January 17, 2026 • 44 mins
Eric Epstein and Millennial Brian talk about the youth hockey fight at the Bears game, Greenland, Iran, and Venezuela.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, one thing we know for sure. It's Saturday, and
I think the farm show is tapering off. I'm always
excited to have it come in town. I never go anymore.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah, I think I went as a kid once. I mean,
this is a great spectacle of drives in people to
the city.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
But you know, the traffic bearers. You know, if you're
on Camera Street, it's just a nightmare.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
It used to parking there used to be no parking,
used to be able to go right in.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
The animals were there the whole time. They weren't rotated out.
The kids used to sleep with the animals. You know,
maybe they still do it. But the traffic and the
parking are formidable. So look we got through that, Eric
Epstein with money O'Brian, the show is underdome. The organization
has rocked the capital. We're a good government, anti corruption
(00:45):
organization founded in two thousand and five after the pay race.
I encourage you to check out our website. Our webmaster,
Rebecca James, redid it. She did a great job. And
the excuse me, uh, there's a couple new uh uh block,
(01:06):
Well we we have. We have a couple of new editions.
One is we rate agencies based on openness and sunshine.
So we just revised the ratings and downgraded a number
of entities Turnpike, click or Control Board and also unfortunately
the Ethics Commission. So if you go there, you'll see
(01:28):
we have a ratings on agency and you know whether
or not, uh, they're they're really operating a transparent manner.
We have again, the misery index is up. It's eight pages. Uh,
everything went up. Everything, a lot of it in December,
but some in January. And look a lot of other stuff.
The website is easy to navigate. You can contact us
(01:51):
through that. But Brian doesn't know this, but I'm instituting
a new part of the show called Ask Brian, and
so in art feel free to shipping.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
I do you have?
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Apparently there's a lot of discussion about the melee that
broke out, like.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
The Hershey Bears game. So this actually went naturally viral,
I bet or because there was even more about this.
So there's an eight year old game in between the
periods of like, so it's like a youth hockey game
and there was a huge fight that broke out, and
it broke out for like I would say a few minutes.
The kids are really going.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Yeah, it was like a Hansen brother reunion.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
And maybe art we know more about this.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I heard the coaches might get suspended because I think
there might have been allegations that this might have been
somewhat planned to a certain degree. I don't know if
that's true or not, or if the kids just sometimes
kids just get rowdy. Hockey is a physical game, maybe
you know or do you know anything more about it?
Speaker 5 (02:49):
All week long they were saying it was staged, and
then yesterday a report came out that it wasn't staged.
And when you watched it from the naked eye as
a fan, I kind of did look stage, except for
the fact that the goalie came down and just started
laying kids out, which was really dangerous at that point.
And there were, of course, there were coaches or apparent
on the ice there and they just kind of left
(03:10):
to go.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So yeah, I think that was a problem with growing up,
you know. I you know, when I played street hockey,
you wanted to be a broad street bully. But these
are little kids eight years old. I was impressed by
how much money had to go into the equipment and uniforms,
because hockey is expensive, but art. That's what caught my eye.
That kid flew down like of aloft Rasper, and I mean,
(03:33):
you really, Usually the goalies don't even get involved.
Speaker 5 (03:36):
He looked bigger. Any in the padding he had on
could have really hurt one of the kids if they
hit their head on the ice or something.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
I'm always freaked out with the hockey fights with the skates,
the skates always because those things are sharp.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Yeah, with professionals, they're just so.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Aware and they're such great athletes that they could almost
like figure it out. But with kids, you know, they
were flopping around. I'm like, oh my gosh. Some kids
can't get caught.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
There's been instances where the crowded artery has been hit,
you know, and it's a look. I saw it and
it reminded me of the Mighty Ducks. But you know,
I like what Hershey's trying to do because I think
for the kids, it was a big thrill to get
to play there, you know, with the biggs.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
All right. So I don't know if you realize this,
I did.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Not know that there were significant vandalism at the Gettysburg
Battlefield recently. Twenty three monuments were vandalized. All they said
is an oil based substance, including the Pennsylvania State Monument.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
I'm not sure how you prevent that.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
I just wanted to get your well, I mean, I
guess you just have to have better security around the
monuments or if you have someone monitoring cameras.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
But you're right, I mean oil based substance.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
I'm assuming this is because of people protesting the recent
actions of Venezuela and they're just looking for something to deface.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
But you know, it's just it's sad, you know that happened.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I mean, Gettysburg's big. It would be hard to you know,
your eyes on everything. But yeah, yeah, I didn't know
what the point of that would be. And actually, uh
and interestingly enough, on Winglestown Road close to the truck stop,
howks does monument upkeep?
Speaker 4 (05:16):
And I think they also do you know, monument repair?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, I mean it costs a lot of money, but
those are the things. It's there's kind of like a
public agreement, you know. You see it when you actually
even go to sporting events too. It's like, you know,
if there's like a few, if there's like a dozen
crazy people there, they can kind of ruin it for everyone.
And so there's kind of an agreement that everyone has
to you know, behave to a certain level. And when
you see that, a lot of times these turn people
(05:39):
against whatever you're protesting, you know, whatever.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
You always always I mean, it never works. I mean
this is sacred, it's hallowed ground. What we need, I
guess at Gettysburg is what we used to have at
the Vet. You know that court underneath the stadium. Yeah,
a veteran stadium.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
And it was.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Necessarily in use a lot.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Actually, Seamus McCaffrey became a Supreme Court justice because he
was the judge down there. Els all right, this one,
I don't know how to feel about this. The State
Department is not going to allow passport services at Pennsylvania libraries.
So there is two Pennsylvania legislators, one D one R
(06:23):
want to restore these services. This is a big money
maker for libraries.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah, and this is I mean, this goes back to
kind of our public institutions that you know, sometimes you
don't have a way to raise revenue. People obviously don't
want their taxes increase, so you know, you use these
things like regiserve, wills, passport services. Sometimes there's substances to
use public banking at post offices as a way to
(06:50):
raise revenue and make them revenue neutral or at least.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Not a burden on the taxpayers.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
I always thought this is you know, good policy, especially
because librries is very excit, so it's easy to go
to same thing with post offices. Almost every area has
a post office somewhat nearby, So if you had services
there that could raise revenue without raising taxes and get
stuff done more.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
It's also you know, you have the ability if the
libraries are not providing their function to you know, modify funding.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Yeah. So this is a riddle.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
I don't know if either you may know it, but art,
we're going to see if you can get it. All right,
So half a century later, it still lives at a
high school in its own glass. All right, it's dry,
it's missing crumbs and likely having absorbed some chalk dust
because it's in a classroom.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
Okay, so fifty.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Years later it is a item that was packed in
most lunch boxes fifty years ago.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
It was supposed to have a shelf life for three
and a half weeks. What do you think it is?
Speaker 5 (08:03):
Well, you got me on that one.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Do you know Millennia. Well you're you're sheating.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Yeah, I'm cheating. I can see it here.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
This is This goes to show how I think how
processed some of our items are.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Somebody's got to get this to RFK. It's the twinkie.
I kept it in a.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Bottle in his room for three and four decades.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Man.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
That's it's still preserved and not well obviously good to eat.
That's also preservatives. I mean people preservers make it. You
can grow more food, it's cheaper and it can stay
fresh for longer. But I don't think it's healthy long
term that fresh food. It might go bad quicker, but
it's so much better for that.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
I don't think anybody ever thought a twinkie. I mean,
they usould joke about it all the time. The problem
is a researcher said that there's only one preservative on it,
at least on the label, sorbic acid. But I thought
I thought that was interesting that a high schoo teacher
would keep a Twinkie inside of glass, and so he
had to move it when he retired.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Oh that's what.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
So I mean, look, if you're going to vandalize something,
how about the twinkie, instead of Gettysburg.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, that's such a weird thing to keep though, is like,
I guess a science experiment, let's see, how great. But
also in a glass case is like almost protected from
the elements that would kind of weather it down. So
maybe it's not a perfect sample case. But still that's crazy.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
All I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
And I conclude with this for this portion of the show,
there's a big difference between three and a half weeks
and fifty years.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Yeah, fifty years.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
It's a long time anyway. Eric Caps signed in with
Millennial Brian. We're being produced by Art Selby. The show
is Thunderdome and the organization is Rock the Capitol.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Hey, so I want to hit.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
A couple of things that are in the news. Normally
we like to go over things that aren't covered, but
I think we need to have a a perspective on
what's happening in Germany, Iran, and Venezuela. So one of
the things, two of the things that tie all these
countries together is all three have oil, and all three
(10:14):
have vast I mean underline the word vast rare earth minerals.
All three are very difficult to harvest. Those minerals Venezuela
has an antiquated oil system. Iran when it comes to
rare earth minerals, they have them, you know, but they
really haven't repaired their oil infrastructure since the Iraqi Iran War.
(10:37):
Greenland's a tough call. So when you look at Greenland,
it is for centuries the Danish have held Greenland. In
nineteen fifty one, Truman signed a treaty with Greenland and
essentially we had up to twelve I think fifteen bases
were down to one.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
So we had a sis.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Uh we kind of well didn't we walked away from it,
but you know when.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
And maybe Brian you can go into it.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
When we were shirt researching today for this program, we
found an odd two odd programs that the Danish spun on.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
The Yeah, so I guess this is good to bring up.
