Cajun Knight Live 33

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another edition
of The Cajun Night Live. I am your host, Jacob
Mook the Cajun Night. We got a couple of things
we're gonna talk about tonight. Some things US related, something's
international related. It's just kind of gonna be all over
the place. I'm gonna go ahead and share the screen
at this time. And if you would like to see
the content and get the commercial free listening, then what

(00:26):
you need to do is go to the link in
the description below to the Cajun Night at Patreon. There's
only one tier for entry. We're trying to grow this
to be the open form discussion style that it has
slowly but surely become, and we're trying to grow this
for more and more people to join in. So if
you would please go do so. Join in the conversations
every Wednesday night at nine pm Central on the Cajun

(00:46):
Night at Patreon. Now, let's get into it. Starting off here,
the CDC, their new leader who has been in her
position for less than a month, just got removed from
her position. Interesting points. Let's listen in here we.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
Are learning the newly installed director of the CDC is
leaving the agency. According to the Health Department, who posted
on x Susan Monarez is no longer director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We thank her for
her dedicated service to the American people. She has only
led the agency for about a month. And remember, the
agency is going through a lot of changes that we

(01:24):
have been telling you about here under Health Secretary RFK Junior.

Speaker 1 (01:26):
We are learning, okay, so it's going through a lot
of changes. Of course RFK is going to be implemented
in this. But was he to blame for the removal?
Was there more things about this individual, some scrupulous behavior
that would lead to this. Let's talk about it here.
This is from NBC News, And as we just heard,
she's being removed, but CDC Director Suzanne Monarez will not resign,

(01:52):
her lawyers say after Health Secretary moved to oust her.
Matter of fact. Total, this is a two minute clip.
It's actually I think a little bit further in depth
from what we just heard about. And I do want
to hear this and then we're going to read the
article in detail.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Let's listen in some breaking news just into us now.
We are learning the newly installed director of the CDC
is leaving the agency. According to the Health Department, who
posted on x Susan Monarez is no longer director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We thank her
for her dedicated service to the American people. She has
only led the agency for about a month. And remember

(02:26):
the agency is going through a lot of changes that
we have been telling you about here under Health Secretary
RFK Junior, I want to bring in Berkeley Lovelace Junior,
who's been following this for us, in joining us. Now
do we know why Berkeley she is suddenly leaving the agency.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
Yeah, so we haven't been given a reason other than
this tweet from HHS that she is no longer at
the agency. And this just comes just weeks after gunman
opened fire at the agency's headquarters in Atlanta, which left
one police officer dead. We were told that she did
plan a meeting, an agency wide meeting for Monday, but
then that was abruptly canceled as well. And this also

(03:03):
comes today when RFK Junior announced that there would be
restrictions for the upcoming COVID shots for the fall as well.
So we're not exactly sure why she was ousted. She
did join that she was confirmed in late July, and
she's been a long time government scientist.

Speaker 2 (03:20):
So walk us through how this kind of fits into
all the changes that we have been seeing happening at
the Health Department.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
Yeah, so, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior has been
criticized over his moves on vaccines, and also in June
he replaced all members of the Sinners for Disease Control
Prevention Vaccine Advisory Panel that's what makes recommendations for vaccines
and insurance companies are forced to recover. So it's unclear
whether or not monoas agreed with those decisions as well.

(03:49):
Of course, there will be some upcoming decisions about the
COVID shots in the next few weeks as well. There
are also some research going on about potential links of autism.
There are some rumblings that Kennedy will either could find
potential leaks between vaccines which have been thoroughly debunked. So
right now it's it's very unclear. Also, a source, Erica Edwards,

(04:12):
our colleague, has also just discovered that three other CDC
leaders have also just resigned as well following Moneris disaster.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
Berkeley, Lovelace, thank you appreciate it, Thanks for being on
this Berkeley.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
All right, So a direct quote here. CDC Director Suzanne
Monarez refuse to rubber stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire
dedicated health experts. She chose protecting the public over serving
a political agenda, said her lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abe
David Lowell. Let's dive in a little deeper here. So

(04:46):
just for the record here, and I don't know if
this article is going to bring it up or not.
I did a little more digging into her specifically. She
has a PhD in microbiology and immunization. She has been
in this field, not necessarily for the CDC, but she
has been in this field for a very long time. She,
as far as I can tell, has a very decent
track record as a medical professional. Now that has nothing

(05:09):
to do with political leanings, That has nothing to do
with conspiracy theories or anything like that. I'm saying as
a doctor, I could find no red flags initially to
say that this woman was not about her business. That
being said, let's read The Center for Disease Control and
Prevention leadership is in a stunning disarray Wednesday, evening after
the nation's top health official, RFK Junior, appeared to force

(05:30):
out it the agency's director, only for her to refuse
to resign. So he's forcing her out and then she's like,
I will not resign. He's like, cool, don't worry about
her resignation, just leave. The director, Suzanne Monarez, said she
was being ousted after about a month in office, not
even a full month, by the way, for political reasons
by the Trump administration. Direct quote here when the CDC

(05:51):
director Suzanne Monarez refused to rubber stamp. Oh, we already
read that one. All right, cool, doctor Monares has neither
resigned nor received notification from the White House that she
has been and as a person of integrity and devoted society,
she will not resign. The attorney, who did not return
a request for comment, added, shocker. You would think that
they would write for something so public and so out

(06:12):
there in the public eye like this. You would think
that the lawyers would give statements to reporters to try
to make this as loud and messy as possible. But
all right. Their statement came hours after the Department of
Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC and which
Kennedy leads said in a post on x that she
is no longer director of the agency. Would think of
her dedicated service to the American people that sparked a

(06:35):
near immediate leadership exodus from the CDC, which is charged
with the safekeeping the public health for excuse me, is
charged with safe keeping the public health of more than
three hundred million people in America. Three other leaders in
the CDC. I wouldn't call that a leadership exodus. That's

(06:56):
just me personally. I think there might be making a
little bit more that, But then again, I don't know
if that was just an initial three that says of shigo,
we go, and they took off and more followed. You know,
this is still breaking news as far as this goes.
At least four top officials announced excuse me, not three.
Four top officials announced their resignations, including doctor Deborah Oweri,

(07:18):
the Chief Medical Officer, doctor Dimitri dosca Lakis, director of
the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, doctor Daniel Jernigan,
director of National Center for Emerging in Zoonautic Infectious Disease.
That's a word I've never seen before, dope, and doctor
Jen Leyden, Director of the Office of Public Health, Data, Surveillance,

(07:39):
and Technology. Kennedy, a longtime anti vaccine activist, has been
controversial of controversial figure to lead the country's health agencies.
He has cut five hundred million in contracts focused on
developing mRNA vaccines, drawing sharp criticism from the scientific community
and former government officials, and under his guidance, HHS has

(07:59):
made made a number of vaccine policy decisions that limit
access to vaccines or call vaccine safety into question. In
recent weeks, some of those sentiments were echoed by the
officials who resigned. In his resignation letter, des Galakis, I
hope I nailed that, wrote quote, I am not able
to serve in this role any longer because of the
ongoing weaponization of public health or weaponizing of public health,

(08:23):
I should say, our easer, I hope that's how you
pronounce that. One auri's resignation letter spoke about the continued
spread of misinformation around vaccines. Another quote, Recently, the overstating
of risks of vaccines and the rise of misinformation have
cost lives, as demonstrated by the highest number of US
measles cases in thirty years. In the violent attack on

(08:45):
our agency, she wrote. The CDC staffers said they were
shocked by the developments. This is a direct quote, again
from the CDC staffer who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.
These guys are the best in the business. They know
their stuff. I'm stunned how fast this all happened. The
departures came at a tumultuous time for the agency. On
August eighth, a gunman shattered windows of six buildings in

(09:07):
the CDC campus in Atlanta. A police officer died in
the shooting. Several days after the shooting, Monarez sought to
reassure staffers during a virtual meeting. Is a quote from
her during the meeting. We know that misinformation can be dangerous,
not only to health, but to those that trust us
and those we want to trust. We need to rebuild
this trust together. The CDC employees said that although Monarez

(09:30):
hadn't been in leadership for long, it quote seemed like
she was a fairly strong advocate for CDC employees and
she was the only one to take the shooting seriously.
She was the only one to take the shooting seriously.
That's an interesting direct quote from an anonymous source. Okay.
President Trump has not made any public statements about the shooting.

(09:53):
In March, Trump picked Monerez as the nominee to head
the CDC. Monrez's previous work involved using artificial intel legence
to improve health, of course it did. Before joining the CDC,
Monrez was deputy director of the Advanced Research Project's Agency
for Health, a research funding agency focused on biomedical innovations.

(10:13):
The Senate confirmed her nomination in late July. Last Friday,
Monarez canceled a meeting with the CDC staff members that
had been scheduled for Monday. The focus of the meeting
was going to be safety concerns and security enhancements after
the shooting, quoting here from her, Unfortunately, we need to
postpone Monday's event for an HHS meeting that I have
been asked to attend in person in DC, she wrote

(10:34):
in an email to the CDC staff members. Doctor Mandy Cohen,
a former CDC director under President Biden, said quote, we
lost exceptional leaders who have served over many decades and
many administrations. The weakening of the CDC leaves us less
safe and more vulnerable as a country. Michael Osterholm, an
infectious disease expert, and the director of the Center for

(10:57):
Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the Universe of Minnesota
said in a statement that the departures are a serious
loss for America. The loss of experienced, world class infectious
disease experts at the CDC is directly related to the
failed leadership of extremists currently in charge of the Department
of Health and Human Services. Ulster Home is launching the
Vaccine Integrity Project cool that's a if that's not a

(11:22):
loaded title as a potential alternative to the CDC's Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices. In June, Kennedy fired all seventeen
ACIP members and replaced them with his own picks, including
several COVID vaccine skeptics. Yep, we could talk for forever

(11:43):
on that, all right. If Monterrez is pushed out, the
agency will return to the leader list state it has
been in for the majority of the new Trump administration.
Trump's original pick for director, David doctor David Weldon, was
pulled from consideration hours before his confirmation hearing in March. Weldon,
a forming former congres from Florida, had a history of
questioning vaccine safety. Manaas briefly served as the agency's acting

(12:06):
director before she was nominated in Weldon's place. So all right,
So again, I don't know, there's still more that's going
to be coming out about this as time goes on,
but this is kind of one of those hot off
the presses. As of time of recording, we don't know
if there was something that was said, some sort of
an email chain that indicated that she would not be

(12:28):
a quote unquote team player or whatever the case was.
Like I said, as far as her career goes, she
seems to be pretty much on her game. So for
them to remove her in such a way, of course,
it's gonna have to be connected to vaccines. And I
didn't think AI was gonna get a plug on that one.
But all right, cool, But yeah, COVID allegedly COVID is

(12:52):
back on the menu. I personally know of one kid
that had COVID here recently. Of course he's fine. It
was about three days of him feeling like hell, and
now he's back in action. No vaccines, I should add,
and I know it's a shock or no shots or
any of these things. He just you know, his body's

(13:12):
immunity just kind of fought back because COVID is essentially
another type of version of the flu by another name.
It's not the exact same thing, and I understand that,
but your body fights it about the same way. And yeah,
so that's the thing that I'm hearing more and more about.
Oh well, this COVID season is coming up, and I'm like,
since when is COVID season in the fall, the summer

(13:33):
to fall time. I always thought that what we were
told for forever was that it was a springtime thing,
the same as all other types of sicknesses and ailments
that come winner to springtime, summer to fall. I was
unaware that this was the new COVID season. But hey,
here we are. Maybe it's some new variant. Maybe they've
what are they on right now? Have they run out
of the Greek alphabet and now they're on to something else?

(13:56):
I don't know, But anyway, Susan Monrez is out. There's
some obvious issues that are to be said with this,
and of course, because RFK is involved in the Trump administration,
it's clearly going to get pointed at them that they
are just taking out the good people and they don't
care about your health and all of these things. I

(14:16):
don't know where the truth and lies start and end
with that. Again, this is very new, but I did
think it was worth mentioning on our conversation tonight, Royce,
go ahead.

