it's such an insidious, attractive lie, and it kind of
based on it's it's to me. It kind of comes
down to people thinking versus feeling, and and the emotion
of socialism that everything will be great if only a

(40:05):
few people are endowed with all this authority and power
over us.

Speaker 3 (40:09):
It's this rule of the elites.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
Which appeals to some elites, and it also appeals to
a lot of people that don't want to take responsibility
for themselves.

Speaker 3 (40:17):
So an insidious lie. I was, I guess.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
Inoculated from that in nineteen seventy six when my dad
was invited to come to the Soviet Union in East
Germany because they wanted to buy his machine tools, and
he didn't like it.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
They didn't like the surveillance, he didn't like the whole field.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
So he dragged the rest of the family in a
Chevy Van across Eastern Europe. I spent my seventh birthday
in East Berlin nineteen seventy six, and for a seven
year old to see the guns and the dogs, and
the minefields and the tank traps, all facing in keeping
people in East Germany. Pretty obvious to say something's not
great about socialism if you need that level of force

(41:05):
to keep people here.

Speaker 3 (41:05):
So look, that's on you.

Speaker 2 (41:07):
It's on you to be assault in light amongst your
peers to say, let the data show where does socialism
work versus where does good governance work? And compare obviously
Singapore versus I don't know you name the socialist hell
holder's a lot of them.

Speaker 3 (41:29):
Thank you for your talk.

Speaker 8 (41:30):
I was wondering if you could comment on the use
of AI in hacking and attacking computer networks, in cybersecurity
or in cyber warfare.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
That would be a bit more out of my lane
of expertise. I remember when I took my first polygraph.
At the end, the polygraph guy said this thing about
you hacking government computer systems.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
We don't think you're telling the truth.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
And I ripped off the stuff and I said, listen,
if your polygraph is telling you I'm hacking government computer systems,
I can barely get my own email, so I'm gonna
punt on that one.

Speaker 9 (42:05):
Thank you for being here, mister Prince. I have two
quick questions for you. One, I was listening to podcast
Caribbean Rhythms, which you appeared on on the Way up
Here and Caribbean Rhythms you appeared on that podcast several
months ago prior to the election.

Speaker 3 (42:21):
Okay, and I've done a lot of them, so I'm
sorry if I forget the name.

Speaker 1 (42:25):
No, it's all right on there.

Speaker 9 (42:28):
You described a moment when you met with President Trump
prior to twenty sixteen and you advised him to be,
you know, on the lookout for who you appoint as
an advisor. Five recall correctly, and I believe in you said.
In twenty nineteen at a veterans event, he came up
to you and he said that you were right, Yeah,

(42:50):
to be on the lookout for you know who you
are appointing. And I guess my question the first question
is if he were here in this room today, who
what kind of advice would you give him? Given his
resounding success so far in his first you know, weak
or self as president, to have him be on the
watch out for, as we know after his first term,

(43:11):
who your advisor is matters. And my second question is
do you have like a show or podcast of your
own that people can tune into and listen to.

Speaker 2 (43:21):
Yeah, so short answer is my podcast is called Off
Leash with Eric Prince, So that's on It's on x
and it's on YouTube whatever. Google suppresses it of course
on YouTube, but you can still find it.

Speaker 3 (43:38):
Look.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
I think President Trump has really taken seriously because he
never really secured us he never really controlled the security
apparatus in the first administration. But he definitely has made
much better choices now.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
And you know, they've got a lot.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
Of work to do, uh, because there's there's just been
a such a lack of seriousness if you think about
the reform. I mean, when George Marshall took over the
US Army in September one, nineteen thirty nine, like the
same time that the Nazis invaded Poland, he started firing
colonels in generals preparing to fight the next war. And

(44:18):
we never did any of that for twenty five years,
and all these generals, all these failed generals and colonels
kept floating to the top, and they're now populating all
these ranks. And you now have we had in World
War Two, we had fourteen million people under arms. You
now have one point three million, Okay, so less than

(44:39):
ten times, and we have the same amount of flag
officers in an era of you know, instant video communication
and should be a flatter fashion organization. We have a
very bloated top top end and hopefully that gets a
lot lighter very soon.