So for the people to know.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Denmark's population and Greenland's population is much different the Anuwa
population in Greenland.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
I would say, it's it's it's closer to.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Our I guess what we call the Native Americans here,
but it's it's even more like I would say Mongolian
as far as ethnicity, and it's obviously much different than
Denmark population. In the sixties and seventies, they ran basically
population control experiments on the girls there, you know, basically
any teenage girls because they wanted to control the population.
(11:51):
You know, this has been done in other places where
it's been done now with the Wigers in China, where
are trying population control techniques essentially women of those populations.
So there was there have been disputes between Greenwood and Denmark,
and there was independence parties in the Greenland parliament. In fact,
it looked like the majority of people in Greenland one independence.
(12:14):
The problem was twofold. One is Denmark provides a very
large and generous welfare budget to them. Two, they're basically
Danish citizens, so they get the benefit of if they
want to move to Denmark, and they don't want to
lose that, lose economic benefits, even if they have personal
problems with the government. And the third one is with
the recent push to essentially annex Greenland, there's been a
(12:36):
real push back to Denmark as and they'd rather you know,
they don't want you know, they don't want independence, and
then going to the United States they don't want essentially
good between Denmark and the United States and one of
their own thing I thought what was going to happen
was Trump was going to come out maybe harsh. But
then I say, we'll pay Denmark, we'll purchase We'll purchase
Greenland from Denmark. Let's say we give them two hundred
(12:58):
billion for their pension fund. Then Greenland gets about three
billion a year from Denmark. Will triple that to let's
say nine or ten billion a year, and then we'll
let them govern it. But then we'll get the mineral
rights for stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
So everyone.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Essentially, ideally, it'd be a win win win. Whereas denmarkets
two hundred billion for their petty fund, they don't have
to subsidize Greenland three billion a year. Greenland gets essentially
mining extraction with from the United States companies, but they
also get a huge welfare budget increase, and then we
get at least partial rights to those mineral rights.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
This is why I think probably that wouldn't work. It's
an innovative concept, and it's all about the minerals, all
about the minerals. It has nothing to do with with democracy, yeah,
or you know, freedom. So the Ino wit actually have
the Trump card, and that was an intentional pun and
people don't realize this, but the Inuit Council and the
(13:53):
last Secretary of State to participate I think was John Kerry.
So the Inwit Council includes indigenous peoples from who are
into It, from America, Canada, Denmark, Norway, maybe Russia, but
also Sweden.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
They control.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
If you look at control of minerals and also fishing rights,
they are one of the most powerful units on the
on the face of the earth. So that the Intoit
population in Greenland knows what they have.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Yeah, this is not an uninfeigned population. This is not
you know, we're buying Alaska from Russia and they have
no idea that there's tons of oil under it or
like this is a modern day thing they have. They
know what they have. That's why I suggested that the
purchase plan because basically you have to convince Denmark to
sell it. Greenland is open independence. The idea of them
(14:56):
in Denmark at along is not true, but they don't
want to lose their welfare budgets. You'd have to essentially
subsidize them and then you ideally would get the money,
which they believe could be trillions and trillions of dollars
and mineral rights that Yeah, so that you're right, But
This is not a democracy push.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
This is but if you're Greenland and you look at
American history and how Americans don't keep their promises in
regard to treaties or negotiations with the Native Americans, right, yeah,
I mean that's a fact. So if you're looking at that,
they have no enforcement mechanism. They look at somebody like
(15:33):
Trump and his business a strategy was basically to bully, intimidate.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Not to pay.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
So you have other factors here, as Greenland is actually
strategically in an interesting place where people used to think
it was remote, but due to global warming, it's more accessible.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Yeah, and those trade routes and those minerals because of
global warming become more even more accessible. I think the
argument that I says to make it would be, listen
to the Native Americans. We're not treated well, but now
they have casinos, they get gener welfare budgets. Any state
that was let's say added on Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska,
(16:12):
even the territories have all are all economically way above
what the their other areas like let' say Puerto Rico
compared to the rest of a lot in America. Port
Rica is way more successful.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
So let me ask you this.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
If that's your argument, how do you explain the fact
that most Native Americans on reservations living at third world right, well,
in terms of hunger and medicine and things that matter.
I mean, yeah, they have casinos. It doesn't mean it's
distributed to that's true.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
It doesn't mean it's tribrite equally. And you're right, the
most successful NA Americans don't live on the reservation. They
live They basically live with the general public and essentially,
and that's been a problem everywhere. That's been a problem
in Australia that when you have a native population, if
you don't integrate them into domestic economy, no matter how
much welfare you give them, they're still poor. We see
in Greenland with Denmark. Denmark is as probably some of
(17:05):
the most generous welfare benefits in the world, but Greenland's
not integrated with the free market economy at Denmark and
it's significantly poor.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
So, but I mean Greenland really I would imagine that,
like Iceland, soon they'll become a tourist mecca. And you know,
when I was in Denmark, there are a lot of
people from Greenland living in Denmark, and it was not.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
An easy coexistence.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
You know, as you were saying, these folks culturally, ethically
are much different than Danes. And you know, to go
back to Greenland in terms of security. So this is
where we've had traditionally air force bases, military bases up
to twelve we unilaterally Withdrew, I think, with quiet to pomacy.
(17:55):
If you want to, you know, reclaim your state, that's
what you do.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
But if you think you're.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Going to buy Greenland and then keep it under toe
with one military base and now you've got NATO deploying
forces against potential American.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Incursions, and that's the worry is that is Trump going
to use like a soft military, not maybe an invasion,
but push I think that's what he's arguing. But is
that arguing is that is that how he negotiates to
get the price down, that he's the one to give
them Mark two hundred and fifty billion. It wants to
pay Greenland ten ten, ten billion dollars a year. But
(18:37):
that's essentially what's going to have to happen unless you want.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
So this is my prediction.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
I think he's always wanted to buy Greenland, even in
his first term. You know that, And people just said, hey,
that's crazy. So now you're just telling people that American
first means whatever I want it to me. And so
if I'm going to acquire this, now you have to
have a sustained military press to protect your assets. This
is not a one off. You don't go and take
(19:04):
the minerals. And now, as we saw with Venezuela, we
deployed naval resources to South America and people just finally
figured out this week, Oh, they're no longer in the
mid East.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
It's going to be hard to do anything.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
You can't right, you can't be everywhere at once, That's right.
I think what if you look at the National Security Document,
it seems like they want to revive the Monroe doctrine.
One of the things he said about Venezuela is not
just that he wants the IL, but isn't one China,
Russia or any adversaries to have any relation with them.
And then you're seeing the same things about Cuba, whereas
essentially you see Marco Rubio see Trump seems to give
(19:41):
the same signals that we don't want any deal with
China and Russia and Cuba, which Cuba obviously historically has
been a lot with those countries. Are they going to
act and or are they going to act beyond those two
countries to maybe other left wing governments, but democracies like
Columbia and Mexican. I mean, they're not the same as
(20:03):
Cuba and Venezuela. Even if you're against those interventions, Baduro
and the Cuban guy are not take.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
These decades to repair relationships with countries in which our
corporations went in and were perceived to extract minerals.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
And not give back.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
America's reputation is actually improved because they have partnerships different
Latin American governments who don't have the technology or capital
to extract. So you know, we've heard, oh, we might
invade Mexico. I mean, really you're gonna yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
I don't think that's gonna I'll be shocked. It's gonna
have Listen, we saw with the Venezuela there's been pushback.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Well, we'll get to Venezuela at the end. There's been
a lot of a lot of push.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
But even within the party. So I think if it
goes beyond that, there will be enough. But the question
is what's the deal. I think what he wants is
he wants a quick deal. Same thing with the Rush Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, Iran,
that he might use force quickly, but then eventually he
just wants a deal and be like, hey, let's kind
a deal.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
It doesn't work like that. I mean, so.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
The reaction of a parent who's had a child, a
soldier killed in Greenland fighting for what to preserve our
miner it's it's a tough call, I just think. And
it's not a style you just say, look, you know
you're a strategic asset. We like to reassert our presence
(21:26):
as our right for the Treaty fifty one, then you
I mean, if it's about the minerals, you're gradually going
to be able to build an infrastructure. But you know,
it's it's a tough call. And so I think the
German and the French naval ship.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, in Germany brought up that if Greedom was attacked,
it's part of Denmark, which is a NATO member, and
so they'll act.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, I'd be shocked, Listen.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I could be wrong though, because I you know, I
didn't think we're actually going to attack Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
I thought we're going to try to use this.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
I would say soft military puss to be like, hey,
get this guy, I agree with our demands and that's
not true. We we went in there and got so we'll see.
I think I think that I think the push long
term is going to have to be you have to
be if you want to you have to literally buy
it and then basically subsidize it. And if your argument
is the minerals are worth it, that that's the argument.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Before we go to break three quick points and this
is real. First of all, policy changes with every president.
You know, there's a lack of continuity. Secondly, if recent
history has proven anything is you need to have troops
on the ground, permanent present to occupy.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
Yeah. And third this is expensive. It costs money.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
So today right, Uh, we finished Greenland. Uh, We're gonna
move to Iran. Uh in just a moment. We are
Rock to Capital manial. Brian and Eric Epstein are the host.