Speaker 4 (14:28):
I just love a question.

Speaker 5 (14:28):
So in the article you were reading and mentioned the
spike and measle, please tell me what measles has to
do with COVID.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
So the anti vaccine rhetoric, using their words not mine,
is basically saying that you shouldn't be giving any of
your children any vaccines, including the measles, the mumps, the smallpox,
the name your shit, which most people don't even get
small pox immunizations unless they're going somewhere where they need it.
But my point is there is a school of thought

(14:56):
that I don't necessarily disagree with for the record to
say that that you don't need to give your children
measles vaccines because when measles was killing people way way
way back, our medical technology wasn't in the best position,
and measles could be potentially deadly these days if your
child was to contract measles, heaven forbid. We have a

(15:18):
medical system now and medical technology to where you could
just let it ride its course and your kid'll be
fine more often than not, so they're bringing that up,
and it's actually funny that you asked about this. I
just learned this. There was a measles spike that happened
in American Samoa not too terribly long ago, and anti
vaxxers use this as like one of their big talking

(15:40):
points in this conversation. They for lack of better words,
there was two kids on the island that died as
a result of measles vaccines. For the record, it wasn't
the vaccine that killed them. The needles that they got
injected with actually through a very chain freak accident chain

(16:03):
of events was actually full of muscle relaxers instead of
the vaccine, and nobody realized that until much later. So
these kids contracted measles and they died. The muscle relaxers
did not help that situation. So the island as a whole,
because of the very tight knit community, decided they were
no longer going to be vaccinating their children. There was

(16:25):
a rise in deaths associated with the measles, and by
a rise, I mean it was it was noticeable. The
island went from I think it was like eighty five
percent vaccinated to like children from like five to newborns
to like fifty five percent, and there was some more
kids that did end up contracting measles. There was a

(16:46):
few more deaths, and it was not misinformation, but it
was a chain of events and some mistakes that were made.
And it's very hard to make people forget whenever they
saw these kids got vaccinated and they died. Clearly it
was the vaccines that did it, and it kind of
got spun out of control. But you know, listen for

(17:08):
any parents out there that are questioning if you should
or should not vaccinate your children, do your own research
and talk to people that have vaccine injured children, and
then talk to those that have non vaccine injured children
and make your own decision. I'm not going to tell
you what is and is not the correct way to
go about it. I have heard both sides of the argument,

(17:30):
and I think there's valid points on both sides. But yeah,
that's the thing, I don't even realize. I don't know
if this had anything to do with COVID or is
this because she was going to talk about real medical
science and RFK talks about other real medical science. That
just disagreed. But Trump is the one that appointed her.
So it doesn't make sense to me out loud, but yeah,

(17:51):
they bringing up measles to be like another buzzword in
the conversation anything CDC and vaccine. We got to bring
up the Spanish flui. You gotta bring up the measles
and mumps and tuberculosis and all these other things that
don't have anything to do with anything. But yeah, Raven,
I see your hand raise, go ahead.

Speaker 6 (18:12):
A couple of things with this. So, like, I've talked
about my stance on vaccines many times, but I think
that it's interesting that the measles conversation keeps being brought
up because now there's been several small pockets of quote
unquote outbreaks of measles here in America where there's like

(18:33):
one hundred and fifty people had measles in one community,
and they're using that as Rederick of, well, look now
this is because of all the anti vaxxers. This is
gonna sweep it's coming back, it's gonna sweep the country.
And I guess the big question, like the big thing
that both sides of this stance should really be discussing

(18:55):
is why can't we have vaccines that are safe, right, Like,
that's a big push with a lot of the anti
vaxxer like staunch in their no vaccines period, which I
also am heavily against vaccines, but I also think that
with them done correctly, they could be beneficial to war

(19:18):
off a lot of you know, issues that have killed
lots and lots of people. At the same time, the
Black Death is you know, making its round right now,
but if you actually read into it, it's now has
a tally of twenty five people dead in the last
I think it's like seventy five hang on seventy five
years and it's there's three types of plague actually, But

(19:44):
this big push with the plague is a conversation that
a lot of people are having right now that like
this is because of the anti vaxxers and because RFK
has shed so much light on and a lot of
the things and opening the door for at least having
the conversations of like, hey, the way that vaccines are

(20:06):
made are not safe, and us having seventy seven plus
vaccines for children under the age of twelve is not okay.
Look at our rates verse, look at the rates across
the ocean of what at like, you know, just autoimmune.
Let's take autism off off the table. Autoimmune diseases. We

(20:29):
are substantially more susceptible to them than any other country
in the world. Our children are skyrocketing with them. But
no one wants to wonder, like maybe what it is.
And I think this whole thing about this lady, like
I don't doubt she has amazing credentials. It could be
that they have a disagreement about what's being said. You know,

(20:53):
a lot of a lot of the people in the
community that are actually immunologists, they are paid through big
pharma because like they get funded that all their projects
are funded by a big pharma and if they don't
report a certain way, then they get cut and you
can always trace the money back and how the programs

(21:13):
are done and what they're reporting on, and damn near
most of the people that have actually come out and
try to link vaccines with some type of injury have
managed to end up dead in various ways. Like oh
boy that shot himself in the back of the head
and drove in a pond thirty miles down the road
in the opposite direction on his fortieth anniversary, Like it's

(21:35):
you know, like there's a lot to it, but I
think that opening the door up to those conversations is important.
But I think they're using measles as a big step now.
The black plague quote unquote, but there's three types of
the category of plague, and not one person has actually
had the bubonic plague yet, but it still is around

(21:55):
though globally it's been around. It's still happening like every year,
there's like five hundred deaths. It's never gone away, it's
just gone down significantly, not killing twenty five million of
you know, people in Europe.

Speaker 1 (22:06):
So fair. But then even like the bubonic plague for instance,
if I'm not mistaken, they now know that if you
just tend to the wounds and keep them hydrated like
your body, is probably likely to fight off the infection.
The reason why the bubonic plague was so bad back
when it was terrorizing Europe is because the people pretty

(22:28):
much just left them, like to their own devices and
just let them die slowly for the most part. And
if I'm not mistaken, like a lot of the inoculation practices,
I'm not saying got rid of it by any means,
but especially with our medical technology today, yes, deaths do happen.
I'm not going to deny that, but by and large,
a outbreak of the bubonic plague would not be nearly

(22:51):
as detrimental to our society today as it was to
you know, medieval Europe.

Speaker 6 (22:57):
No, I mean, I think it was like eighty percent.
And of the play cases have been from the Buon
plague in the US like over the course of time,
but like as right now, there's like a guy that
contracted it in California and then another one that died
in Arizona, but currently those aren't the black plague themselves.

(23:23):
But it's the one thing that anyone should be worried
about is tuberculosis because that's actually well that's been the silent,
silent riser, and like that's actually technically it's an epidemic
right now, and it has been for the last like
almost two years, and it's been rising more and more,
not just in America but all over the place, and

(23:45):
people are just kind of like, eh, it's whatever. Ye wait,
So we're not concerned about the thing that actually kills people,
but we're concerned about COVID, which we know is manufactured
and released and these statistics have been skewed, so vastly.
I don't understand people's logic.

Speaker 1 (24:05):
I don't either. I remember talking about that back in
twenty twenty one, the early days of the cult conspiracy.
In twenty twenty or twenty nineteen, I forget the year.
Tuberculos has killed one point five million people globally. That
is an actual epidemic by any metrics and standards if
you look at the numbers, But somehow COVID and wearing

(24:27):
masks and all these jabs, and even if you look
at the most generous towards COVID statistics that there are
of how many actual deaths were associated. Now, I don't
mean a car wreck that happened and this person might
have been sick from COVID, so it's considered a COVID
related to death. I don't mean that. I mean people
that were actually dying, confirmed from the infection itself. And

(24:47):
you compare that at its peak to anything from tuberculosis
over the last decade, it's not even a comparison. We're
not even we're talking about comparing a grape to a
watermelon by all metrics. Somehow, no one cares about TV
that's been around four forever. Hell, it killed doc holiday,

(25:07):
nobody's really just talking about it. Those just one of
those things. Go ahead, Royce.

Speaker 4 (25:13):
So two quick things. So one is a question can
tb be given like COVID? So if COVID was planned, right,
so can't.

Speaker 5 (25:28):
The first question is can can t be be given
out like that?

Speaker 4 (25:33):
Because if it can't, maybe the reason why the narrative
narrative might not be pushed is because that's not something
they can control as opposed to COVID.

Speaker 5 (25:43):
Second of all, or it could be since that is
an actual epidemic, it could be that all right, hey,
don't look what we're doing over here while we have
your eyes over here.

Speaker 1 (25:56):
I think it's a little bit of bo Yeah. Yeah,
So to your first point, tuberculosis is contagious, it's transferable. However,
it's I don't know off top. I'm sure there's a
lab somewhere that's working on a mutated version of it,
and it could become the next big pandemic slash plandemic.

Speaker 4 (26:14):
Right.

Speaker 1 (26:15):
It absolutely is within the realm of possibility. But like
we said, it's been around for so long and there's
treatment options, but to my knowledge, none of them are
necessarily good or necessarily bad. It kind of if it
depends on to what level the TV is taken over
your body by the time you get treatment, kind of
determines your level of survivability on it. Again, I'm not

(26:35):
an expert on this. That's just as of my understanding
at this moment, and I absolutely agree with you. I
think that it's not something that they can manufacture. They
can't make money off of it, so they're not going
to promote it. And here's the deal, even if you
were to just raise awareness for it, even if the
mainstream media and all these news sources were to start
talking more about the tuberculosis epidemic that has been going

(26:59):
on for years and years and years, not necessarily to
blow the lid off of it, but if nothing else,
how about we start really kickstarting some funding towards research
into TV. I know there is some going on there
always has been, but if we were to start putting
even more resources and more experts in that field, perhaps
we could see some really generally groundbreaking breakthroughs. But to

(27:21):
your point, they can't profit off of it. It's not
as big of a fear tactic because it's been around
for so long, So I think it's a it's doubly,
you know double entendre what you just said. Go ahead, Sam.

Speaker 7 (27:33):
Oh. The thing about toberculosis, it's it can be transphobole
that it's might costs on you, or that blood gets
into like a wound or something.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Right.

Speaker 7 (27:44):
The reason I know about tobaca closis I played Red Dead.
I'm obsessed over it, and I want I went down
the bab hole is no why the author died and everything. Actually, uh,
the queer of tuberculosis is actually kind of simm You
can cure them if you take penicillin, but it's that
even then that's not always guaranteed.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
Like I said, it's an infection and if you catch
it early enough, yeah, some antibiotics could cure it. But
if you've been fighting it for a few years and
it's gotten into your blood, it's difficult.

Speaker 7 (28:15):
At that point, it's terminal. But that's actually why I like,
that's why Doc all of that got told to go
out west, because he was originally from making Georgia. It
is humid as a motherfucker down here. That's why he
got told to go out go out to the desert
where it's nice and dry. That dry heat ain't got

(28:36):
nothing on this way heat down.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Here, which that is true. The dryer climate does help
you when it comes to respiratory things. But at that
point it had already gotten so deep into him that
it was only a matter of time. I think they
called that consumption back in the day before it was
like they need good to be tuberculosis.

Speaker 7 (28:53):
But anyway, they did that because you were literally coughing
up your own lungs.

Speaker 1 (28:58):
Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 6 (29:02):
There is currently five medications on the market that you
can take for TB, and some of them you have
to take for several months to up to a year
at least to try to get rid of the bacteria.
Most of them can actually cure TB. Sometimes people have

(29:24):
to stay like stints in the hospital. I actually my
ex was actually exposed to TB and then I had
to get tested literally probably I think it was like
every month for two solid years to make sure that
I didn't have TB because it can live in your
body without you having an infection, kind of like how

(29:45):
you can carry an STD around for years and years.
You didn't know that, Sam, fun fact.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
I didn't know that you absolutely can.