Speaker 10 (44:57):
Hi, mister Prince, I was curious if he could go
into more detail and what I would call the AI
hunter killer drone and how it can be programmed to
look for and kill a single individual in a crowd.

Speaker 2 (45:08):
Yes, very true, very very real threat. There's a company
called Clearview, for example, which scrapes billions of images off
the web. So if you've ever posted any any picture
in any social media, have you better tagged in a picture,
any kind of online driver's license roles anything like that?

Speaker 3 (45:30):
Your image?

Speaker 2 (45:32):
And so now with a very small drone could launch
it and it can fly around this world, this room
looking for the face it's after and drive itself into
your forehead with even a you know, a few milligrams
of powder, clack itself off on your head. That's the
level of threat that we're coming to. So again, I

(45:53):
don't care. You know, a great military sniper can take
a cold bar shot a you know, the first shot
at one thousand meters and probably hit his target. But
now any one of you, I can take out and
give you thirty minutes of FPV drone instruction, and now

(46:14):
you can fly a drone out to fifteen kilometers and
hit a target. So that's the nature of and that's
with a human in the loop. Put a you put
an AI drone pilot on there, of which there's many
different variants right now in.

Speaker 3 (46:28):
Early phases that it's a real problem.

Speaker 2 (46:31):
There's even been a company called Shield Ai makes an
AI for a fighter pilot which has fought manned aircraft
versus unmanned aircraft. And the unmanned aircraft can you know,
vastly exceed normal G limits because it doesn't have a
pilot that has to keep blood in their head.

Speaker 3 (46:49):
Well, because you're right, because you get a G limit.

Speaker 2 (46:54):
At you know, nine g's a pilot is really having
a hard time staying awake. A robot doesn't have the problem.
So those are also very real issues to contend with.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
Thank you so much for coming and speaking with us tonight.

Speaker 4 (47:12):
One hundred years ago, the future of the modern battle
space was tanks and truck mounted infantry, and every major
power in the world had a man who could see
what the future of the battlespace was like patent in
the United States, and Charles Zagaul and France, and Heinz
Guderian in Germany, and Gregory Zukov and the Soviet Union.
They could see how this new technology could be applied

(47:33):
to the modern battle space to win victories in that
battle space. Does the United States have such a man
at this time who understands how drones and AI are
being utilized in Ukraine and Russia, who can develop a
doctrine for our military to be successful in such conflict.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
I'd say there's probably a colonel or two in the
Army Special Forces because they're now they're doing a drone
course as part of every Special Forces qualification as part
of their curriculum, so they get it.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
And now they're doing a.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
Field deployable kit where you have the rotors, the circuit boards,
all the pieces in parts, so you can actually make
these guys put Frankenstein drones together in the fields and
go to work with them. So that level of iteration
is coming. I don't know where that is in the Navy.
I don't think it exists yet, and definitely not in

(48:28):
the Air Force, because look, the Air Force, the Air
Force hated the whole reason we have predator drones.

Speaker 3 (48:38):
Think of it this way.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Company called General Atomics licensed the original Predator A from
a guy. It was a gasoline engine, an abgas engine.
They licensed it first to the CIA. They used it
in Bosnia.

Speaker 3 (48:51):
It worked.

Speaker 2 (48:53):
CIA more of an early adopter, easier procurement. Air Force
wanted nothing to do with it. The Agency decided to
make it armed. That's why you had some armed predator drones.
When nine to eleven happened. General Atomics private ownership, super
free market guys, Larry, you should probably hit them up.
This Linden and Neil Blue. They they took all the

(49:17):
money they made from pred A and built pred B
their own specs. They just say bigger, heavier, stronger, capable.
And they made pred sea again until the Agency started
taking all the glory in space. The Air Force wanted
nothing to do with it because the Air Force is.