Art Selby is producing. Rock to Capital is our group,
but the show is Thunderdome. Please visit our website. We'll
be right back.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
So, just to finish up on Greenland, I mean Germany
deployed naval assets, as did the French. The Germans deployed
thirteen troops.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
But this is not serious.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
But I think if you listen to what they said
that commercial about or during the break about he's going
to post terriffs. That's how I thought he would put
pressure on, not the military thing. He say essentially, I
want to deal. I'll impost tariffs until I get a deal.
The questions is that going to backfire and that's going
to push everything.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
What's happened with terroriffts is produced countries to find other
I mean, and so you got to open your eyes.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
You know, if you're going to.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Use terroriffs to extract a deal, people need to believe
that you're going to stick to the deal.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
In one of the things with Trump, he's very inconsistent.
That may be outgrowth of his personality.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Well, I think what he's I think I'm assuming what
he's thinking is if we can get a deal for
Greenland and it's it's cheap and it'll be worth in
the long run. And that was the same thing with Alaska,
that was worth it. I just I just don't think
because I think you can get the exact option is
that you know, public support in Europe against America is
you know, down they're gonna I'm assuming.
Speaker 4 (24:09):
Are allies in Europe. I don't know who. I mean.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
When Alaska what they used to call it, swords folly,
he bought that short who was I think the Partment
Secretary of Interior bought I'll ask him for six million
you know a different time you didn't, you know, and
nobody really knew what the value was. They thought it
was was we know what the value was here. But
(24:34):
everything we do seems to poke NATO.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Well, I think because originally Trump's problem with NATA was
that America spends more than anyone else. They get essentially
a subsidy from the United States, and then we don't
even have good trade rights for them. But then I
thought the tariffs were idea to push it to a
more even trade deal and more even NATO spending that's
not but is a terrif as long term revetue boy,
(25:01):
and to sort of bring certain things I guess, certain
changes in policy and assets, and I think that's that's
I think it's going to spark a response the other way.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
Yeah, this is not gonna end well for us. So yeah,
every president post World World two, probably starting more like
in the seventies, you know, was critical of the amount
of money that we spent on Europe and the amount
we spent on the military part. It was a grand
bargain though these were Western European countries that put a
(25:33):
premium on democracy and we protect it. So now if
you're going to come to I don't think people are
going to view this as balance. All Right, you put
a tariff on our goods and you pull out your
troops and your promise to protect us is gone.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
I'm looking elsewhere, man.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Yeah, or they're going to form their own thing. They're
going to form their own defense factors. I think in
Europe they're going to Yeah, and then they're going to
make the trade impossible. And plus I think you remember,
the public in Europe is gonna be against this, so
I think it's gonna make it even harder. The question
is Trump would argue, it doesn't matter if we get
a deal for Greenland, it'll be worth in the long run.
(26:14):
But it's also a weird way to do business because
typically the business is in the modern area has been
done through transactionalism, not actual conquering, and not maybe conqueror
but actually acquiring. It's like it's I get a better
trade deal. You know, look at the Switzerland. Switzerland has
no you know, international assets, but they have great trade
deals all over the world and they're a very rich country.
(26:35):
That's why I thought that're gonna using the negotiating tactic.
But they're gonna use negotiating tactic.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Switzerland is not perceived as aggressive. It's perceived as a neutral, right,
highly educated population. They do have a military, you know,
which youth have to serve in. It's a unique form
of governing. So as we leave Greenland, and I forgot
(26:59):
to add this there is the Trump administration is asking
for the names of all the Jewish professor, Jewish staff
than Jewish students at the University of Pennsylvania. Uh and
which has a horrific connotation if you're Jewish. So you know,
(27:21):
part of this is I think mister Trump uh trying
to I don't I used to say reconcile, but probably
more like retaliated after the riots that for the pro
Palestinian riots.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
So okay, yeah, so I think it's he does have
you know, his chief of staff is Jewish and he
has his sign of laws Jewish. So I don't know
if it's not the same thing. But you're right, is
that you know, it has a terrible connotation because it
goes back to the nixt administration when he he would
have you know, we count Jewish heads at different departments
and essentially to modum or move them.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
If so, this is interesting.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
He had a jew counter next it because as he thought,
Jews and again reminiscent attempted and the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
you know, we're screwing them over. So it gives an
order to find The guy's name is Fred Malik, very
successful businessman. He found thirty five Jews. It's kind of
like the McCarthyism, and a number of them had to depart.
(28:22):
What was interesting is that Malik then became campaign manager
for George Bush years later, and Malick also worked with Trump.
I mean Trump appointed him to the chair of the
Woodrow Wilson International Center. So the issue is this, I mean, clearly,
(28:44):
there's been a lot of anti Semitism and anti Jewish tones, overtones,
specific tones in these demonstrations. By the way, what's interesting
the people that demonstrated against Israel responding to being attacked.
And look, I would be the first to acknowledge that
there were excesses. First, it was the most publicized urban
(29:06):
war ever. The second I point out is where are
the protesters now.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
With other countries they're wrong?
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Where are the processors now in regard to Iran? I mean,
these are people, the Iranians are rising up against a bureaucratic,
despotic government. So I mean, where's the consistency if.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Well, their argument would be, you know, the United States
doesn't support of Ron, but it supports Israel, and so
that's why they're protesting.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
I think. But I think you're right.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
And the big thing, obviously, and it's is that they're connecting,
like all Jews, accluding American Jews, to every policy they
don't like with Israel. But they would never do that
with any of the country. They never do that, Like
would you rather go to Iranian Americans and attack them
because you don't like Iranian policy? I think that that
was the problem, is that you're you know, you're not
just having policy discriments, that you're making it personal discrimination problems.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
So that's just you know, that's ho.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Well, so for Jews, I mean, this is what Nazis did,
and I'm equating this with Nazism. You got information on people,
then you used it. You know later to capture or
to essentially defund, but it just seems to be a
chilling thing to do. And uh, you know, in the
(30:23):
current era that we're living in, the genre whatever you
want to call it, it's not even something that draws attention.
I mean right, well, to get first in line in
the news, it's good and which and this is where
where Trump is really effective.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
It's got to be sensation.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
He moves moves quickly from policy to policy and then
you know, and then you're the next thing that you're
not going to catch, you know, every debate or everything
that goes on. I mean, this goes back to when
he came in. He said he wanted to go after
the universities that he thought were you know, going after conservatives,
which some of some of it was true, was that
you know, there was the serve of discrimination.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
It would be hard to deny that there wasn't a
liberal bias on campuses. Yeah, and to replace it with
a conservative bias isn't really healthy. I mean, both sides
need to be look.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
In the mirror when they describe her for the.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
First Amendment, that's right, Yeah, everyone for the First Amendment
against their enemies or you know.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Yeah, that's that's the test.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
It's like, do you support the First Amendment for people
you disagree with and disliked that's the only Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
That's the key.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
And well, if it's going to incite violence, no, I
get it. But the left, I thought overreached on a
number of campuses by uh and a lot of the
targets where Jewish people came to speak on Israel.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Yeah, and so then you know the right.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I think the right is more in college campuses, more
effective and more influential than ever.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
And I think you saw what Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Yeah, well I think they did. Yeah, they brought in debates.
They brought in people to make those arguments. And then listen,
when you ever have a bias and you're always seeing
that side, your arguments aren't as sharp, Like you can't
make arguments against points you're kind of you're not you're
closed off to certain ideas, and then and then you
become it's almost better to have your ideas tested and
(32:13):
refined and pushed, and that's sort of you know that.
I think they kind of made conservatives almost better debaters,
although I think that's changed recently, where you see both
sides debating more.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
Than a good debates.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
You look at archival material Buckley on Firing Line. He
was a conservative host. He was noted as the conservative
voice in America, and he had these thoughtful debates with
people on the left, and he was very thoughtful, and
it was a back and forth. It was so basically
a disagreement over ideas. The problem with Americans, and this
(32:47):
is in almost every facet of the culture, is they're
not listening. So when you're going back and forth, they're
not listening. All they're waiting for is a pause to
inshort their point of right. So they're not actually saying, oh,
you said that, that's interesting, you know, they're saying, Okay, well,
you know, how do I dismantle this guy in the
next round.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Yeah, the error of persuasion is kind of over, and
it's kind of moved to.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
An era of like just.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
I don't know, ideological destruction or ideological where you're just
this is your team, and whatever your team does, you're
ready to just hammer it.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Hammer, which changed is and this is both sides. The
people know if you compromise as a weakness, you know,
and they don't feel that rallying at the center is
a point, So it's a winner take all and at
the at the end of the day, the core issue
(33:40):
is based on style and that substance.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
And then also you have people that I would say
are just like I'll call them checklist people, where it's like,
what does my team say on this issue. I'm going
to support that no matter what. Whereas you used to
have people that you had a variety of views. Maybe
they're left wing, but let's say, you know, different education issues,
they're a conservative, and let's say they're right wing. Let's
say on different you have to have everything.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
Yeah, yeah, I got it, got it to the Ok.