Speaker 6 (29:55):
Fun fact, you can actually fun so you can actually
carry like herpes in your body for decades and never
have an actual symptom. And actually men are more likely
to carry the herpes virus and have zero symptoms in
their body for pretty much their whole life, or suddenly,
out of nowhere, say thirty years down the road, you'll

(30:17):
have a symptom. Also, like chlamydia gonorrhea, you can have
those for years and have no symptoms, and then you
can infect other people and you'll keep popping negative on tests,
but you actually are asymptomatic and you're passing that along
with TV.

Speaker 4 (30:35):
Right, say it again, Royce, I said same thing with HPV.

Speaker 6 (30:39):
Right, Yes, HPV is most likely carried is carried by men,
and is it a lot of times men don't know
it and then they unintentionally pass it to women. That's
why like the population, I think the last like generous,
this poll that they took was around like eighty five
percent of people have herpes in some form, most likely

(31:02):
both forms, and most people don't actually know they have it.

Speaker 7 (31:07):
It's the poll is actually the most time you get it.
You actually get it when you're in kindergarten. And the
most common symptom is type one, which is the fever blisters, right, right,
but it has to.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Yeah. But to that point, for any of the good
listeners out there that are out and about and uh
being a little free and open with their extracurricular activities, listen,
do yourself and the people of your future a favor.
Go get a ten panel blood test done, just just
in case, you know, if nothing else, especially if you

(31:44):
have insurance. It's not gonna cost you much except for
a little bit of your time and a few dollars,
just a few, and it'll just let you know what
you got going on, you know. Just so everybody's out there,
I am not I am not promoting free and noncommittal
sexual relations. Same time, I'm not gonna judge anybody who's
out there living their life. I'm just saying, be safe

(32:06):
about it, protect yourself and those that you may come
in contact with. It's really not that big of a deal.
But yes, to raven Lee's point, there's a lot of
STDs you can carry laying dormant in your system for
years and never know it until it's too late. And yeah,
tuberculos is also one of those. It lays dormant for
quite some time and the next thing you know, you've

(32:27):
got it and like you said, there is medication that
you could take. Again, I do not know for a fact,
but I believe it depends on how long it's been
in your system and to what level the infection has spread,
depends on what treatment options are available to you, or
even if the treatment options are willing to work at
there are able to work, I should say go ahead, Raven.

Speaker 6 (32:49):
So most of the treatments can work, even in a
late stage, because they actually have one that like pretty
much coats and side of your lungs, but it takes
like a very long time, so like months of instay
treatment to be doing a respiratory breather, and like I

(33:12):
got double pneumonia from a vaccine. I literally developed it
within like three days of getting it, and they have
me like on a respiratory breather and all this stuff.
Well they've used that kind of technology now and they
have it with TB and they also have it like
they're doing intervenous treatments as well, so it's like it's

(33:33):
a multi combo thing. But sometimes the bodies can't stand
up to the amount of treatment, just kind of like
how cancer and you're treating it with chemo and radiation,
which a lot of us that actually read into it
and know what that does to bodies. But you know,
it's it's one of those things most of the time
now that you can actually catch it, but it's people

(33:54):
will still die from this because they just kind of
think that it's just a simple cough and that's it.

Speaker 1 (34:00):
But that even furthers the point, right, why is there
such a tuberculocus tuberculosis rather epidemic on Earth? If we
have the medications, we have the technology, we have the
treatment options. And granted, I understand that not everybody on
Earth has access to decent medical or medicine in general, right,

(34:20):
but there are things like doctors without borders, there are
programs and initiatives to reach people all over the globe.
So why is it still such an epidemic To the
point that Royce was making, I'm just speaking on behalf
of myself here, believe it is because it is not
a hot button topic enough. There's not enough money to
be made from this, so it's kind of one of
those things where it just kind of gets pushed under

(34:42):
the rug, even though statistically by the numbers, it kills
vast amounts of people around the world every year, So Anyway,
again back to the point of this article. I do
not know as of this time what the overarching reason
behind this new CDC director's dismissal was, but I am
sure that more information on this is going to be

(35:02):
coming out in the next few days. We may even
be talking about it next week on the Cajun Night Live.
Moving on to the next topic, this is a BBC article.
I found a couple of articles talking about this that
were American based, but I honestly thought that the BBC
might have a different perspective on it, so it might
be worth a read. The US tells Denmark to calm

(35:23):
down over alleged to Greenland influence operation. Yeah, get ready
for this one, y'all. The US has told Denmark to
calm down after the top US diplomat in Copenhagen was
summoned overclaims that Americans had been conducting covert operations in Greenland.
Denmark's public broadcaster DR quoted sources saying that the aim
was to infiltrate society and promote its secession from Denmark

(35:46):
to the US, although it was unable to clarify who
the men were working for. A White House official who
could not confirm an influence campaign was underway, but said
we think the Danes need to calm down right. Foreign
Minister Lars Loke Rosmussen Yeah, said any attempt to interfere
in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark will

(36:09):
of course be unacceptable. Danish intelligence warrened Greenland was being
targeted by various kinds of influence campaigns. A US State
Department spokesperson said Chars d Affairs Mark Strow had met
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, adding that he had
a productive conversation quote unquote that quote unquote reaffirmed the

(36:32):
strong ties between Greenland, Denmark, and the United States. The
spokesperson could not comment on the actions of private US
citizens in Greenland, but said the US had always respected
the right of the people of Greenland to determine their
own future. President Trump said several times he wants to
annex Greenland, a semi autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark,

(36:54):
and Vice President J. D Vance has accused Copenhagen of
undervesting or excuse me, under invent in the territory. I
think that's a fair statement, not that I'm necessarily like
a big jd Vance fan I'm not exactly anti hymn either,
but I think that that's also a pretty fair statement,
but okay. On a visit to Greenland a few months ago,
Danish Prime Minister Met Fredrickson warned the US that you

(37:18):
cannot annex another country. Denmark's foreign ministers said in a
statement to the BBC that the government was aware that
foreign actors continue to show an interest in Greenland and
its position in the Kingdom of Denmark. It is therefore
not surprising if we experience outside attempts to influence the
future of the kingdom in the time ahead. Denmark is
a member of NATO and the European Union, and has

(37:40):
long seen the US as one of its closest allies.
I'll bet the Danes have been shocked by Trump's determination
to control its semi autonomous territory. The US President said
this year he would not rule out seizing it by force.
I don't exactly know if that's a true statement or not.
Let's see what this clip is. The Danes, who fought
alongside the US needs all right, Let's see. Let's see

(38:02):
what it looks like here.

Speaker 8 (38:04):
I don't want to us to invade US.

Speaker 1 (38:08):
They can do their.

Speaker 5 (38:09):
Own business military business in truly.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
But they are not welcome here in nuke. The only
country who can protect us is not that much.

Speaker 6 (38:21):
It's only US who can protect Ring, and that the
actors can the northern hemisphere and western hemisphere is the US.
It's very scary for me, so like he can do
whatever he wants kind of. Yeah, so it's very scary.

Speaker 9 (38:36):
I'm a human.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
Human are not for sale. We are not for sale.
You are not for sale in your country.

Speaker 10 (38:43):
You know that.

Speaker 7 (38:45):
That's why I am very angry about that.

Speaker 1 (38:51):
So overall, the people are not happy about it. Granted
this is only like four or five different people they asked.
One person was like, look, the US is the only
one that can really offend us. Let's be real here.
So I'm assuming you know it's not a majority in
favor of a US annexation by any means, which you
wouldn't expect. The Danes are very proud people, so are

(39:13):
the people of Greenland. I will say that, yeah, Denmark
has a decent military. They're not scrubs by any means.
I've actually met and trained with some Danish marines at
one point in time. Solid guys, I might add, they
are just like American Marines, they just talk funny. Same
with the British Royal Marines. They're literally us. They just
talk funny. But overall, when you're looking at like real

(39:37):
numbers and figures and statistics, as far as military might goes,
that's not But comparing American military to pretty much any
other military on earth is an unfair comparison. We are,
by low estimations, twenty five years ahead of any competition,
by best estimations, fifty or sixty years ahead in tech
and all the other things. So it is what it is.

(39:58):
But let's continue here. Denmark's PET Security and Intelligence Services
said in an assessment that influence campaigns would aim to
create discord in the relationship between Denmark and Greenland. This
could be done exploiting existing or invented disagreements, either with
traditional physical influence agents or via disinformation. It added. PET

(40:19):
said it had strengthened its presence in Greenland and cooperation
with its authorities. The US currently has no ambassador in Copenhagen,
so Rams Rasmussen excuse me, has summoned Mark Strow, who
was the charge of the affairs, is the most senior
diplomat in the Danish capital, Lars Loke Rasmussen. I'm gonna

(40:41):
get that right here, has already some in the US.
In Denmark, the US sharda Fashar affairs. I guess that's
just like, you know, a title. For a second, I
thought that was maybe like a noble rank or title
or something like that, a lord or something. It's I
don't think so. I think that's just a position, but anyway,

(41:04):
summoned him in Denmark this year in response to a
separate report in May suggesting US spy agencies have been
told to focus their efforts on Greenland, Okay. DR's report
on Wednesday gave detail of a visit by one American
to Greenland's capital, Nuk, saying nuke. I think that's how

(41:24):
you pronounced it, saying he was seeking to compile a
list of Greenlanders who backed US attempts to take over
the island. The aim would be to try to recruit
them for a secession movement, the DR said. The earlier
May report in the Wall Street Journal also referred to
learning more about Greenland's independence movement, as well as attitudes
to American mineral extraction. At the time, the US Director

(41:47):
of National Intelligence Tulsea Gabbert did not deny the report,
but accused the journal of quote breaking the law and
undermining our nation security and democracy. Okay, Tulsi, I see you,
Colonel Gabs. Greenland has a complex relationship with Denmark. Despite
having broad self government since nineteen seventy nine, its foreign
and defense policy is made in Copenhagen. Although most of

(42:10):
its political parties favor independence, they disagree on how quickly
they should push for it. While Greenlanders have had the
right to call referendum since two thousand and nine, Pole
suggests the vast majority of them have no wish to
become a part of the US. I also could see
that too. If anything, they would want to become their
own independent nation, But for the land size that they have,

(42:30):
the location of this land size in relation to global defense,
and the fact that they have so few people living there.
I don't know if independence is going to go as
well for them like as they think. But I could
be completely talking out of my ass here anyway. When
the Vice President Jade Vance visited a military base on

(42:51):
the island in March, he accused Denmark of not doing
enough to keep US troops and Greenlanders safe from Russia.
China and other countries that he said were interested in
its buttential, mineral wealth and Arctic naval routes. That's kind
of what I was getting at there, to be honest
with you. However, Greenland leader Jens Frederick Nielsen, I don't
know if they pronounced the jay like that or if

(43:12):
it's like a soft jay. Is that YenS? YenS Frederick
Nielsen maybe made clear in May that the US would
not be taking over the territory. We do not belong
to anyone else. We decide our own future. Very proud man,
mister Nielsen. The Danish foreign Minister's latest decision to some
of the US charged affairs amounts to the a diplomatic
yellow card, unprecedented in Danish relations with the US. According

(43:36):
to Yin's Latifadged Mortensen Jesus of the University of Copenhagen,
this hostile attitude towards Denmark from the Trump administration is shocking,
he told the BBC. As a pro American country, we're
asking why are you doing this. One of Denmark's biggest
companies had already been caught in the crosshairs of the
US government in recent days following in order to stop

(43:57):
the construction of a big wind farm off the co
of Rhode Island because wind farms suck. That's like, we
need to stop trying to make that a thing. That's
a net negative. And I thought that was understood at
this point. But yeah, moving on. The revolution Win project,
already eighty percent complete, is being run by Danish multinational