Speaker 3 (49:33):
An armed airline union. That's that.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
Look they've they've they've become that, and and the and
the pilot mafia does not want to give up seats.

Speaker 3 (49:43):
And that's the problem.

Speaker 2 (49:44):
You have to be willing to reinvent yourself or or
obsoleste yourself to stay relevant.

Speaker 3 (49:54):
Hello, mister prince over here. Yep, gotcha.

Speaker 11 (49:57):
My name is Michael Rupe. I'm a history sophomore here.
My dad's big fan of yours. I know you kind
of cover this a little earlier, but what strategies would
you recommend the US military adopt to combat those new
low cost drones. If our old equipment is obsolete.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
We have to have a better hard kill scenario, a solution,
whether that's air bursting, high rate of fire, cannons, lasers, EMPs.
The reason I like hard kill air bursting munitions is
because battlefields have.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
A lot of fog. We're in Michigan, for Eaven's sakes.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
We know there's fog, rain clouds, all that stuff is
not great for lasers. But an air bursting munition will
fire and burst, and you have to find a way. Look,
there's two things a military officer does. Coordinates information releases energy.
Our information flow has become so voluminous that it's overwhelming

(50:56):
and they need to do a better job of shifting it.
But energy wise, right, releasing energy, drive the ship from
here to there, fly that airplane, fire that weapon.

Speaker 3 (51:08):
The cost of us delivering.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Energy right, putting a warhead on a forehead is so outrageously.

Speaker 3 (51:14):
Expensive, or shooting down a drone.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
Like the Navy trying to shoot down those Uti missiles
has gone bonkers, like a thousandfold higher than it should be.
So finding simple, low cost solutions, I mean, look, the
Ukrainians have to have had to adopt out of necessity.
What are they using twelve gage with bird shot? Use
it taking down small drones And that's actually not.

Speaker 3 (51:37):
A terrible option. So again Hillsdale with a great shooting program.
It works.

Speaker 12 (51:47):
Hello, thank you for coming to speak. I just wanted
to ask you mentioned both that innovation comes from individual
Americans in their garage with a dream, and then you
also talked about how there are like five companies within
the defense industry who have kind of monopolized the industry.

(52:09):
How would you say that you should break up these
these companies and how do you think it would affect
the military industrial complex itself.

Speaker 3 (52:20):
So, just like.

Speaker 2 (52:24):
The federal government, like Teddy Roosevelt did some great antitrust enforcement,
they broke up Standard Oil, or in the.

Speaker 3 (52:31):
Eighties they broke up AT and T.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
And the sum of the value of those component parts
was actually higher than the value of the of the
monolith so we're not talking we're not talking about trying
to destroy shareholder value, but breaking up these companies so
that you instead of having five companies bid, we have
twenty or twenty five companies that are available to bid
on certain on certain projects.

Speaker 3 (52:55):
Second, from the purchasing.

Speaker 2 (52:57):
Side, if you if they can spend money, the little guys.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
That are.

Speaker 2 (53:05):
Because the problem is the the government government procurement people
are bureaucrats and they just want to do the safe
and easy thing. And so if they keep spending money
and it's not their money, they don't care how much
over how much too how much they overspend on X,
Y or z the item they're buying. Uh, so they
just they just default to the highest cost legacy system.

(53:28):
And I guess the other thing that needs to happen
is putting the decision making of what gets purchased as
close to the end user that has to use it
as possible, because it's one thing for bureaucrats sitting in
an air conditioned cubicle and the pentagon to decide, but
it's a different thing if it's a general that is
literally deploying with his personnel in the field to live

(53:51):
with those decisions. It's always it's like the principle of subsidiarty,
make the decision as close to possible where people are
affected by it.

Speaker 7 (54:03):
Hello, mister Prince, this actually kind of goes along with
what you were just talking about. Do you think that
with our current system, the US is capable of adopting
those cheaper systems that are being developed for anti drone
defense or do you think that a definitive change in

(54:23):
the structure of the decision making has to be made
before those will be adopted.

Speaker 3 (54:30):
I think.