We gotta we got to tow the line and go
to break. So we have sponsors that can pay us
our outdishly lavish salaries. Eric ev stand in with Millennial Brown.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
Big Art Selby, who's a mega media star, is producing us,
and we are rock to Capitol Shows, thunder Dumb. We'll
be back in a second for our last segment that
I don't know if you heard the commercial on the RX.
I think that is what's a guy's name his invention
used to be the owner of the basketball team.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Oh Cuban, Yeah, Cuban.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
That was the worst fake Southern accent I ever. I mean,
honest to God, if I was somebody from Richmond shred to.
So we are going to kind of bypass Iran because
it may be here next week. Venezuela is getting interesting.
So the vice president of Venezuela and the National Assembly
(35:04):
President our brother and sister. So the sister that is
serving Rodriquez in the after Matthew Maduro being gone. It's
consolidating power and has a relationship with Trump. However, Rodriquez
is her opposition is Gonzalez. Gonzalez is from the Socialist Party.
(35:31):
You can call him whatever you want, but he heads
up the des Squads. So his first speech after Maduro
was captured was in military fatigues with the DEAs squad
guys around him.
Speaker 4 (35:42):
He's supporting her. Now.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
The irony is is that the Nobel Prize winner is
not a factor.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Right, so she's she's been pushed out of the government.
We don't know before any of this happened. The way
Maduro Casalade power was basically went to courts and kind
of outlawed parties from running, and then people even when
they won election, had their ballots out lawned. So I
think Machado won. I think it was like seventy five
percent or seventy percent to vote, and you know Maduro
(36:12):
got twenty five third.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
Yeah, but she could.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
And then he basically just said these are invalid votes
or they didn't count them from the outlaudum, and then
that was testified to by many international organizations. Both her
and the previous opposition leader were basically excommunicated from the country.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
So that's what he did.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
Now that Madua has been captured, his vit president, she's
gonna I think what's gonna happen is the problem with
going to Machado is what you just said is that
essentially all the institutions are still run by Maduro people
or something of that. So is it going to be
a deal cut? I'm assuming there is, you know, well, yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I mean, so you have the vice president Dela Rodriguez
in power now, who has uh has a phenomenal business network,
so im is from her perspective, she just will give
her the ability to develop Venezuela and assets and America
will be a party, right, But you don't want to.
(37:10):
I mean, the Venezuelan military is still intact.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Yeah, and just be clear when people talking to the
desk quads and the narco terrorist allegations were that as
part of his interior minister, So not the vice president,
but the interior minister is the head of the main
cartel gang and as such, they were working with the
Colombian cartels essentially moved partut to Venezuela and then ship
it up through a lot of American countries to the
(37:34):
United States and Canada, and they were getting revenue from that.
Now the level to which Maduro was in charge of
that versus the cartel guy is debated, but that guy's
still in power to certain degree. So the idea that
it's completely going to go away, it's just I think.
Speaker 1 (37:48):
They're going to go away. It's like anything while they're
still demand. Demand is coming from America. Right in Canada,
there's always going to be elicit drugs being produced. But
this is not unusual in the Latin American government for
there to be arrangement between the government either left or right,
with the cartel cartel. I mean, it's the same thing
(38:08):
in Mexico. It's ridiculous to think you're going to invade
Mexico and the cartels are going to sit.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
There, right, And it's not just the federal government.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
I think when people could you know, other countries, they'll
get the president or whatever, you know, all the bordering
Mexican states with the United States. So I'm not talking
about like Arizona. I'm talking about the actual the Mexican states.
They're all they all have some level of cartel influence
because the ports there, the main one of the major
products they run, which is you know, huge part of
their economy is drugs, you know, basically you know, a weegal.
(38:38):
So the idea that you're going to get rid of
that entirely is just not It's just not going to happen.
Speaker 4 (38:43):
Now.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
You can reduce it, you can't make you know, immigration
board security harder, which they have, but I think the
idea that it is just not true. And plus the
difference is that the Mexican present right now, even though
she's left wing, super popular seventy percent approval.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Rate, well, she's also the first one Jewish president of Mexico.
And I think she's a physicist, she's sharp, and she
was blessed by her predecessor.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
Who was also seen as at least, if not effect
a very very moral and against corruption was a huge
problem in Mexico.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
Yeah, so you have that tradition. I don't think anybody is.
You just can't take mister Trump seriously about invading Mexico.
Mexico is oil rich, no doubt, and I would think
that America at some point, I mean, spitballing, maybe would
have done something like Israel did and invade to create
(39:39):
a ten.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
Mile border zone.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah, that'd be I mean, but even then you're dealing
with because the other problem is that you don't want
the cartels to become like almost a terrorist Romans.
Speaker 3 (39:50):
They constantly run terrorist attacks in the United States.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Despite all the bad things they're doing, you know, they
start blowing up, let's say, buildings in Arizona.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
I think it's so. I think it's just tough.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
I thought what they were gonna do is they're gonna
use immigration and board security as a way to limit
the cartel influence as much as they could, and then
they're gonna put economic pressure on Mexico to crack down.
But then even then there's limits. So maybe I'm wrong,
Maybe they Maybe I.
Speaker 1 (40:14):
Think you're right, there's always going to be an accommodation.
I'd be more concerned about narco terrorists. When they decide
that they want to bomb the grid or the water system,
you know that I think is a real threat. And
these guys are good businessmen, ruthless people.
Speaker 4 (40:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
I mean, you're not going up against They're running a
business and when you start cutting into their business, they'll
find a way to go around you, but ultimately they'll
go right through you. And look art before we wrap up,
do you have a score on the game?
Speaker 4 (40:50):
Is there a game on now?
Speaker 5 (40:52):
I do not have the game on?
Speaker 4 (40:53):
All right, Well, my gosh, I think it's on.
Speaker 3 (40:56):
Isn't it?
Speaker 2 (40:57):
It was around this time? Typically start, they always start,
they start right, yeah, yeah, so I think is it?
I'm pretty sure as Bill's Broncos is the first one, yeah,
and then Patriots are Broncos are off three zero right now?
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Aren't you're a animal lover? Did you go to the
farm show?
Speaker 5 (41:13):
I did not. My wife was sick this week, so
we didn't make it over.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
How she feeling. She's been sick for a little while.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
Here, still has a bad cough.
Speaker 4 (41:20):
Oh my.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Well, I'm looking at you, Brian, But I know you
didn't go to the farm show because you're not a
good American.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
And the traffic there just from you have to go
out of Harrisburg. It's like it takes like an hour
to go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Well, I mean, the farm show is a tradition. I
always look forward to the butter sculpture, you know. And uh,
I've gone to see the tractor pull. I've gone to
see the rodeo with the kids. You know, that's really cool.
The problem are three initials PN. You can see everything.
Speaker 4 (41:53):
Now on PCN. Man, it's very cool. And it's the
same with I think they do art. Do they do
the football?
Speaker 5 (41:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (42:00):
They do the high school football championships yeah, yeah, and
a lot of all the state high school championships.
Speaker 3 (42:05):
They do a good job too.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
So I mean, so let me end with this art
and the audience. We being me and Brian were at that.
We belonged to the press club, whether they like it
or not. And Stacey Garrity spoke.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
Right, if she's gonna run for governor on the Republican.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
Side, and she will get the endorsement, and I think
she has some positive things to run on. She thirty
years in military reserve. She you know, worked in manufacturing.
She kept all her staff after they transition. But I
think she's gonna have to change her presentation because it
(42:45):
sounds like Republicans' greatest hits, and she she has value
that she could promote. I was disappointed, but it was
her first speech.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
Well yeah, and we'll see because she's going up against
a popular governor a state where I think with this
midterm election it's going to be a democratic election, so
you're gonna have to essentially, you know, some find a
way to bring him down. I think her strongest thing
is she worked on pension boards and auditing functions, and
she has effective We've.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
Seen her, yes, teachers and shirts. She's done a good job.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
She had her best line was the only Pennsylvania that
Josh Shapiro cares about is Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 3 (43:26):
That's a good line.
Speaker 2 (43:27):
And you know she did and she says she kept
staff on, which is rare or you have a critical pointing.
And she's caught through her ardening functions, you know, billions
of dollars in improper payments, and she's brought the investment
standards up at both pieces and stirs up to what
we call national international regulation.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
And look, we're at the meetings, we've seen it we
know what's happening, right, what do we have about a minute?
Speaker 5 (43:51):
Yeah, about a minute in twenty.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
Any thoughts or pearls or wisdom.
Speaker 5 (43:57):
I'm ready for spring? How about that?
Speaker 4 (43:58):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Well yeah, I mean it's definitely gonna go.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
I think I think the Patriots dynasty might be back
if if Drake May and Vrabel as the head coach
and quarterback pairing.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
I'm worried about that. You know, I don't want another
Patriots dice.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
They're good, man, I mean, they're really good. And the
Giants are gonna be good. They got Harball, so that'll
be interesting. Look, mostly you have a three day weekend.
It's Monday's a day and celebration of Martin Luther King.
You're encouraged to volunteer. I have to agree with Art.
It got cold early and I just I just can't
(44:34):
deal with it. So look, we'll be back in two
weeks and uh, we'll take a look at.