(44:19):
wind farm developer or STED, which is fifty point one
percent owned by the Danish state. Why why do we
have a wind farm in America being primarily owned by
another country. I feel like, even if that's an allied
nation like that, that seems weird. You know, when we

(44:40):
set up a shop in another country, it has to
be fifty point one percent owned by that nation. Yet
somehow that's allowed here anyway. It is the latest wind
power initiative to be targeted by President Trump, who said
last week we're not doing the wind. Yeah. Good share.
There's an Orsted plummeted sixteen percent on Monday in response

(45:03):
to the so called stop work order, although they have
since clawed back some of the losses. The company said
it has already installed forty five out of the sixty
five turbans in the project, aimed at providing power to
three hundred and fifty thousand homes. Okay, so again, apparently
the US is still allegedly. I haven't heard anything about

(45:25):
US trying to annex Greenland in quite some time. I
remember when Trump was going on about it and people
were like, oh, well, we could really use a fifty
first state and yeah, but I thought that was more
of a joke, right, I thought that was more for
the lulls and all. This Annexing another nation into US
is extremely difficult, and now we even talked about that
a couple weeks ago. There's three provinces of Canada that

(45:49):
are starting to take the steps to annex themselves. Not
America taking them over, but if they were to secede
from Canada and pledge allegiance to the United States, what
that would realistically look like. Would that be another territory
situation like a Guam in Puerto Rico, an American Samoa
and Virgin Islands kind of thing, or would it be
more like an Alaska Hawaii situation. There's a lot of

(46:13):
other levels to this, and a whole spectrum of red
tape and bureaucracy and DC fuddy duties that would like
to have their statements be heard on the matter. I
don't know enough to speak intelligently on it. If Greenland
wanted to secede, like most of Greenland is saying, they
would probably want to become their own independent sovereign nation,
how would that go for them in the case of

(46:34):
some sort of a world war that would potentially break out.
And no, I am not saying that the world war
would be Russia and China. I'm not not saying that either,
But just in the sense of World War III, name
your belligerents, and it doesn't really matter in that scenario.
Greenland is not a They're in a prime location on
the globe. They are not primed to defend themselves as

(46:58):
an independent sovereignation. I don't and that's I don't think
they're actually gonna secceede from Denmark. If they did, I
would hope that they would try to become a little
more tighter with America in that sense. But who's to
really say, you know, But anyway, Raven, I see your
hand go ahead.

Speaker 6 (47:18):
Wasn't didn't Trump on his last term purchase like a
whole bunch of land in Greenland, and also like airspace
as well. And there's something else that happened in Greenland,
but that like, Greenland is that one place that, like,
if you've ever played any like apocalyptic kind of plague, whatever,

(47:39):
Greenland is like the one place in the world that
will always survive, like every scenario, everything that you can
ever run, Greenland will survive. So, I mean, there's a
lot of talk that there's like a whole bunch of
bunkers in Greenland too, there is for the elite, and
that that's where like you'd want to go if you
could get to.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
So weird thought yes to everything that you said. Let's
break this down starting with the reason why Greenland survives
in every single scenario, even the war games that name
your country's government and military industrial complex plays, is because
it's such a large land mass. It is so freaking
cold there that most bacteria doesn't really do well surviving

(48:21):
in that environment, and there's such a low population that
really and truly even if some sort of outbreak was
to hit there, it would probably not go very far
at all. Right to that point, Also, because it is
a very large land mass with not a large population,
there's a lot of uninhabited land to be had there.

(48:41):
There is a lot of underground bunkers for the elites.
But also Trump was trying to buy back military bases
that used to be manned by American forces in Greenland
during the Cold War. So let's break that down. Before
we had satellite technology to level that we have now,
we had a series of radars that were essentially set

(49:02):
up surrounding any key points to where Russia could come in.
Again I say Russia Soviet Union. Let's give that distinction
that if they were going to try to send a
submarine through one of these corridors, we needed to know
about it, or if they were trying to fly a
little close to an airspace of an ally of ours,
we needed to know about it. So America had a

(49:23):
legitimate line of radar system bases set up on Greenland,
or in Greenland, I should say, I keep saying on
as if it's like a it is an island, but
it's a large island. And Trump bought back they were
leased from Greenland, and then when the time came, we
just didn't renew our lease because we had satellite technology

(49:43):
that far surpassed the radars that were installed at that time,
and installing new or better updated radar systems, especially in
Greenland at that time was just seemed like a net
a costly thing, a net loss overall. Now these bases
are still there, and they are are still relatively functional,
not with those old radar systems, of course. But yeah,

(50:05):
so Trump was going through the process of releasing the land,
if I'm not mistaken, leasing I don't know if he
outright bought the spaces or not, but leasing them to
that point. So, yeah, Greenland has ties with America. We're
not like, We're not as thick as thieves with them,
as like America is with Israel by any means. But yes,
Greenland and America have a very very good working relationship

(50:28):
and we have for decades. So this is the thing
when the Greenlanders are saying that they are worried about
Trump taking it by force. I have no no beliefs
as of this moment that Trump is going to actually
launch some sort of a military campaign to take over Greenland.
That sounds preposterous to me at this time. I could

(50:51):
be wrong. I could absolutely be wrong, but I just
don't see it as of this moment. But we shall see. Apparently,
Denmark caught quote unquote spies that were trying to spread
disinformation or information into the Greenlander culture to make the
public want to become US citizens. Was that accurate or not?

(51:13):
Everybody's kind of playing the deny game. So I do
not know, but I think it is interesting. Go ahead, Sam,
This just might be.

Speaker 7 (51:22):
The propaganda that's instilled me or whatever. But I would
if like, Greenland is such a good place strategically and everything,
but they are not quote unquote strong enough whatever. I
might be getting them mixed up. But want they neutraled
on World War Two?

Speaker 1 (51:41):
Yes? Which is I mean they were so they weren't
owned by Denmark at that time. If I'm not mistaken,
that happened after World War two, or maybe they were,
but they were so far off the beaten path, like
if to my knowledge, there was no Greenlander units being
feed fielded in any field of battle during World War Two.

(52:03):
I mean, again, they have a very low population as
compared to the land mass that they have.

Speaker 7 (52:10):
Why would they not want I mean, I understand taxes
is a motherfucker, but why wouldn't they want to join America?

Speaker 4 (52:22):
Tacos.

Speaker 1 (52:23):
They're a proud people with a proud culture. And you know,
even though America is the only superpower on Earth, as
of this moment. You know, maybe they just want to
do their own thing. And I don't think it has
to do necessarily with American corrupt politicians or taxes or
anything like that. I think it's just they want to
be owned by Greenland. The same could be said for

(52:45):
Ireland with England, right, Northern Ireland is still a part
of the United Kingdom, even though it's on the island
of Ireland. Well, why wouldn't they want to be a
part of England. England is doing far more successfully than
they are on the world stage, even to this because
the Irish are a very proud people and want an
Irish owned Ireland. And I understand that point British right, right,

(53:10):
But that's that's my point. So why wouldn't Greenland want
to be a part of us? Like we just heard
from the people on the ground there, the people that
live there, some would be in favor of it. Most
want Greenland to be if anything, they wanted to be
autonomous and sovereign. So again I understand the points. Again
I don't I don't think that we are at any
risk of actually enveloping Greenland into the fold of the

(53:33):
US States and territories. But I guess time will tell.
But as we are talking about US politics and Trump
and things, let's talk about ABC News here. Trump is
very angry with Putin as russia strikes on Ukraine continue
despite the peace push. As everybody knows, Trump just had
this big meeting with Putin in Alaska and he felt

(53:54):
very good about it. Afterwards, he was saying that I
think Putin really wants peace. I think he really does. Then,
of course the strikes continue. There's a quick little forty
five second clip, and then we're going to read the article.
Let's listen in.

Speaker 11 (54:05):
President Trump says he is very angry with Vladimir Putin
as Russia keeps striking Ukraine despite a White House push
for peace. Ukraine says a shot down forty seven Russian
drones overnight and twelve others hit targets across the country. Meanwhile,
Russia says it down to more than fifty Ukrainian drones overnight,
including two headed for Moscow. Yesterday. President Trump voiced frustration
with the Russian leader about the strikes. Every conversation I

(54:29):
have with him is a good conversation. And then unfortunately
Obama is loaded up into Kiev for someplace and then
I get.

Speaker 1 (54:36):
Very angry about it.

Speaker 11 (54:39):
But President Trump says he's still hopeful for a peace deal,
and President Zelenski says he's ready to meet with Putin,
calling it the format needed to resolve key issues. Now,
he says the same readiness is needed in Moscow.

Speaker 1 (54:52):
So how much of that is accurate? How much of
that is Zelenski just trying to feed into whatever Trump
is saying so he can get more weapons of money.
I don't know. Let's read in here. This is from
ABC News London. President Trump again on Monday express frustration
with the Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as Russian strikes on
Ukrainian or Ukraine continued despite White House efforts to broker

(55:13):
a peace deal between the warring neighbors. There's a direct
quote of what he literally just said, So I'm not
going to read that. Trump has repeatedly admonished Putin for
Russia's nightly strikes on Ukrainian cities. Nonetheless, the president'sal reporters
he is still hopeful of progress towards a peace deal,
he says. I think we're going to get the war done,
he said, though added you never know what's gonna happen

(55:35):
in a war. Strange things happen in a war. The
fact that Putin went to Alaska, our country, I think
is a big statement that he wants to get it done,
you know again, actions and words on that one, my boy.
Both Russia and Ukraine continued long range strikes through the
weekend and into Monday. On Tuesday, Ukraine's Air Force said

(55:55):
Russia launched fifty nine drones into the country overnight, of
which forty seven and were shot down or suppressed. The
air force reported impacts of twelve drones across nine locations.
Russia's Defense ministry meanwhile said that it's forced down at
least fifty one Ukrainian drones over night and Tuesday morning,
to which two of which were en route to Moscow.

(56:16):
Following in person meetings with Putin and Alaska and Ukrainian
President Zelensky plus a host of European leaders in Washington, DC,
earlier this month, Trump raised the hope that excuse me
raised the hope of an imminent bilateral meeting between Russia
and Ukrainian presidents. Zelenski has repeatedly expressed willingness to attend
such a meeting, but Putin and his officials have consistently

(56:36):
dodged the proposal. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. The
president's old ABC News Monday of the potential of the
two men to meet, Trump said he had spoken to
Putin sin Zelenski's visit to Washington, but declined to discuss
the specifics of the call, as if you wanted to
act if of the bilateral meeting does not materialize. Trump
refused to detail possible consequences, but said he may act

(56:59):
over the next week or two, as that's typically the rhetoric, right,
give me a little more time, a little more time,
little more time. It's very possible that Trump won't be
able to broker this deal, you know it honestly might
just come down to an all out, knockdown, drag out
slug vest until both sides decide that they're done. I
hope that a deal could be reached, but I just

(57:20):
I don't see it as of this moment. Uspe's efforts
continued on Monday, with Secretary of State Mark or Rubio
speaking with European counterparts and Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg
traveling to Kiev to meet with Zelensky. For both US officials,
the question of future security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent
future Russian aggression was a key topic of discussion. Obviously,

(57:43):
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Adril Sibyha Sibiha sib Yah Sure took
part in the call with Rubio I reiterated Ukraine's position
that security guarantees must be concrete, legally binding and effective.
He wrote on x after they should be multi dimensional,
including military, diplomatic, legal, and other levels. Zelenski said his

(58:03):
meeting with Kellogg was productive, quote unquote, again expressing his
thanks to Trump's effort to broker a deal and his
willingness to lend US backing to security guarantees. Kellogg meanwhile
said the US side is working very very hard to
get to a position where in the near term we have,
with a lack of better terms, security guarantees. That's a

(58:25):
work in progress. So just keeping everybody in the loop
on this one. To the surprise of literally no one,
Trump's still trying to brok her a peace deal. Zelensky
is saying that he's about that life putin to the
face to face says that he or he releases indicating
that he wants a peace deal. Neither side is willing
to stop firing at each other long enough to make