Speaker 2 (54:32):
There's there's a lot of foreign customers that are desperately
needing it, probably even more so than than We'll have
a more animated response, necessary response to obtain that difference
versus you know, very aggress in Washington.

Speaker 3 (54:48):
But yeah, they can adopt.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
When when Iraq was full on and they had the
rapid equipping force programs, which was a kind of a
way to completely end run all the bureaucracy, there was
a lot of tech that was adapted adopted into the
field very quickly without drama.

Speaker 8 (55:07):
So I think you said something to the effect that
as if you know where it is, it can be
targeted and destroyed. So governments would and other apparatus would
seem to be like they tend to be pretty stationary.
Would it become harder, at least in some context to
keep a state together or is there some way to
defend against things effectively or I don't know, how is

(55:29):
that going to affect the future of a stability in
regions or whatever.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
There's another book called the It's Either the Sword or
the Shield of Achilles, and it's about the democratization of
strike and as tech proliferates. Right if you look at
Google Maps today on your smartphone and you compare it
to what the best imagery that was available in nineteen

(55:55):
eighty five, it would have been super level, top secret.
Right now it's available on anybody on everybody's phone. That
proliferation of tech, whether it's communications, imagery, weaponry, now precision strike,
it changes the nation state. And I'd say it impedes

(56:18):
or impairs the nation state's ability to have absolute control.
And so then having consent of the governed matters a lot.
Having a bottoms up government like we have better.

Speaker 3 (56:33):
It also speaks to.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
Us our ability to make life miserable for tyrants because
of the ability for small units to punch.

Speaker 3 (56:43):
Way above their weight. Stand by tyrannical governments.

Speaker 13 (56:50):
Thank you so much for your presentation. Two part question here.
First of all, what do you think about the future
of the Bricks Alliance under a new Trump administration? And
then second of all, you did mention potential flare up
points in the next year or two.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
I'd love to get your thoughts on that as well.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
Okay, bricks is an attempt to move.

Speaker 3 (57:12):
Things away from.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
A dollar based trade, right and and look, the US
is overused sanctions and and disincentivize people from trading in dollars.
The stronger the dollar becomes, the better our economy becomes,
the less relevant the bricks become in America. That is credible,

(57:36):
credible in Look, the foreign policy of the United States
should be that our friends love us, our rivals respect us,
and our enemies fear us.

Speaker 3 (57:46):
And currently, you know, the previous administration, our.

Speaker 2 (57:48):
Friends were wondering why we were doing self immolation, and
our enemies were laughing at us, and they were constantly
carving off another piece. And you know, so foreign policy
see credibility into terrence matters and uh, but there's a
lot of mess to be cleaned up.

Speaker 3 (58:07):
The it is in the interest of the United States.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
So for one hundred years it was it was a
policy goal to keep German industry from combining with Russian resources.
And now all this stupid war in Ukraine has done
is push all those Russian resources into a submissive role
with the Chinese Communist Party and all that industry, and
that is bad. Russia does not have to be our friend,

(58:33):
maybe frenemy, but but they are far We have far
more in common with Russians than we do with Chinese,
uh Indians or Southeast Asia culturally. Long term, the real

(58:54):
opportunity was missed at the end of the Cold War
to really embrace Russia and and not embarrass them because
it was a great empire. And look, the fact is
they're the ones that did the heavy lifting and defeating
the Nazis. And so you know, when you move all
those NATO countries right up to Russia's border and they

(59:15):
look out and say, huh, there's more unfriendly militaries on
our border than at any time since May of nineteen
forty one, it's an unnecessary provocation and I would say
bad state craft.

Speaker 3 (59:26):
So flare up points.

Speaker 2 (59:32):
The Russians got chased out of Syria, so they pushed
hard into Libya. They're trying to put a navy base
in Tobruk, and so you'll see Libya largely start to
split because the Turks have put a number of bases
in western Libya. And then you have Italy, which is
the largest energy buyer for much of Europe's energy, leads

(59:54):
gas coming out of Libya, and so that's going to
be a problem. The Sahel continues to be a problem.
There's a lot of terrorism there. They pushed all the
French out again, lack of credibility, lack of the big
French brother with Americans too, not finishing the Jihads.