Speaker 4 (44:38):
You, Ron if it's still there.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
Uh for millennial Brian Almeric Epstein Schelm, y'all
Well, one thing we know for sure. It's Saturday, and
I think the farm show is tapering off. I'm always
excited to have it come in town. I never go anymore.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah, I think I went as a kid once. I mean,
this is a great spectacle of drives in people to
the city.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
But you know, the traffic bearers. You know, if you're
on Camera Street, it's just a nightmare.
Speaker 4 (00:20):
It used to parking there used to be no parking,
used to be able to go right in.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
The animals were there the whole time. They weren't rotated out.
The kids used to sleep with the animals. You know,
maybe they still do it. But the traffic and the
parking are formidable. So look we got through that, Eric
Epstein with money O'Brian, the show is underdome. The organization
has rocked the capital. We're a good government, anti corruption
(00:45):
organization founded in two thousand and five after the pay race.
I encourage you to check out our website. Our webmaster,
Rebecca James, redid it. She did a great job. And
the excuse me, uh, there's a couple new uh uh block,
(01:06):
Well we we have. We have a couple of new editions.
One is we rate agencies based on openness and sunshine.
So we just revised the ratings and downgraded a number
of entities Turnpike, click or Control Board and also unfortunately
the Ethics Commission. So if you go there, you'll see
(01:28):
we have a ratings on agency and you know whether
or not, uh, they're they're really operating a transparent manner.
We have again, the misery index is up. It's eight pages. Uh,
everything went up. Everything, a lot of it in December,
but some in January. And look a lot of other stuff.
The website is easy to navigate. You can contact us
(01:51):
through that. But Brian doesn't know this, but I'm instituting
a new part of the show called Ask Brian, and
so in art feel free to shipping.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
I do you have?
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Apparently there's a lot of discussion about the melee that
broke out, like.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
The Hershey Bears game. So this actually went naturally viral,
I bet or because there was even more about this.
So there's an eight year old game in between the
periods of like, so it's like a youth hockey game
and there was a huge fight that broke out, and
it broke out for like I would say a few minutes.
The kids are really going.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Yeah, it was like a Hansen brother reunion.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
And maybe art we know more about this.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I heard the coaches might get suspended because I think
there might have been allegations that this might have been
somewhat planned to a certain degree. I don't know if
that's true or not, or if the kids just sometimes
kids just get rowdy. Hockey is a physical game, maybe
you know or do you know anything more about it?
Speaker 5 (02:49):
All week long they were saying it was staged, and
then yesterday a report came out that it wasn't staged.
And when you watched it from the naked eye as
a fan, I kind of did look stage, except for
the fact that the goalie came down and just started
laying kids out, which was really dangerous at that point.
And there were, of course, there were coaches or apparent
on the ice there and they just kind of left
(03:10):
to go.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So yeah, I think that was a problem with growing up,
you know. I you know, when I played street hockey,
you wanted to be a broad street bully. But these
are little kids eight years old. I was impressed by
how much money had to go into the equipment and uniforms,
because hockey is expensive, but art. That's what caught my eye.
That kid flew down like of aloft Rasper, and I mean,
(03:33):
you really, Usually the goalies don't even get involved.
Speaker 5 (03:36):
He looked bigger. Any in the padding he had on
could have really hurt one of the kids if they
hit their head on the ice or something.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
I'm always freaked out with the hockey fights with the skates,
the skates always because those things are sharp.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Yeah, with professionals, they're just so.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Aware and they're such great athletes that they could almost
like figure it out. But with kids, you know, they
were flopping around. I'm like, oh my gosh. Some kids
can't get caught.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
There's been instances where the crowded artery has been hit,
you know, and it's a look. I saw it and
it reminded me of the Mighty Ducks. But you know,
I like what Hershey's trying to do because I think
for the kids, it was a big thrill to get
to play there, you know, with the biggs.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
All right. So I don't know if you realize this,
I did.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Not know that there were significant vandalism at the Gettysburg
Battlefield recently. Twenty three monuments were vandalized. All they said
is an oil based substance, including the Pennsylvania State Monument.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
I'm not sure how you prevent that.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
I just wanted to get your well, I mean, I
guess you just have to have better security around the
monuments or if you have someone monitoring cameras.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
But you're right, I mean oil based substance.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
I'm assuming this is because of people protesting the recent
actions of Venezuela and they're just looking for something to deface.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
But you know, it's just it's sad, you know that happened.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I mean, Gettysburg's big. It would be hard to you know,
your eyes on everything. But yeah, yeah, I didn't know
what the point of that would be. And actually, uh
and interestingly enough, on Winglestown Road close to the truck stop,
howks does monument upkeep?
Speaker 4 (05:16):
And I think they also do you know, monument repair?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, I mean it costs a lot of money, but
those are the things. It's there's kind of like a
public agreement, you know. You see it when you actually
even go to sporting events too. It's like, you know,
if there's like a few, if there's like a dozen
crazy people there, they can kind of ruin it for everyone.
And so there's kind of an agreement that everyone has
to you know, behave to a certain level. And when
you see that, a lot of times these turn people
(05:39):
against whatever you're protesting, you know, whatever.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
You always always I mean, it never works. I mean
this is sacred, it's hallowed ground. What we need, I
guess at Gettysburg is what we used to have at
the Vet. You know that court underneath the stadium. Yeah,
a veteran stadium.
Speaker 4 (05:55):
And it was.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Necessarily in use a lot.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Actually, Seamus McCaffrey became a Supreme Court justice because he
was the judge down there. Els all right, this one,
I don't know how to feel about this. The State
Department is not going to allow passport services at Pennsylvania libraries.
So there is two Pennsylvania legislators, one D one R
(06:23):
want to restore these services. This is a big money
maker for libraries.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah, and this is I mean, this goes back to
kind of our public institutions that you know, sometimes you
don't have a way to raise revenue. People obviously don't
want their taxes increase, so you know, you use these
things like regiserve, wills, passport services. Sometimes there's substances to
use public banking at post offices as a way to
(06:50):
raise revenue and make them revenue neutral or at least.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Not a burden on the taxpayers.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
I always thought this is you know, good policy, especially
because librries is very excit, so it's easy to go
to same thing with post offices. Almost every area has
a post office somewhat nearby, So if you had services
there that could raise revenue without raising taxes and get
stuff done more.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
It's also you know, you have the ability if the
libraries are not providing their function to you know, modify funding.
Speaker 4 (07:20):
Yeah. So this is a riddle.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
I don't know if either you may know it, but art,
we're going to see if you can get it. All right,
So half a century later, it still lives at a
high school in its own glass. All right, it's dry,
it's missing crumbs and likely having absorbed some chalk dust
because it's in a classroom.
Speaker 4 (07:42):
Okay, so fifty.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Years later it is a item that was packed in
most lunch boxes fifty years ago.
Speaker 4 (07:56):
It was supposed to have a shelf life for three
and a half weeks. What do you think it is?
Speaker 5 (08:03):
Well, you got me on that one.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Do you know Millennia. Well you're you're sheating.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Yeah, I'm cheating. I can see it here.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
This is This goes to show how I think how
processed some of our items are.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Somebody's got to get this to RFK. It's the twinkie.
I kept it in a.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Bottle in his room for three and four decades.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Man.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
That's it's still preserved and not well obviously good to eat.
That's also preservatives. I mean people preservers make it. You
can grow more food, it's cheaper and it can stay
fresh for longer. But I don't think it's healthy long
term that fresh food. It might go bad quicker, but
it's so much better for that.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
I don't think anybody ever thought a twinkie. I mean,
they usould joke about it all the time. The problem
is a researcher said that there's only one preservative on it,
at least on the label, sorbic acid. But I thought
I thought that was interesting that a high schoo teacher
would keep a Twinkie inside of glass, and so he
had to move it when he retired.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Oh that's what.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
So I mean, look, if you're going to vandalize something,
how about the twinkie, instead of Gettysburg.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yeah, that's such a weird thing to keep though, is like,
I guess a science experiment, let's see, how great. But
also in a glass case is like almost protected from
the elements that would kind of weather it down. So
maybe it's not a perfect sample case. But still that's crazy.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
All I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
And I conclude with this for this portion of the show,
there's a big difference between three and a half weeks
and fifty years.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Yeah, fifty years.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
It's a long time anyway. Eric Caps signed in with
Millennial Brian. We're being produced by Art Selby. The show
is Thunderdome and the organization is Rock the Capitol.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Hey, so I want to hit.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
A couple of things that are in the news. Normally
we like to go over things that aren't covered, but
I think we need to have a a perspective on
what's happening in Germany, Iran, and Venezuela. So one of
the things, two of the things that tie all these
countries together is all three have oil, and all three
(10:14):
have vast I mean underline the word vast rare earth minerals.
All three are very difficult to harvest. Those minerals Venezuela
has an antiquated oil system. Iran when it comes to
rare earth minerals, they have them, you know, but they
really haven't repaired their oil infrastructure since the Iraqi Iran War.
(10:37):
Greenland's a tough call. So when you look at Greenland,
it is for centuries the Danish have held Greenland. In
nineteen fifty one, Truman signed a treaty with Greenland and
essentially we had up to twelve I think fifteen bases
were down to one.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
So we had a sis.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Uh we kind of well didn't we walked away from it,
but you know when.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
And maybe Brian you can go into it.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
When we were shirt researching today for this program, we
found an odd two odd programs that the Danish spun on.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
The Yeah, so I guess this is good to bring up.