(58:46):
a meeting happen. Will that meeting happen soon, Let's hope.
As we are still in the summer months, there is
still massive surges and pushes going on on the warfront,
we are about to get into the winter months where
not much movements go to happen. If the last three
years of this two week military operation is to be believed,
the wintertime is not going to see much substantial gains,

(59:09):
but pretty substantial losses overall. So just wanted to keep
everybody in the loop on that one. With that being said,
the UK has offered troops to defend Ukraine's skies and
ports in Pentagon talks. As from the Guardian, officials say
the UK is prepared to deploy troops to the front
line with Russia as head of Armed Forces prepares to

(59:31):
meet US counterparts in Russia in Washington. I'm a little
skeptic of some of the claims that this article is
gonna make, and you'll understand why as we go through it.
The UK has said for a while that they are
very willing to send their forces there for consultative conversations,

(59:53):
AID kind of you know, missions and things like that.
There hasn't been any talks of u UK soldiers and
marines being sent to the front lines. That's a new
one for me. But at the same time, maybe there
is a kernel of truth to this. Let's read and
y'all make your own decision on that. The head of
the British Armed Forces will tell his American counterparts the

(01:00:16):
UK is prepared to send troops to defend Ukraine's skies
and seas, but not to the front lines with Russia.
As planning intensifies for a post war settlement exactly, Tony Radikin,
the Chief of Defense Staff, will on Wednesday attend meetings
at the Pentagon designed to finalize what thirty different countries
are willing to commit to Ukraine's national security. I will

(01:00:37):
say this though, before we continue any deeper. If the
UK was to send any type of manpower and one
of these UK soldiers happened to get hit in some
crossfire or something like that, I could envision a world
where that is the catalyst for a very deep UK

(01:00:58):
to the frontline kind of thing. I'm not saying that's
a guarantee. I am saying that it is at least
a greater than zero percent chance that that could be
the kickstart, if you will. Radikin is expected to confirm
the UK will provide soldiers to help with logistical support
and training, but not deploy them close to Russia. Officials
have been talking about deploying as many as thirty thousand

(01:01:20):
troops to protect Ukrainian sites, but that has been scaled
back amid opposition from some European countries. One British official
said Wednesday is a really important moment. Nothing happens in
Washington without the President giving the green light. So Trump
giving his support to security guarantees on Monday kickstarted a
lot of activity. Another said Radikin would echo the pledges

(01:01:40):
made last week by John Healey, the Defense Secretary, who
said Britain was willing to deploy troops to Ukraine quote
to secure the sky's safeties and to build the strength
of the Ukrainian forces end quote. They said ministry or
ministers envisioned, envisaged. I think that's supposed to be envisioned.

(01:02:02):
They said. Ministers envisioned this as a meeting, logistical and
training support, rather than sending battalions of frontline troops who
could end up in combat. Let's hope that that stays
that way. Wednesday's meetings are being seen in Europe as
a major step towards securing a peace deal between Russia
and Ukraine, which Keir Starmer has said will only be
possible if the US is willing to provide security guarantees.

(01:02:25):
They keep going on about security guarantees, y'all. Even if
security guarantees are laid down, what's to say that either
side will actually abide by them? Like realistically here be
We even talked about that whenever Trump tried to get
a mineral deal with the eastern section of Ukraine that

(01:02:49):
had a lot of these precious rare earths and things
like that. Right, even if an American company was to
set up shop a mining operation of some type, do
we know for ef fact now we can believe things.
Do we know for a fact that that would stop
the Russian war machine, that just because there's an American
company doing business here, that Russia would not still try

(01:03:12):
to push and take those precious rare earths for themselves.
I can't say with one hundred percent certainty that I
can believe that. I think that would be a massive misstep.
But so is this entire military operation two weeks has
turned into coming up on year four. It's been one
misstep after another. So I don't know where the line

(01:03:33):
is actually going to get drawn in the sand. And
even if it does get drawn in the sand, do
we know that Ukraine will stop firing things? Do we
know that Russia will stop firing things? I have a
hard time believing it as of this moment. But anyway,
Donald Trump, the US President, told Starmer and other world
leaders on Monday he would be willing to provide those guarantees.
His Ukraine envoy, Steve Whitkoff, has suggested they could be

(01:03:55):
Article five like reassurances, referring to the NATO clause that
says that an attack on one member should be interpreted
as an attack on all, even though Ukraine is not
a NATO member. Starmer hosted a virtual call on Tuesday
morning to brief more than thirty other world leaders on
what had been discussed at the White House on Monday.
Downing Street said afterwards quote the Prime Minister outlined that

(01:04:18):
coalition of the Willing planning teams would meet with their
US counterparts in the coming days to further strengthen plans
to deliver robust security guarantees and prepare for the deployment
of a reassurance force if the hostilities ended. I guess
we'll see. Wednesday's planning session at the Pentagon are being
closely watched for any signs of what the US would
be willing to commit. The USS committed quite a lot already.

(01:04:42):
I think that goes without saying, more so than any
combination of countries. But all right. Trump insisted on Tuesday
they would not involve American troops on the ground, telling
Fox News you have my assurance on that, and I'm President,
I'm glad you told us. We didn't know beforehand, homie.
But Britain is also planning to use the meetings to
spell out to the Trump administration what it is willing

(01:05:05):
to do to protect the Ukraine should a piece deal
be signed. Official say British forces could be deployed to
help with the logistics and protecting Ukrainian airspace imports, but
not into situations that could risk combat with Russia airspace imports.
These are very important for logistic purposes, but are these
not very you know, hotspots as far as targeting goes.

(01:05:31):
So let's say that you have a bunch of British liaisons,
for lack of better words, operating a Ukrainian port and
that port starts getting lit up by a drone attack
or whatever that mould makes sense, or an airstrip because
we're trying to secure Ukrainian airspace. That's yeah, it might

(01:05:52):
not be front line, but the damage, in the possibility
of danger is still very present. So I don't Yeah,
I don't exactly understand what they're trying to get at here.
Either go there and help or stay back. I don't know.
Maybe I'm just looking at this too narrow mindedly. Who knows. Zelenski,
the Ukrainian President, said on Tuesday that he expected the

(01:06:14):
security guarantees to be finalized in the week or in
the next week or ten days. Some experts say that
European leaders do not expect Vladimir Putin to accept even
such a limited deployment of NATO troops into Ukraine, and
that European leaders are floating the idea to isolate the
Russian president, that it's kind of been the jam this
whole time. British officials insist this is not the case, however,

(01:06:38):
and that the UK and its partners are making serious
preparations to send forces into the country should they be needed.
You don't get thirty chiefs of staff coming to the
Pentagon if they are not serious about this, said one. Okay,
fair enough, all right, Uh, just gonna throw it out here.
I know, Tony, you have to have an opinion on
this conversation. Please let it be heard at this time, sir.

Speaker 9 (01:07:02):
Yeah, I just still think this isn't making any difference,
and Russia's still gonna slowly grind forward and take more territory.
They're taking a place called mir Negrod and Pakrovsk right now.
Those are kind of the two medium sized cities that
are being fought over, and Russia's gonna win this. I

(01:07:23):
get kind of tired of seeing the same things over
and over, Like we're going to isolate putin more. It's
like you've already tried as hard as you can. We're
going to sanction him more. You've already tried pretty much
everything as hard as you can. It's just a little
bit marginal more and more more, but there's not much
more to do. Yeah, the Ukraine is the West's crash

(01:07:46):
test dummy against Russia. It's sad, and this thing's got
to end. But it's gonna keep going for a while,
so I'm still holding out hope maybe March of twenty
twenty six it'll be over. I think Russia's hoping that
someday the Ukrainian lions will just collapse. That kind of
thing did happen in World War One. That's kind of

(01:08:07):
what happened to Russia and the Central Powers moved in quickly.
That almost happened in France. A lot of people don't remember.
But this trench warfare sometimes can lead to a collapse
on one side, and that's what Russia's hoping for, and
they may get it, they may not. We don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
Yeah, I'm not agreeing with every single thing you said,
but I will agree with what Russia is hoping for,
just an overall collapse and then the fighting would stop
in that sense. But that's it. I don't see this
ending in some sort of at least as of this moment.
Maybe you're right about March of next year, but as
of right now, I don't think they're going to offer

(01:08:48):
terms that Putin would even entertain. I don't think that
they have the means to offer him what he actually
wants the same way that Zelenski is not going to
accept anything. He has said so many times that he's
not going to accept anything without Crimea being Ukrainian at
the end of it. So all of this is a
lot of posturing and a lot of talking. It's this

(01:09:10):
is not going to these these security guarantees are not
going to do anything in the grand scope of shit.
I know that Trump is the deal maker. Say what
you want about him. Is he an asshole? Is he
a good guy? All yet? Fine? Whatever? And he is
a businessman who literally wrote the book on the art
of the deal. I don't think that this is a

(01:09:32):
deal that he'll be able to broke her, at least
not with the current standings.

Speaker 9 (01:09:36):
Yes, for ze Leski want to keep or get back Crimea,
that's impossible. That would be like Mexico losing the Mexican
American War and saying, well, we don't agree to lose
any territory. Well, guess what, You're gonna lose a bunch
whether you want to or not. Or Germany losing World
War Two and saying, well, we don't agree to lose
any territory, or like, guess what you're.

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
Saying, We're still here. Israel took US over like, well,
it looks like you're losing.

Speaker 9 (01:10:02):
Uh huh, yeah, Palestine's lost a lot too. That's just
de facto, and you know everyone's got to live with that,
whether they want to or not. So yeah, I bet right.
I think Russia has a more realistic position, and they
don't do this art of the deal idea where they
make an exaggerated demand and then try to bargain down

(01:10:24):
from that. They just say pretty much exactly what they
want and they don't back down. They just go, hey,
take it or leave it. Let's draw a new border
pretty much where the lines are now. We can argue
about you know, we'll give back some assumeing in Kharkoff
and maybe some of the other areas we got in
exchange for Nikola Iver or so. I don't know, I'm

(01:10:46):
just making something up, but you know, they want it
pretty much where it is now, and they want zero
NATO membership for Ukraine. Uh, you know, it's got to
be independent of the West. And uh that's they're not
demanding Kiev. They're not demanding you know, half of Ukraine.
They're just demanding like the twenty percent they've already taken

(01:11:09):
or stolen or whatever. You want to characterize it, which
is pretty much. I think that's a pretty reasonable demand
and Ukraine should equit back in twenty twenty three when
they took his ZM back and Kharkoff back, because that
was as good at bargaining position as they were going
to have. And General Millie from the US he said
as much at the time. A lot of people don't

(01:11:30):
like him because he also told China this is an
unrelated thing, He told China that the US military isn't
going to obey Trump if Trump tries to go to
war with China, and a lot of people got mad
at him for that.

Speaker 1 (01:11:44):
Yeah, I think that was him completely talking out of
his ass. The military will do what they're ordered to do.
That's a thing.

Speaker 9 (01:11:51):
This was at the moment that Trump was losing the
twenty twenty election. This was at the moment that it
was like between November and January sixth, So it was
his grasp pump power was a little tenuous at that
moment anyway, and Milly was trying to reassure China about that.
But yeah, that was two years before this Ukraine thing

(01:12:13):
even happened. So when he said to Ukraine, and I
think it was September twenty twenty two, not even twenty
three yet that look, you should bargain now. I thought
you're one hundred percent right about that, General Milly. They
should bargain then make a peace agreement now. But Boris
Johnson didn't want it. Uncle Amercle didn't want it. And

(01:12:36):
I think, I know this is a conspiracy theory. But
there's oh good, good good night Royce. But too bad.
I was about to talk about this. I think that
Israel doesn't just exercise a lot of influence over the
US government, they also exercised a lot of influence over

(01:12:58):
the British government and the government. I think Russia is
a historical and modern day strategic enemy of Israel. Syria
was still a country at the time, and Russia supports Iran,
so Israel has a huge interest in damaging Russia too,
And that's another big reason that the Ukraine conflict is

(01:13:18):
going on right now. Israel does feel like it's in
their interests to punish Russia.