Speaker 3 (01:00:11):
That have been ravaging the place.

Speaker 2 (01:00:13):
And so Russian significant influence in Mali and Burkina, not
as much Nigier. Yet we've got some things hoping to
Innzier to make that right. South Africa continues to unwind
as a society and the ANC government. The one positive

(01:00:36):
that development was that the Democratic Alliance, a better governance
party from the south from around the Western Cape area,
did better in the last election. But the a n
C is true to its Marxist Black nationalist roots and
wrecking the country.

Speaker 3 (01:00:54):
And they just signed a land.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
Land seizure bill which is going to have really bad effects.
Taiwan big problem. Burma, big problem.

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
Why does Burma matter?

Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
The Chinese built a port and Jopio and they're trying
to They built a pipeline which runs from Jopio right
up the old China resupply road from from the nineteen forties,
from the World War Two. They built a gas line
that way, and it helps make the China less vulnerable.
And so watched it on that one and of course,

(01:01:33):
very close to my heart Venezuela. I've been paying attention
to Venezuela and the nonsense that the socialists have been
doing there for a long time. And I tweeted, after
Maduro stole the election at the end of this last July,
I mean the opposition won the election clearly, seventy to thirty.

(01:01:54):
I mean they lost the bad guys washed by forty points,
and they completely ignored the results. And I tweeted, if
Biden and Harris really want to support democracy in Venezuela,
they should up the bounty Amaduro because there was already
a fifteen million dollar bounty on him for drug trafficking.
I said, raise it to one hundred million, Sit back
and watch the magic happen, and they don't even need

(01:02:18):
to use.

Speaker 3 (01:02:19):
US taxpayer money.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
They can use frozen money that they have from Pedovesa,
the national oil company. We cannot let them get away
with it because Venezuelan money.

Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
It is a narco state. There is thirty four full on.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
Meth processing facilities in the country, major transhipment spot and
production spot for fentanyl, which last year headline numbers one
hundred and nine thousand real numbers about four hundred thousand Americans. Okay,
as much as we lost in all of World War
Two every year from ventanyl, a lot of it coming
out of Venezuela. And that socialist money is corrupting and

(01:03:00):
tipping over a lot of other governments in Columbia.

Speaker 3 (01:03:04):
Now you have Petro, who is a communist.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
Okay, he was literally part of m nineteen communist movement,
one of the students that took over their their justice
ministry back in the eighties. It's a really bad guy
at risk in Peru and Chile. There's an election February
nine and Ecuador. We cannot let this the socialist rot

(01:03:29):
cascade across Latin America.

Speaker 3 (01:03:31):
So thank you if you.

Speaker 1 (01:03:34):
Like the Michael Berry Show, in podcast. Please tell one
friend and if you're so inclined, write a nice review
of our podcast. Comments, suggestions, questions, and interest in being
a corporate sponsor and partner can be communicated directly to
the show at our email address, Michael at Michael Berryshow

(01:03:56):
dot com, or simply by clicking on our website Michael
Berryshow dot com. The Michael Berry Show and Podcast is
produced by Ramon Roeblis, the King of Ding. Executive producer
is Chad Nakanishi. Jim Mudd is the creative director. Voices Jingles,

(01:04:21):
Tomfoolery and Shenanigans are provided by Chance McLean. Director of
Research is Sandy Peterson.

Speaker 3 (01:04:29):
Emily Bull is.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
Our assistant listener and superfan. Contributions are appreciated and often
incorporated into our production. Where possible, we give credit, Where not,
we take all the credit for ourselves. God bless the
memory of Rush Limbaugh. Long live Elvis, be a simple

(01:04:51):
man like Leonard Skinnard told you, and God bless America. Finally,
if you know a veteran suffering from pts D, call
Camp Hope at eight seven seven seven one seven PTSD
and a combat veteran will answer the phone to provide
free counseling,