So for the people to know.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Denmark's population and Greenland's population is much different the Anuwa
population in Greenland.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
I would say, it's it's it's closer to.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Our I guess what we call the Native Americans here,
but it's it's even more like I would say Mongolian
as far as ethnicity, and it's obviously much different than
Denmark population. In the sixties and seventies, they ran basically
population control experiments on the girls there, you know, basically
any teenage girls because they wanted to control the population.
(11:51):
You know, this has been done in other places where
it's been done now with the Wigers in China, where
are trying population control techniques essentially women of those populations.
So there was there have been disputes between Greenwood and Denmark,
and there was independence parties in the Greenland parliament. In fact,
it looked like the majority of people in Greenland one independence.
(12:14):
The problem was twofold. One is Denmark provides a very
large and generous welfare budget to them. Two, they're basically
Danish citizens, so they get the benefit of if they
want to move to Denmark, and they don't want to
lose that, lose economic benefits, even if they have personal
problems with the government. And the third one is with
the recent push to essentially annex Greenland, there's been a
(12:36):
real push back to Denmark as and they'd rather you know,
they don't want you know, they don't want independence, and
then going to the United States they don't want essentially
good between Denmark and the United States and one of
their own thing I thought what was going to happen
was Trump was going to come out maybe harsh. But
then I say, we'll pay Denmark, we'll purchase We'll purchase
Greenland from Denmark. Let's say we give them two hundred
(12:58):
billion for their pension fund. Then Greenland gets about three
billion a year from Denmark. Will triple that to let's
say nine or ten billion a year, and then we'll
let them govern it. But then we'll get the mineral
rights for stuff.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
So everyone.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Essentially, ideally, it'd be a win win win. Whereas denmarkets
two hundred billion for their petty fund, they don't have
to subsidize Greenland three billion a year. Greenland gets essentially
mining extraction with from the United States companies, but they
also get a huge welfare budget increase, and then we
get at least partial rights to those mineral rights.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
This is why I think probably that wouldn't work. It's
an innovative concept, and it's all about the minerals, all
about the minerals. It has nothing to do with with democracy, yeah,
or you know, freedom. So the Ino wit actually have
the Trump card, and that was an intentional pun and
people don't realize this, but the Inuit Council and the
(13:53):
last Secretary of State to participate I think was John Kerry.
So the Inwit Council includes indigenous peoples from who are
into It, from America, Canada, Denmark, Norway, maybe Russia, but
also Sweden.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
They control.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
If you look at control of minerals and also fishing rights,
they are one of the most powerful units on the
on the face of the earth. So that the Intoit
population in Greenland knows what they have.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Yeah, this is not an uninfeigned population. This is not
you know, we're buying Alaska from Russia and they have
no idea that there's tons of oil under it or
like this is a modern day thing they have. They
know what they have. That's why I suggested that the
purchase plan because basically you have to convince Denmark to
sell it. Greenland is open independence. The idea of them
(14:56):
in Denmark at along is not true, but they don't
want to lose their welfare budgets. You'd have to essentially
subsidize them and then you ideally would get the money,
which they believe could be trillions and trillions of dollars
and mineral rights that Yeah, so that you're right, But
This is not a democracy push.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
This is but if you're Greenland and you look at
American history and how Americans don't keep their promises in
regard to treaties or negotiations with the Native Americans, right, yeah,
I mean that's a fact. So if you're looking at that,
they have no enforcement mechanism. They look at somebody like
(15:33):
Trump and his business a strategy was basically to bully, intimidate.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Not to pay.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
So you have other factors here, as Greenland is actually
strategically in an interesting place where people used to think
it was remote, but due to global warming, it's more accessible.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Yeah, and those trade routes and those minerals because of
global warming become more even more accessible. I think the
argument that I says to make it would be, listen
to the Native Americans. We're not treated well, but now
they have casinos, they get gener welfare budgets. Any state
that was let's say added on Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska,
(16:12):
even the territories have all are all economically way above
what the their other areas like let' say Puerto Rico
compared to the rest of a lot in America. Port
Rica is way more successful.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
So let me ask you this.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
If that's your argument, how do you explain the fact
that most Native Americans on reservations living at third world right, well,
in terms of hunger and medicine and things that matter.
I mean, yeah, they have casinos. It doesn't mean it's
distributed to that's true.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
It doesn't mean it's tribrite equally. And you're right, the
most successful NA Americans don't live on the reservation. They
live They basically live with the general public and essentially,
and that's been a problem everywhere. That's been a problem
in Australia that when you have a native population, if
you don't integrate them into domestic economy, no matter how
much welfare you give them, they're still poor. We see
in Greenland with Denmark. Denmark is as probably some of
(17:05):
the most generous welfare benefits in the world, but Greenland's
not integrated with the free market economy at Denmark and
it's significantly poor.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
So, but I mean Greenland really I would imagine that,
like Iceland, soon they'll become a tourist mecca. And you know,
when I was in Denmark, there are a lot of
people from Greenland living in Denmark, and it was not.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
An easy coexistence.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
You know, as you were saying, these folks culturally, ethically
are much different than Danes. And you know, to go
back to Greenland in terms of security. So this is
where we've had traditionally air force bases, military bases up
to twelve we unilaterally Withdrew, I think, with quiet to pomacy.
(17:55):
If you want to, you know, reclaim your state, that's
what you do.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
But if you think you're.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Going to buy Greenland and then keep it under toe
with one military base and now you've got NATO deploying
forces against potential American.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Incursions, and that's the worry is that is Trump going
to use like a soft military, not maybe an invasion,
but push I think that's what he's arguing. But is
that arguing is that is that how he negotiates to
get the price down, that he's the one to give
them Mark two hundred and fifty billion. It wants to
pay Greenland ten ten, ten billion dollars a year. But
(18:37):
that's essentially what's going to have to happen unless you want.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
So this is my prediction.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
I think he's always wanted to buy Greenland, even in
his first term. You know that, And people just said, hey,
that's crazy. So now you're just telling people that American
first means whatever I want it to me. And so
if I'm going to acquire this, now you have to
have a sustained military press to protect your assets. This
is not a one off. You don't go and take
(19:04):
the minerals. And now, as we saw with Venezuela, we
deployed naval resources to South America and people just finally
figured out this week, Oh, they're no longer in the
mid East.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
It's going to be hard to do anything.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
You can't right, you can't be everywhere at once, That's right.
I think what if you look at the National Security Document,
it seems like they want to revive the Monroe doctrine.
One of the things he said about Venezuela is not
just that he wants the IL, but isn't one China,
Russia or any adversaries to have any relation with them.
And then you're seeing the same things about Cuba, whereas
essentially you see Marco Rubio see Trump seems to give
(19:41):
the same signals that we don't want any deal with
China and Russia and Cuba, which Cuba obviously historically has
been a lot with those countries. Are they going to
act and or are they going to act beyond those two
countries to maybe other left wing governments, but democracies like
Columbia and Mexican. I mean, they're not the same as
(20:03):
Cuba and Venezuela. Even if you're against those interventions, Baduro
and the Cuban guy are not take.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
These decades to repair relationships with countries in which our
corporations went in and were perceived to extract minerals.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
And not give back.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
America's reputation is actually improved because they have partnerships different
Latin American governments who don't have the technology or capital
to extract. So you know, we've heard, oh, we might
invade Mexico. I mean, really you're gonna yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
I don't think that's gonna I'll be shocked. It's gonna
have Listen, we saw with the Venezuela there's been pushback.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Well, we'll get to Venezuela at the end. There's been
a lot of a lot of push.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
But even within the party. So I think if it
goes beyond that, there will be enough. But the question
is what's the deal. I think what he wants is
he wants a quick deal. Same thing with the Rush Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, Iran,
that he might use force quickly, but then eventually he
just wants a deal and be like, hey, let's kind
a deal.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
It doesn't work like that. I mean, so.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
The reaction of a parent who's had a child, a
soldier killed in Greenland fighting for what to preserve our
miner it's it's a tough call, I just think. And
it's not a style you just say, look, you know
you're a strategic asset. We like to reassert our presence
(21:26):
as our right for the Treaty fifty one, then you
I mean, if it's about the minerals, you're gradually going
to be able to build an infrastructure. But you know,
it's it's a tough call. And so I think the
German and the French naval ship.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, in Germany brought up that if Greedom was attacked,
it's part of Denmark, which is a NATO member, and
so they'll act.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, I'd be shocked, Listen.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I could be wrong though, because I you know, I
didn't think we're actually going to attack Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
I thought we're going to try to use this.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
I would say soft military puss to be like, hey,
get this guy, I agree with our demands and that's
not true. We we went in there and got so we'll see.
I think I think that I think the push long
term is going to have to be you have to
be if you want to you have to literally buy
it and then basically subsidize it. And if your argument
is the minerals are worth it, that that's the argument.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Before we go to break three quick points and this
is real. First of all, policy changes with every president.
You know, there's a lack of continuity. Secondly, if recent
history has proven anything is you need to have troops
on the ground, permanent present to occupy.
Speaker 4 (22:34):
Yeah. And third this is expensive. It costs money.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
So today right, Uh, we finished Greenland. Uh, We're gonna
move to Iran. Uh in just a moment. We are
Rock to Capital manial. Brian and Eric Epstein are the host.