Speaker 1 (01:13:24):
Either punish Russia keep them occupied in another area to
where they're not as invested in Iranian advancements, therefore anti
Israel advancements. So I'm with you on that. It's enemy
of my enemy kind of situation for sure. Is Royce
about the head out? Though I didn't look in the comments?
Is he about to dip?

Speaker 9 (01:13:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:13:43):
I am about I am about the dip.

Speaker 1 (01:13:46):
Ah. All right, Royce, Well, we love you to death
and thank you for joining us on this evening.

Speaker 4 (01:13:51):
For sure, have a good n I guess I may too.

Speaker 9 (01:13:54):
Well, are you going to talk about the flag stuff?

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Flag stuff?

Speaker 9 (01:14:01):
White House executive order prohibiting burning of the American flag?

Speaker 1 (01:14:08):
I'm not mad at this. Is it like in protests
they can't burn the American flag? Or is it like
because that's the proper way to dispose of a flag
when it's no longer serviceable.

Speaker 9 (01:14:19):
Correct, Let's get spirit animal in on this, because this
is a great topic he brought up.

Speaker 1 (01:14:25):
Okay, let's dive in.

Speaker 7 (01:14:30):
From what I understand is, I've watched his hit the
bitten of his speech and everything while I was at
work and everything. But as of right now, he's an
executive order that if you burn or deface the American
flag in a knowing a bier or to incite violence,

(01:14:53):
then you will be charged up to it and in
prison up to a year. And I feel like that that, yes, you,
but the populay to dispose of a flag is by
burning it, and that's to pay respects and everything. That's okay.
I think it has a lot to do with the intent,
Like I feel like it should be actually considered a

(01:15:15):
hate come honestly, So I got.

Speaker 1 (01:15:18):
The executive order pulled up here as a matter of fact,
let's hear it straight from the Trump administration prosecuting the
burning of the American flag. Okay, by the authority vested
me as President of the by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America. It is hereby
ordered Section one purpose. Our great American Flag is the

(01:15:39):
most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of
America and our American freedom, identity, and strength. Over nearly
two and a half centuries, many thousands of American patriots
have fought, bled and died to keep the stars and
stripes waving proudly. The American flag is a special symbol
in our national life that should unite and represent all
Americans of every background and walk of life. By secreting

(01:16:00):
it is uniquely offensive and provocative. It is a statement
of contempt, hostility, and violence against our nation. The clearest
possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves
our rights, liberty, and security. Burning this representation of America
might incite violence and riot. American flag burning is also

(01:16:21):
used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act
to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their
nationality and place of birth. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings
on the First Amendment protections, glad they gave that distinction.
The Court has never hailed that American flag desecration conducted
in a manner that is likely to incite in imminent

(01:16:43):
lawless action, or that is an action amounting to quote
unquote fighting words, is constitutionally protected. Mine Administration will act
to restore respect and sanctity to the American flag and
prosecute those who incite violence and otherwise violate our laws
while desecrating the symbol of our country to the fullest
extent permissible under any available authority. Let's see number two.

(01:17:06):
Measures to combat desecration of the American Flag. The Attorney
General shall prioritize the enforcement, to the fullest extent possible
of our national, criminal and civil laws against acts of
the American flag desecration that violate applicable content neutral laws
while causing harm unrelated to expression consent with the First Amendment.
This may include, but is not limited to, violent crimes,

(01:17:28):
hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens or other violations
of American civil rights, and crimes against property and the peace,
as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate and aiding
and abetting others to violate such laws. In cases where
the Department of Justice or other executive departments or agencies
determines that an instance of American flag desecration may violate

(01:17:50):
an applicable state or local law, such as open burning restrictions,
disorderly conduct, or destructive destruction of property laws, the agencies
shall refer the matter to the appropriate state or local
authority for potential action to the maximum extent permitted by
the Constitution. Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate
our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag,

(01:18:13):
and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the
First Amendment exceptions in this area. The Dendum d the
Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
acting within their respective authorities shall deny, prohibit, terminate, and
revoke visas, residents, permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits,

(01:18:33):
or seek removal from the United States pursuing to federal law,
whenever there is been an appropriate determination that foreign nationals
have engaged in American flag desecration activity under circumstances that
permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to federal law.
You know, before I continue this, yeah, there's only a

(01:18:53):
little bit left. But I'm just gonna say if I
was going to try to take up residency in Germany,
legal or illegal, and then I would go to a
protest and burn the German flag, you know, I'm pretty
sure that that would be like an extra slap in
the face, like, Yo, you don't have to be here

(01:19:15):
if you're not a citizen. But I understand this goes
a little bit further than just foreign nationals and things
like that, So let's keep going here. Severability if any
provisions of this Order or the application of any provisions
to any person or circumstances held to be invalid, the
remainder of this Order and the application of its provisions

(01:19:36):
to any other person's or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby no Section four. Nothing in this Order shall be
construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by
law to an executive department or agency or head thereof,
or the functions of the Director of the Office Management
and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposal. This

(01:20:01):
Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject
to available availability of appropriations. This Order is not intended to,
and does not create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against
the United States, It's departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,

(01:20:25):
or agents, or any other person. The cost for publication
of this Order shall be borne by the Department of Justice. Okay,
So essentially they're saying that if you're at a protest
and you're going to desecrate the flag, you may be
convicted for this. This might be an arrestable offense, it says,
to the fullest extent of the law. It brought up
personal property. So like, if you're at a protest, regardless

(01:20:49):
of what the reason for the protest is or your
political leanings, because it didn't specify that. If you're at
a political protest and you see that there's a business
with a storefront who has an American flag waving outside
their door, if you take that flag down and then
publicly burn it, you just stole someone's private property and
then desecrate the flags. That's gonna be like a double whammy.

(01:21:11):
But then what would be like the indictment would be
for the cost of the flag and some I don't know.
I don't know to what extent of the law they're
trying to turn this, but I gotta say, and I
know that I'm very biased on this. I'm not necessarily
against this. I understand First Amendment, right, I understand freedom

(01:21:32):
of self expression. I'm all in favor of this too.
Even if I disagree with somebody's point, I will fight
to the death for them to have the ability to
say that point.

Speaker 4 (01:21:41):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:41):
I'm with this same time, I care a little too
much about the flag. You know, I understand it's just
a cloth. I get that it's just a symbol, and
symbols only have as much power as you give them.
I understand that. But there's a reason why I've flown
an American flag outside of my house for the past
ten years, and there's a reason why. Whenever it becomes

(01:22:04):
unserviceable and all torn up and tattered, I actually go
through the process of cutting it in the specific order
to which you're supposed to do it. I've actually done
flag burnings in my backyard with my children in the appropriate,
respectful way and how you're supposed to do this right,
to teach them to respect this flag and what it represents.
So I don't know. Maybe I'm too much of a

(01:22:26):
patriot for the conversation, but I'm not necessarily against this.
I don't think anybody should be burning the American flag
if you're an American citizen, for sure, if you hate
America that much and you're burning the flag because you
don't like it here like, no one is stopping you
from leaving. We have gates to keep people out, we
have you know, or we have fences to keep people out.
We have gates to you know, let people go there.

(01:22:49):
You can get a passport and fly wherever you want
and start a new life somewhere. Best of luck to you,
and no hard feelings, I don't know, and especially if
you are a foreign national and you come to America
and you are in the middle of a protest and
you're burning an American flag to protest, like you can leave,
like you really don't have to be here. I don't know.

(01:23:11):
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent behind this, but I mean,
what are your thoughts on this?

Speaker 9 (01:23:18):
To my thought was observing the right wing reaction on Twitter.
Matt Walsh is like the only guy I saw who
really supported this. And I know I'm missing a lot
of people, but most of the political right that I
saw said this is stupid and we really want to
see the Epstein files released more than we want to
see this. When are you going to do that? There

(01:23:40):
was a lot of commentary along those lines.

Speaker 1 (01:23:42):
I agree with that statement for sure, Like this is
not like the biggest pressing matter in American culture. This
is I didn't even realize this was a thing. It's
very much a curveball on a left field, honestly, But yeah, huh.

Speaker 9 (01:23:55):
Another thing is he's Trump said in his verbal verbal
comments that we're gonna to anyone who burns a flag
with one year in prison, but he can't do that,
and the executive order was not even worded along those
lines at all. Because the people who actually wrote it
know that it can't do that.

Speaker 1 (01:24:12):
It just said to the fullest extent of the law.
So it's like, to what level did you offend? Did
you personally go buy this flag to burn it? And
then at that point it's what like a disturbing the piece.
That's a slaps and a misdemeanor in most cases. Yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:24:27):
A big reason I think this is largely nonsense is
that the Supreme Court and our judicial system has already
ruled that criminal threats, imminent lawless action, or fighting words.
These have been already talked to death and there's good
definitions for this. And if you're burning a flag that's
your own piece of property, the court system already has

(01:24:50):
a pretty good definition of whether you're engaged in imminent
lawless action or inciting lawless action or not. So I
really don't see this execut the order is having the
ability to make any difference for an American citizen if
it comes to somebody who's not a citizen, somebody who
especially doesn't have a green card, like these Arab students

(01:25:14):
who were writing anti Israel articles a while ago and
then getting kicked out of the country. Yeah, you already
aren't very protected if you have that status, right, And
they probably would be kicked out for doing this too,
But they would have been kicked out even without this
executive order. I just don't say this executive order is
making any difference except just grabbing a bunch of attention.

(01:25:38):
So you know, I had a third thought and I
just don't remember it right now. But spirit animal, what
do you think?

Speaker 1 (01:25:44):
Yeah, what do you think? Sam? I agree with you,
by the way, Tony, I think this is very much
to look over here not over there kind of thing.

Speaker 7 (01:25:49):
But who knows, Sam Iglait I had to probably a
look at this and think about the other thing. But
I can't help but to feel happy that this happened
because I have family that has been in that has
fought over seas and everything. And I'm I myself am

(01:26:14):
a vet JQ Burevet and uh ravens of it. We
all means that's the fact that I want to be
over my body. I want to be I want to
be wrapped up in a shroud with and burned like
and that's what I want. And I have friends who
have already been buried under that flag. And when I

(01:26:37):
see people Stone bought it spit on it and burn it.
I'm not gonna lie. Violent thoughts go run through my mind.

Speaker 1 (01:26:45):
No, I'm with you. Where I was stationed in DC,
I marched somewhere close to, if not over a thousand
funerals at Arlington. Right. So, as far as the flags
being draped over coffins, the twenty one gun salute, the folding,
the whole nine, I was a part of that for
the entire of my Marine Corps career. Maybe that has
something to do to do with my bias towards it,

(01:27:06):
And fine, that's fine, And again I understand freedom of
self expression. I am with that one hundred percent. I
am all in favor of freedom of speech. But there's
you know, there's a level of respect that I also
think that we should be using that most people, regardless
again of race or political background or socioeconomic status, whatever,

(01:27:28):
there's a level of decorum and respect that our culture
has lost, like absolutely thrown out the window in the
last twenty years. I think another twa.

Speaker 9 (01:27:41):
Yeah, Another thought I have on this is that in
the ancient times, there were idols that people worshiped, and
there was a revolt against that. That's largely where Judaism
and Islam get their anticonic beliefs from. But everyone's got
symbols that they really love that they attached to ideas

(01:28:03):
of everything they think is holy and good. So I'm
sure that in the Middle Ages, if you desecraated a crucifix,
you would be severely punished and maybe killed. And some
Protestant Reformers actually they they took on this more an
iconic view of the way things ought to be, and
they would destroy statues, and you know, the American flag

(01:28:26):
and the Israeli flag and the Pride flag. They're all
very powerful symbols that people love so much they want
to punish anyone who desecrates them these days.