Art Selby is producing. Rock to Capital is our group,
but the show is Thunderdome. Please visit our website. We'll
be right back.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
So, just to finish up on Greenland, I mean Germany
deployed naval assets, as did the French. The Germans deployed
thirteen troops.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
But this is not serious.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
But I think if you listen to what they said
that commercial about or during the break about he's going
to post terriffs. That's how I thought he would put
pressure on, not the military thing. He say essentially, I
want to deal. I'll impost tariffs until I get a deal.
The questions is that going to backfire and that's going
to push everything.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
What's happened with terroriffts is produced countries to find other
I mean, and so you got to open your eyes.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
You know, if you're going to.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Use terroriffs to extract a deal, people need to believe
that you're going to stick to the deal.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
I mean.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
In one of the things with Trump, he's very inconsistent.
That may be outgrowth of his personality.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Well, I think what he's I think I'm assuming what
he's thinking is if we can get a deal for
Greenland and it's it's cheap and it'll be worth in
the long run. And that was the same thing with Alaska,
that was worth it. I just I just don't think
because I think you can get the exact option is
that you know, public support in Europe against America is
you know, down they're gonna I'm assuming.
Speaker 4 (24:09):
Are allies in Europe. I don't know who. I mean.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
When Alaska what they used to call it, swords folly,
he bought that short who was I think the Partment
Secretary of Interior bought I'll ask him for six million
you know a different time you didn't, you know, and
nobody really knew what the value was. They thought it
was was we know what the value was here. But
(24:34):
everything we do seems to poke NATO.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Well, I think because originally Trump's problem with NATA was
that America spends more than anyone else. They get essentially
a subsidy from the United States, and then we don't
even have good trade rights for them. But then I
thought the tariffs were idea to push it to a
more even trade deal and more even NATO spending that's
not but is a terrif as long term revetue boy,
(25:01):
and to sort of bring certain things I guess, certain
changes in policy and assets, and I think that's that's
I think it's going to spark a response the other way.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
Yeah, this is not gonna end well for us. So yeah,
every president post World World two, probably starting more like
in the seventies, you know, was critical of the amount
of money that we spent on Europe and the amount
we spent on the military part. It was a grand
bargain though these were Western European countries that put a
(25:33):
premium on democracy and we protect it. So now if
you're going to come to I don't think people are
going to view this as balance. All Right, you put
a tariff on our goods and you pull out your
troops and your promise to protect us is gone.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
I'm looking elsewhere, man.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
Yeah, or they're going to form their own thing. They're
going to form their own defense factors. I think in
Europe they're going to Yeah, and then they're going to
make the trade impossible. And plus I think you remember,
the public in Europe is gonna be against this, so
I think it's gonna make it even harder. The question
is Trump would argue, it doesn't matter if we get
a deal for Greenland, it'll be worth in the long run.
(26:14):
But it's also a weird way to do business because
typically the business is in the modern area has been
done through transactionalism, not actual conquering, and not maybe conqueror
but actually acquiring. It's like it's I get a better
trade deal. You know, look at the Switzerland. Switzerland has
no you know, international assets, but they have great trade
deals all over the world and they're a very rich country.
(26:35):
That's why I thought that're gonna using the negotiating tactic.
But they're gonna use negotiating tactic.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Switzerland is not perceived as aggressive. It's perceived as a neutral, right,
highly educated population. They do have a military, you know,
which youth have to serve in. It's a unique form
of governing. So as we leave Greenland, and I forgot
(26:59):
to add this there is the Trump administration is asking
for the names of all the Jewish professor, Jewish staff
than Jewish students at the University of Pennsylvania. Uh and
which has a horrific connotation if you're Jewish. So you know,
(27:21):
part of this is I think mister Trump uh trying
to I don't I used to say reconcile, but probably
more like retaliated after the riots that for the pro
Palestinian riots.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
So okay, yeah, so I think it's he does have
you know, his chief of staff is Jewish and he
has his sign of laws Jewish. So I don't know
if it's not the same thing. But you're right, is
that you know, it has a terrible connotation because it
goes back to the nixt administration when he he would
have you know, we count Jewish heads at different departments
and essentially to modum or move them.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
If so, this is interesting.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
He had a jew counter next it because as he thought,
Jews and again reminiscent attempted and the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
you know, we're screwing them over. So it gives an
order to find The guy's name is Fred Malik, very
successful businessman. He found thirty five Jews. It's kind of
like the McCarthyism, and a number of them had to depart.
(28:22):
What was interesting is that Malik then became campaign manager
for George Bush years later, and Malick also worked with Trump.
I mean Trump appointed him to the chair of the
Woodrow Wilson International Center. So the issue is this, I mean, clearly,
(28:44):
there's been a lot of anti Semitism and anti Jewish tones, overtones,
specific tones in these demonstrations. By the way, what's interesting
the people that demonstrated against Israel responding to being attacked.
And look, I would be the first to acknowledge that
there were excesses. First, it was the most publicized urban
(29:06):
war ever. The second I point out is where are
the protesters now.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
With other countries they're wrong?
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Where are the processors now in regard to Iran? I mean,
these are people, the Iranians are rising up against a bureaucratic,
despotic government. So I mean, where's the consistency if.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Well, their argument would be, you know, the United States
doesn't support of Ron, but it supports Israel, and so
that's why they're protesting.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
I think. But I think you're right.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
And the big thing, obviously, and it's is that they're connecting,
like all Jews, accluding American Jews, to every policy they
don't like with Israel. But they would never do that
with any of the country. They never do that, Like
would you rather go to Iranian Americans and attack them
because you don't like Iranian policy? I think that that
was the problem, is that you're you know, you're not
just having policy discriments, that you're making it personal discrimination problems.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
So that's just you know, that's ho.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Well, so for Jews, I mean, this is what Nazis did,
and I'm equating this with Nazism. You got information on people,
then you used it. You know later to capture or
to essentially defund, but it just seems to be a
chilling thing to do. And uh, you know, in the
(30:23):
current era that we're living in, the genre whatever you
want to call it, it's not even something that draws attention.
I mean right, well, to get first in line in
the news, it's good and which and this is where
where Trump is really effective.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
It's got to be sensation.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
He moves moves quickly from policy to policy and then
you know, and then you're the next thing that you're
not going to catch, you know, every debate or everything
that goes on. I mean, this goes back to when
he came in. He said he wanted to go after
the universities that he thought were you know, going after conservatives,
which some of some of it was true, was that
you know, there was the serve of discrimination.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
It would be hard to deny that there wasn't a
liberal bias on campuses. Yeah, and to replace it with
a conservative bias isn't really healthy. I mean, both sides
need to be look.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
In the mirror when they describe her for the.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
First Amendment, that's right, Yeah, everyone for the First Amendment
against their enemies or you know.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Yeah, that's that's the test.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
It's like, do you support the First Amendment for people
you disagree with and disliked that's the only Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
That's the key.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
And well, if it's going to incite violence, no, I
get it. But the left, I thought overreached on a
number of campuses by uh and a lot of the
targets where Jewish people came to speak on Israel.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Yeah, and so then you know the right.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
I think the right is more in college campuses, more
effective and more influential than ever.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
And I think you saw what Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Yeah, well I think they did. Yeah, they brought in debates.
They brought in people to make those arguments. And then listen,
when you ever have a bias and you're always seeing
that side, your arguments aren't as sharp, Like you can't
make arguments against points you're kind of you're not you're
closed off to certain ideas, and then and then you
become it's almost better to have your ideas tested and
(32:13):
refined and pushed, and that's sort of you know that.
I think they kind of made conservatives almost better debaters,
although I think that's changed recently, where you see both
sides debating more.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
Than a good debates.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
You look at archival material Buckley on Firing Line. He
was a conservative host. He was noted as the conservative
voice in America, and he had these thoughtful debates with
people on the left, and he was very thoughtful, and
it was a back and forth. It was so basically
a disagreement over ideas. The problem with Americans, and this
(32:47):
is in almost every facet of the culture, is they're
not listening. So when you're going back and forth, they're
not listening. All they're waiting for is a pause to
inshort their point of right. So they're not actually saying, oh,
you said that, that's interesting, you know, they're saying, Okay, well,
you know, how do I dismantle this guy in the
next round.
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Yeah, the error of persuasion is kind of over, and
it's kind of moved to.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
An era of like just.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
I don't know, ideological destruction or ideological where you're just
this is your team, and whatever your team does, you're
ready to just hammer it.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Hammer, which changed is and this is both sides. The
people know if you compromise as a weakness, you know,
and they don't feel that rallying at the center is
a point, So it's a winner take all and at
the at the end of the day, the core issue
(33:40):
is based on style and that substance.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
And then also you have people that I would say
are just like I'll call them checklist people, where it's like,
what does my team say on this issue. I'm going
to support that no matter what. Whereas you used to
have people that you had a variety of views. Maybe
they're left wing, but let's say, you know, different education issues,
they're a conservative, and let's say they're right wing. Let's
say on different you have to have everything.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
Yeah, yeah, I got it, got it to the Ok.
We gotta we got to tow the line and go
to break. So we have sponsors that can pay us
our outdishly lavish salaries. Eric ev stand in with Millennial Brown.
Speaker 3 (34:15):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
Big Art Selby, who's a mega media star, is producing us,
and we are rock to Capitol Shows, thunder Dumb. We'll
be back in a second for our last segment that
I don't know if you heard the commercial on the RX.
I think that is what's a guy's name his invention
used to be the owner of the basketball team.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Oh Cuban, Yeah, Cuban.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
That was the worst fake Southern accent I ever. I mean,
honest to God, if I was somebody from Richmond shred to.
So we are going to kind of bypass Iran because
it may be here next week. Venezuela is getting interesting.
So the vice president of Venezuela and the National Assembly
(35:04):
President our brother and sister. So the sister that is
serving Rodriquez in the after Matthew Maduro being gone. It's
consolidating power and has a relationship with Trump. However, Rodriquez
is her opposition is Gonzalez. Gonzalez is from the Socialist Party.
(35:31):
You can call him whatever you want, but he heads
up the des Squads. So his first speech after Maduro
was captured was in military fatigues with the DEAs squad
guys around him.
Speaker 4 (35:42):
He's supporting her. Now.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
The irony is is that the Nobel Prize winner is
not a factor.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Right, so she's she's been pushed out of the government.
We don't know before any of this happened. The way
Maduro Casalade power was basically went to courts and kind
of outlawed parties from running, and then people even when
they won election, had their ballots out lawned. So I
think Machado won. I think it was like seventy five
percent or seventy percent to vote, and you know Maduro
(36:12):
got twenty five third.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
Yeah, but she could.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
And then he basically just said these are invalid votes
or they didn't count them from the outlaudum, and then
that was testified to by many international organizations. Both her
and the previous opposition leader were basically excommunicated from the country.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
So that's what he did.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
Now that Madua has been captured, his vit president, she's
gonna I think what's gonna happen is the problem with
going to Machado is what you just said is that
essentially all the institutions are still run by Maduro people
or something of that. So is it going to be
a deal cut? I'm assuming there is, you know, well, yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:49):
I mean, so you have the vice president Dela Rodriguez
in power now, who has uh has a phenomenal business network,
so im is from her perspective, she just will give
her the ability to develop Venezuela and assets and America
will be a party, right, But you don't want to.
(37:10):
I mean, the Venezuelan military is still intact.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Yeah, and just be clear when people talking to the
desk quads and the narco terrorist allegations were that as
part of his interior minister, So not the vice president,
but the interior minister is the head of the main
cartel gang and as such, they were working with the
Colombian cartels essentially moved partut to Venezuela and then ship
it up through a lot of American countries to the
(37:34):
United States and Canada, and they were getting revenue from that.
Now the level to which Maduro was in charge of
that versus the cartel guy is debated, but that guy's
still in power to certain degree. So the idea that
it's completely going to go away, it's just I think.
Speaker 1 (37:48):
They're going to go away. It's like anything while they're
still demand. Demand is coming from America. Right in Canada,
there's always going to be elicit drugs being produced. But
this is not unusual in the Latin American government for
there to be arrangement between the government either left or right,
with the cartel cartel. I mean, it's the same thing
(38:08):
in Mexico. It's ridiculous to think you're going to invade
Mexico and the cartels are going to sit.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
There, right, And it's not just the federal government.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
I think when people could you know, other countries, they'll
get the president or whatever, you know, all the bordering
Mexican states with the United States. So I'm not talking
about like Arizona. I'm talking about the actual the Mexican states.
They're all they all have some level of cartel influence
because the ports there, the main one of the major
products they run, which is you know, huge part of
their economy is drugs, you know, basically you know, a weegal.
(38:38):
So the idea that you're going to get rid of
that entirely is just not It's just not going to happen.
Speaker 4 (38:43):
Now.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
You can reduce it, you can't make you know, immigration
board security harder, which they have, but I think the
idea that it is just not true. And plus the
difference is that the Mexican present right now, even though
she's left wing, super popular seventy percent approval.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Rate, well, she's also the first one Jewish president of Mexico.
And I think she's a physicist, she's sharp, and she
was blessed by her predecessor.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
Who was also seen as at least, if not effect
a very very moral and against corruption was a huge
problem in Mexico.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
Yeah, so you have that tradition. I don't think anybody is.
You just can't take mister Trump seriously about invading Mexico.
Mexico is oil rich, no doubt, and I would think
that America at some point, I mean, spitballing, maybe would
have done something like Israel did and invade to create
(39:39):
a ten.
Speaker 3 (39:39):
Mile border zone.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah, that'd be I mean, but even then you're dealing
with because the other problem is that you don't want
the cartels to become like almost a terrorist Romans.
Speaker 3 (39:50):
They constantly run terrorist attacks in the United States.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
Despite all the bad things they're doing, you know, they
start blowing up, let's say, buildings in Arizona.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
I think it's so. I think it's just tough.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
I thought what they were gonna do is they're gonna
use immigration and board security as a way to limit
the cartel influence as much as they could, and then
they're gonna put economic pressure on Mexico to crack down.
But then even then there's limits. So maybe I'm wrong,
Maybe they Maybe I.
Speaker 1 (40:14):
Think you're right, there's always going to be an accommodation.
I'd be more concerned about narco terrorists. When they decide
that they want to bomb the grid or the water system,
you know that I think is a real threat. And
these guys are good businessmen, ruthless people.
Speaker 4 (40:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
I mean, you're not going up against They're running a
business and when you start cutting into their business, they'll
find a way to go around you, but ultimately they'll
go right through you. And look art before we wrap up,
do you have a score on the game?
Speaker 4 (40:50):
Is there a game on now?
Speaker 5 (40:52):
I do not have the game on?
Speaker 4 (40:53):
All right, Well, my gosh, I think it's on.
Speaker 3 (40:56):
Isn't it?
Speaker 2 (40:57):
It was around this time? Typically start, they always start,
they start right, yeah, yeah, so I think is it?
I'm pretty sure as Bill's Broncos is the first one, yeah,
and then Patriots are Broncos are off three zero right now?
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Aren't you're a animal lover? Did you go to the
farm show?
Speaker 5 (41:13):
I did not. My wife was sick this week, so
we didn't make it over.
Speaker 1 (41:16):
How she feeling. She's been sick for a little while.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
Here, still has a bad cough.
Speaker 4 (41:20):
Oh my.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Well, I'm looking at you, Brian, But I know you
didn't go to the farm show because you're not a
good American.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
And the traffic there just from you have to go
out of Harrisburg. It's like it takes like an hour
to go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Well, I mean, the farm show is a tradition. I
always look forward to the butter sculpture, you know. And uh,
I've gone to see the tractor pull. I've gone to
see the rodeo with the kids. You know, that's really cool.
The problem are three initials PN. You can see everything.
Speaker 4 (41:53):
Now on PCN. Man, it's very cool. And it's the
same with I think they do art. Do they do
the football?
Speaker 5 (41:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (42:00):
They do the high school football championships yeah, yeah, and
a lot of all the state high school championships.
Speaker 3 (42:05):
They do a good job too.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
So I mean, so let me end with this art
and the audience. We being me and Brian were at that.
We belonged to the press club, whether they like it
or not. And Stacey Garrity spoke.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
Right, if she's gonna run for governor on the Republican.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
Side, and she will get the endorsement, and I think
she has some positive things to run on. She thirty
years in military reserve. She you know, worked in manufacturing.
She kept all her staff after they transition. But I
think she's gonna have to change her presentation because it
(42:45):
sounds like Republicans' greatest hits, and she she has value
that she could promote. I was disappointed, but it was
her first speech.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
Well yeah, and we'll see because she's going up against
a popular governor a state where I think with this
midterm election it's going to be a democratic election, so
you're gonna have to essentially, you know, some find a
way to bring him down. I think her strongest thing
is she worked on pension boards and auditing functions, and
she has effective We've.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
Seen her, yes, teachers and shirts. She's done a good job.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
She had her best line was the only Pennsylvania that
Josh Shapiro cares about is Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 3 (43:26):
That's a good line.
Speaker 2 (43:27):
And you know she did and she says she kept
staff on, which is rare or you have a critical pointing.
And she's caught through her ardening functions, you know, billions
of dollars in improper payments, and she's brought the investment
standards up at both pieces and stirs up to what
we call national international regulation.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
And look, we're at the meetings, we've seen it we
know what's happening, right, what do we have about a minute?
Speaker 5 (43:51):
Yeah, about a minute in twenty.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
Any thoughts or pearls or wisdom.
Speaker 5 (43:57):
I'm ready for spring? How about that?
Speaker 4 (43:58):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Well yeah, I mean it's definitely gonna go.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
I think I think the Patriots dynasty might be back
if if Drake May and Vrabel as the head coach
and quarterback pairing.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
I'm worried about that. You know, I don't want another
Patriots dice.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
They're good, man, I mean, they're really good. And the
Giants are gonna be good. They got Harball, so that'll
be interesting. Look, mostly you have a three day weekend.
It's Monday's a day and celebration of Martin Luther King.
You're encouraged to volunteer. I have to agree with Art.
It got cold early and I just I just can't
(44:34):
deal with it. So look, we'll be back in two
weeks and uh, we'll take a look at.
Speaker 4 (44:38):
You, Ron if it's still there.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
Uh for millennial Brian Almeric Epstein Schelm, y'all
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.