Speaker 1 (01:28:36):
But that being said, and I'm not disagreeing with your point,
but even in the Middle Ages they were tearing down
these icons and statues. If you were to throw actual
shit on your king's banner, I have a hard time
believing that you wouldn't also probably lose your life over that.

Speaker 9 (01:28:54):
Yeah, I agree, I agree, And in a sense, the
king's banner was also kind of an idol. I think effectively,
if something is held as being so sacred, whether you
you know, call it religious or call it civic, nationalist
and somebody desecrating it prompts other people of violence. It
is pretty similar to idolatry in my opinion. And this

(01:29:17):
is very this is very iconoclastic kind of thing to
do to burn a flag, but I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:29:22):
Throwing Let's say you're even trying to desecrate your nobleman's banner,
not necessarily the king, it could be even your local
lord or duke or earl or whatever. That's essentially their name, right,
that is the crest of this clan, this family, these things.
You're basically shitting on their family at that point. So, yes,

(01:29:42):
although it is an icon and it is an image
that is, you know, within the human mind it signifies this,
that and the other, it's a little more personal than that.
And that's how I've always seen flagged. I don't take
that to be a icon of America. I believe that
to be the symbol, like the family name, almost of
the America as a whole. And I know that I

(01:30:05):
might be crazy for that assertion. I know there's tons
of people that say, you know, when everybody was like
make America great, there was tons of people that were
saying America is never great, and they are disgusted by
the side of the American flag, and they have the
rights of that opinion.

Speaker 9 (01:30:19):
But well, yeah, this is also the difference between honor
culture and dignity culture. And honor culture, if someone insults
your name, you have to lash out at them, and
in dignity culture, it's more like you're better off ignoring it.

Speaker 1 (01:30:32):
M Yeah, that's fair, that's very fair. Okay. Well, as
we were talking about America and symbols and things like that,
let's talk a little bit about what's going on in
Venezuela right now. This is this is getting interesting, y'all.

(01:30:53):
I remember talking about this on the Culture Conspiracy a
few years ago, and I tried finding the article and
I couldn't because everything involving Venezuela in US right now
is talking about what's currently going on a few years ago.
And by a few, I don't mean like ten, I
mean like maybe two out of nowhere Venezuelan. I don't

(01:31:15):
even think it was the President, although it might have
been Maduro himself who basically said that if America wants
to try to invade Venezuela, they better be ready for
a fight. And it was like, who is talking about
invading Venezuela. Like, no one in America was even suggesting
such a thing, even the deepest realms of military you know,

(01:31:35):
movements and all these things, Like we were worried about
other shit around the world. No one was concerned with
some sort of a military action in Venezuela. Then Venezuela
started gearing up like they were about to invade Guyana,
right their neighbor to the east, to the southeast technically,
and America decided to let it be known that they

(01:31:57):
sided with Guyana on this one. And that was after
the fact, that was after Maduau had already made these
crazy statements. But now America has deployed a couple of
warships and about four thousand marines off the coast of Venezuela.
Why are they doing this, I don't really know, but
the article might give us a little bit of an

(01:32:18):
indication on this one. And in response, Venezuela has deployed
their own warships quote unquote, I'm using the term warship
in reference to Venezuela very loosely and very liberally. But
let's continue warships drones to the coast. As US naval
squadron nears Venezuelan Defense ministry orders naval patrols as US

(01:32:41):
warships sent to waters off country's coast tackle Latin American
drug cartels. So the going narrative as of this moment
is that the US military, with a couple battalions of
Marines on board, are being deployed to this air of
the world to battle the cartels because our president has

(01:33:04):
listed all cartels to be terrorist organizations. Therefore you can
use military might to fight them now, not just border
patrol and homeland security things. That being said, the Venezuelan
president is not happy about it and is trying to
like posture in response. But let's read in here. Venezuela's
defense minister says military vessels and drones will be sent

(01:33:27):
to patrol the country's coastline amid simmering tension with the
United States after Washington deployed warships to waters off Venezuela
to fight drug trafficking. In a video on social media
on Tuesday, Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino announced a significant
drone deployment, as well as naval patrols along the country's
Caribbean coast, including larger vessels. Further North in our territorial waters.

(01:33:51):
The move comes after Washington last week deployed an amphibious
squadron of three warships towards Venezuela's coast in what it
said was an operation against latinum American drug cartels. New
Agencies reported on Monday that two more US ships, a
guided missile cruiser and a nuclear powered fast attack submarine,
had also been dispatched to the Caribbean, and that some

(01:34:11):
forty five hundred US service members, including twenty two hundred Marines,
were part of the deployment. Okay, I said, four thousand marines,
my bad, forty five hundred service members including twenty two
hundred marines. The other ones would probably be the naval,
you know, the navy guys that are and women that are,
you know, piloting the ships to bring them there. But anyway,

(01:34:32):
the US naval build up comes after the administration of
President Trump last week accused Venezuela's left wing president Nicholas
Maduro of being involved in cocaine trafficking and working with
drug cartels. Okay. Washington also announced that it had doubled
a reward for the capture of prosecution or capture or

(01:34:53):
prosecution of Maduro on drug charges from twenty five million
to fifty million US. The US is also offering a
reward of twenty five million for the arrest or prosecution
of Venezuelan Minister of the Popular Power for Interior, Diastado Cabello,
the Popular Power for Interior. Okay, so right now, there's

(01:35:17):
bounties on two of these people's heads, the president and
one of his top ministers. That's interesting. US officials have
accused me Dureau and members of his government of heading
the Venezuelan cocaine trafficking cartel Cartel de los Soles Solas,
which Washington has designated a terrorist organization. Okay, now we're

(01:35:38):
cook him. Merdureau has dismissed the accusations and accused the
US of attempting to instigate regime change in his country.
For the record, every person in Venezuela wants a regime change.
We could look at their living conditions in two thousand
and four or two thousand and five. I want to
say they had the world's fourth best economy because they

(01:36:02):
have oil there and cost of living is relatively cheap.
They were killing it. Then Maduro and people like him
turn the country socialist, and they plummeted. They have been
in starvation mode, full on survival mode for the better
part of two decades now, with no sign of that

(01:36:22):
getting better. So, for the record, most people in Venezuela,
most regular people, would love a regime change. But okay, now,
let's talk about the military build up. On Monday, Maduro
insisted during a weekly television show that his country, unlike
neighboring Colombia, is free of coca leaf crops and free

(01:36:43):
of cocaine production. Mardua, who was also criticized the US
government for not addressing the drug consumption within its borders,
has mobilized hundreds of thousands of local militia members to
strengthen the national security amid the threat from Washington. Fifteen
thousand Venezuelan troops have also been dispatched to the country's

(01:37:03):
border with Colombia to crack down on criminal groups, including
those involved in drug trafficking. I find that very, very,
very funny because trend de Arawa, which is one of
the most brutal groups currently operating, is a Venezuelan group.

(01:37:24):
If you've seen any of these things about the apartments
in Texas being taken over by these Venezuelan thugs. That's
trend de Arawa, that's a Venezuelan cartel group. So for
them to say that they are cracking down on all
these things and that they don't have this in their
country all evidence to the contrary. They are currently the
most dangerous criminal element in the United States as of

(01:37:48):
time of recording. So anyway, Bold claims there Maduro. In
a separate announcement on Tuesday, Defense Minister Petrino said an
ongoing operation in Venezuela's northeastern corner had resulted in the
dismantling of shipyards where criminals intended to manufacture semi submersibles
and boats to transport drugs by sea to the markets

(01:38:10):
in Europe and North America. Yeah, the semi submersibles are
basically submarines that only go a few feet below the water.
But anyway, the move to deploy US warships and personnel
off Venezuela comes as Trump pushes for using the military
to thwart cartels he blames for the flow of fentanyl
and other illicit drugs into US communities and for perpetuating

(01:38:32):
violence in some US cities. I can't disagree Venezuela's mission
to the United Nations denounced the US's escalation of hostile
actions and threats in a letter. Local media outlet YEP
Noticias Venice Vision I don't speak, I don't speak Spanish
reported on Tuesday, referring to the imminent arrival of US

(01:38:55):
ships off the coast. Venezuela told the UN that Washington's
actions were quote a serious threat to regional peace and security,
while the presence of a nuclear powered attack submarine was
quote a clear act of intimidation. I believe that would
be the point, right. And again, they're only supposed to

(01:39:15):
be attacking the cartel and the movement of drugs. If
the government has nothing to hide, and they are so
loud and proud about the fact that they have no
cartel operations in their country, and they have no cocaine
industry and all these things, they should have nothing to
worry about. Gonna leave that little food for thought referring

(01:39:36):
to the imminent sorry, excuse me. The letter also demanded
guarantees that the US would not deploy or threaten to
use nuclear weapons in the region. Bro No one is
using nukes. That is not being talked about. A nuclear attack.
Sub isn't carrying nukes. It's powered by nuclear reactors. That's yes, yep.

(01:40:01):
That is one of the most things that has ever
been said, one of the most things that has ever
been said. Despite the military build up, analysis have downplayed
the possibility of a US invasion or US strikes on Venezuela,
while many Venezuelan people have shrugged off the US threat
as posturing. Yeah, no doubt, and Venezuela's posturing back is
about as big. Maduro, who claimed a third term in

(01:40:24):
office following an election in July of twenty twenty four,
which was described as deeply flawed, has been in Trump's
sites ever since the US president's first term from twenty
seventeen to twenty twenty one. But the US policy of
maximum pressure on Venezuela, including an ongoing oil embargo, failed
to dislodge Mondureau from power. That is because they're subsidizing

(01:40:46):
that through bricks right now and funding Russia. But anyone
and China, I should mention this is a quote here.
I think what we're seeing represents an attempt to create
anxiety in government circles and force Madureau to negotiate. We
ate something that was from International Crisis Group analyst Phil Gunson.
He told AFP regarding the building tension. Okay, so that's

(01:41:10):
currently the standings. There's nothing popping off off the Venezuelan coast.
But it is worth mentioning that Venezuela is not happy
about seeing the US military off its shores, and I
understand that, but it's also worth mentioning that if they
have nothing to worry about, then they should have nothing
to worry about. They claim they have no cartels, even

(01:41:30):
though Trende Orrawa would disagree with that statement. And if
they're only there to look for submersibles or semi submersibles
and to stop the flow of drugs through the Caribbean,
that all intelligence would show does come out of Venezuela.
There's other countries that comes out of as well, but
Venezuela is absolutely a launching platform for this.

Speaker 4 (01:41:54):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:41:55):
Yeah, yeah, I can understand why the military would be
deployed there as of this moment. And we'll see what
happens with Maduro. He might get froggy and decide to
try to do something crazy, and that again would not
bode well for him or his country.

Speaker 10 (01:42:08):
Go ahead, Sam, Yeah, you talked about how du came
that we had nuclear.

Speaker 7 (01:42:19):
Power, the nukes nuclear submarine double that like he thought
we would drop nukes on them from it. I'm pretty
sure we do have that. We probably do have that capability.
I'm not that sure. I'm not wanting in the Navy.
I didn't fuck with nukes, right. I think that it
would not be smart for anybody to use nukes because

(01:42:42):
if once country expires, in the country, I was gonna
find an X and all it's moved to sure destruction
on Graden stage.

Speaker 1 (01:42:49):
Right, And that's why I'm saying that nobody's gonna drop
nukes like that is beyond a zero percent chance of that, right.
But they yes, we do have nuclear war heads that
can be deployed from submarines AE hundred percent right that
we have that technology. We've had it for quite some time.
But a nuclear attacks sub does not necessarily mean that

(01:43:10):
there are nuclear warheads on board the submarine. It's like
saying the nuclear aircraft carriers that we have. The aircraft
carriers are not carrying nuclear warheads. They're aircraft carriers. They
are being powered by nuclear reactors.

Speaker 7 (01:43:24):
I thought we were still running off of like diesel
on a coal.

Speaker 1 (01:43:30):
Most ships are still running off of diesel. However, we
are making more and more transitions into nuclear power because
it is so efficient and so safe. Basically, these nuclear
go ahead.

Speaker 7 (01:43:44):
So what happens is God forbid, we lose a ship
in a in a like of a ship to ship attack.
I know it hadn't happened since World War Two, but
steel that that nuclear action going underwater, a whole lot
of shit's gonna die.

Speaker 1 (01:44:00):
Yes, But also they for somebody to try to attack
an American ship like realistically, a ship to ship fight
on the open sea like that, that might be one
of the worst ideas to ever be tried. Like you said,
it hadn't happened since World War Two, there's a reason.

(01:44:23):
And even if that was attempted, most of our ships
have deterrence in place to where that's I'm not saying impossible,
I'm saying that would have to be one hell of
a lucky shot, and so many different redundancy systems would
have had to have failed. But even in that case,
if the ship was hit and was going to be

(01:44:43):
going down, they have procedures in place to try to
either cool the nuclear reactor before it goes into a
cataclysmic state or something like this, or you know, seal
it in some way to where it wouldn't affect the
sea life and stuff like that. But yeah, so the
nuclear powered aircraft carriers and stuff, they stay out. The

(01:45:07):
only thing that goes bad on them quote unquote is
the people operating it. Like that ship could stay out
at sea pretty much indefinitely. They only have to make
ports so that they could resupply the people running the ship.
Like it's the nuclear powered conversation is beyond the direction
that I think we should go to for all power,

(01:45:28):
not just military, but even electricity here. But I know
so many people are scared of it because there have
been a few instances of things going wrong in countries
that do not have the same standards that America has.

Speaker 7 (01:45:40):
But you know, case the point is Chernobyl, But that
was because they did what they were trying to do
a mock tail. You well, they they didn't put enough
concrete or whatever all quote unquote mud on top. They
just dump fuck tons of water and it didn't have
enough mass to hold it down, so it just boiled
over in it.

Speaker 1 (01:46:00):
Also, we got to keep in mind was during the
Soviet Union time frame, they didn't have like an osha.
They had their version of it, but it was not
very efficient or at least right after.

Speaker 7 (01:46:12):
The Sorry it was communism.

Speaker 1 (01:46:16):
Well that's right exactly. Then you have like the Fukushima
nuclear reactor situation. There was a crack and they think
there was a crack, and they decided to keep running
it anyway. And that's what I'm saying. Japan has a
very very decent QA and QC mindset. As a matter
of fact, what we have as far as quality control
and quality assurance comes from Japanese experts in the field.

(01:46:38):
America took those plans and those ethos and applied them here.
That being said, the way that that reactor was built
and the chain of events that let it go to
the level it did, that wouldn't happen in America for
a list of reasons.

Speaker 7 (01:46:56):
Not to be a dick or anything, but you would
think they would. They would know firsthand how nuclear it
tends to react when it sucks up, and they still
let that shit ride. They were asking for some bad situation.

Speaker 1 (01:47:11):
That is true. But the Fukushima crack in the nuclear
leak was decades after the sun was opened up on them,
So it's a different Japan.

Speaker 7 (01:47:22):
Yes, they that's what I'm saying. They had the knowledge,
but yet they said nah, fuck it, the no and
well Clyde didn't ride very long.

Speaker 1 (01:47:31):
No, that's true, that's true. But anyway, so yeah, the
nuclear power conversation, especially with nuclear subs and nuclear ships
is brilliant. Uh, you know, groundbreaking technology that our military
is using at our disposal. I wish that we would
go more nuclear powered on mainland US, but big oil

(01:47:51):
has something to say about that. But anyway, anyway, talks
for another day. I did have another article brought up
to talk about the destroyers in Venezuela deploying its militia,
but we kind of already covered all that. Also, I
thought this was interesting. The Republicans are pushing to split
California into amid redistricting feud. So we were talking about

(01:48:14):
this over the past few weeks, the Texas redistricting conversation
that took place and all of this. Apparently there is
now a push to split California for the same purpose.
Listen to this.

Speaker 12 (01:48:26):
A Republican lawmaker wants to turn California into two separate states.
Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher introduced legislation to get the
process started, maybe sends back a hotbeker spoke with him
just today and joins us alive in studio alex.

Speaker 13 (01:48:41):
This is in response to Democrats' effort to redraw California's
congressional maps in favor of Democrats. State Republicans have been
vocal in their opposition to the plan over the last
several weeks. Leader Gallagher says throughout the state, Republicans feel
unheard and underrepresented, so he wants to split the state
in two.

Speaker 14 (01:49:00):
You know what we want our own state.

Speaker 13 (01:49:01):
This is the state's split Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher
is proposing. At a news conference Wednesday morning, he said
Republican voters are fed up with the state's Democratic supermajority.

Speaker 14 (01:49:12):
And those forgotten people, mostly in the inland counties of
this state, they had no voice.

Speaker 13 (01:49:17):
Republicans representation is further threatened, he said, by the prospect
of redrawn congressional districts, which voters will approve or reject
in a special election. On November fourth, California Democrats redrew
the proposed maps with the goal of flipping five Republican
held seats. Democratic to counter Texas's planned to do the

(01:49:37):
exact opposite.

Speaker 14 (01:49:38):
Their representation could be completely stripped by the Gavinmander proposal
Prop fifty that's been put on the ballot in.

Speaker 13 (01:49:46):
Response to Gallagher's two state proposal. A spokesperson for Governor
Gavin Newsom's office told ABC ten in a statement, a
person who seeks to split California does not deserve to
hold office in the Golden State. This is a stunt
that will go nowhere. And Nick Miller, spokesperson for Democratic
Assembly Speaker Robert Reeves, told ABC ten in a statement,

(01:50:07):
Assembly Republicans say they opposed jerrymandering, but just drew this
joke of a map a true James Galamander I asked
Chris mckayley, adjunct professor with the University of the Pacific's
McGeorge School of Law, what it would take to split
the state in two like this.

Speaker 15 (01:50:23):
That proposal would require first the consent of the California legislature,
both houses passing a joint resolution, and then ultimately an
Act of the Congress. Both the US House and Senate
would have to approve that before it could take effect.

Speaker 13 (01:50:41):
That process is laid out in the US Constitution, he said,
but with a Democratic supermajority elected in California, is Gallagher's
plan even feasible.

Speaker 15 (01:50:50):
It's unlikely that the legislature, controlled clearly by Democrats in
both houses, are likely to hear such a measure, let
alone actually pass it and pass it on to the Congress.

Speaker 13 (01:51:01):
But something like this isn't necessarily new. According to the
California State Library, over the course of the state's history,
there have been more than two hundred attempts to split
up the state in some way, shape or form. You
might be familiar with one called the State of Jefferson,
where parts of northern California and southern Oregon worked to
form a new state. Periodic efforts spanned the mid eighteen
hundreds and got serious in the fall of nineteen forty one.

Speaker 14 (01:51:25):
But for the outbreak of World War Two, that movement
was actually all on its way to come into fruition.

Speaker 13 (01:51:32):
Asked if he has a name for the second state,
Gallagher said no, the name and exact boundaries are up
for discussion at this point. If the phrase Gallagher is
using to describe his proposal to state solution stands out
to you and Gallagher was asked about it, that phrase
is commonly used to describe a possible solution to the
long standing conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Gallagher said he's

(01:51:55):
not intending to make a connection. That just describes what
he's aiming to do here in California.

Speaker 1 (01:52:01):
Okay, fair enough. So this is all in response to
Texas redistricting their state, which did in fact get approved.
So the other side of this is that this does
have to pass through DC to actually get approved. Texas
went through the process and they were at the final
point it had been approved by all the appropriate bodies

(01:52:21):
and then the local state legislatures were able to vote
on it. In the final vote, this is when the
Democrats took off and started going to other cities rather
than showing enough to work to vote. Is this something
that could actually take place? I don't really see it
happening right And I'm not saying because the Republicans run
DC right now or anything like that. What I could

(01:52:43):
see is they might start the process now, but not
push it to DC until the Democrats hold the positions
where they can finally pass the legislation and then make
this happen. I could see it as far as like
securing this for good, but I as of this moment.
Don't think that California is at any risk of actually

(01:53:04):
breaking off into two separate states. That would be phenomenal
because the vast majority of people that I know that
live in California are staunch Republicans and staunchly conservative. It
is only the big cities in the big hubs of
mass populations, which is systemic across any anywhere you live,

(01:53:25):
a big city is going to be full of liberally
minded people. And so yeah, the vast majority of the
state does not feel represented. I would have to personally
agree with that. But anyway, last item on the docket
odd that this is a BBC article to talk about this,
but I'm happy about it, and I figure we should
end this one on a light note. We covered a

(01:53:47):
bevy of more serious topics on this episode. US restaurant
chain Cracker Barrel scraps new logo after backlash. For anybody
that missed it, Cracker Barrel changed their logo. They took
away the old man and the barrel and tried to
go for this new modern look for some reason, and
they got so much backlash they decided to uh, go

(01:54:08):
ahead and change it back. So let's read about it here.
US restaurant chained Cracker Barrel has abandoned plans to adopt
a new logo following fears backlash direct quote here. We
thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for
Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have.
Our new logo is going away and our old Timer
will remain, the company said in a social media posts.

(01:54:29):
Cracker Barrel received criticism after it unveiled a modern version
of its logo which scrapped the old Timer figure. President Trump,
who was among those slamming the rebrand, applauded the reversal
by saying, congratulations Cracker Barrel on changing your logo back
to what it was. All of your fans very much appreciated.
I have a hard time believing Trump's even eating at
one of these establishments. That could be wrong. The new

(01:54:51):
version of the logo, which was unveiled along with a
new menu on the nineteenth of August, removed the image
of a man sitting in a chair and leaning against
the barrel known as the old Timer, and replaced with
an emblem featuring only the chain's name. That sparked accusations
that the company, known for its Southern style comfort food
and nostalgic atmosphere was abandoning its roots. Trump urged the

(01:55:14):
brand to return to its old logo and quote, admit
a mistake based on customer response the Ultimate Poll, and
manage the company better than ever before. End quote. He
said that the chain has got a billion dollars worth
of free publicity if they play their cards right, make
Cracker Barrel a winner again. That's a direct quote from

(01:55:34):
old Donnie T. David Johnson's CEO of branding agency Strategic
Vision PR Group, told the BBC US partner CBS that
the rebrand was a flop direct quote on that word.
What they did wrong is they went against their brand story,
which was the old logo that reflected the southern whimsical
atmosphere of the stores. Shares in the company nosedived by

(01:55:57):
about seven percent following the announce wow. In its statement
on X announcing the reversal on Thursday evening, the company said,
at Cracker Barrel, It's always been and always will be,
about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind
of country hospitality that feels like family. As a proud
American institution, our seventy thousand hardworking employees look forward to

(01:56:20):
welcoming you to our table soon. Found in nineteen sixty
nine in Lebanon, Tennessee, there are now more than six
hundred Cracker Barrel restaurants across the US. Stores typically have
a front porch with rocking chairs and a gift shop. Restaurants. Yeah,
we talked about the Southern style food such as mass potatoes,
hash brown casserole, and macaroni and cheese. So whoever was

(01:56:41):
in charge of this rebrand instantly regretted this decision. Their
stock prices plummeted. And I'm also curious what the difference
was in the old menu versus the new menu. I
don't know what they took off or added. I don't know,
but I for one, am happy that they're going back
to their original logo. I personally love Cracker Barrel. But anyway, Yes, Sam.

Speaker 7 (01:57:02):
The old timer, his name is Uncle Herschel.

Speaker 8 (01:57:06):
He's actually based on the guy, the founder's actual uncle.

Speaker 7 (01:57:10):
And it's funny.

Speaker 8 (01:57:12):
Oh, they took away Aunt Jemiah, who's based off of
the actual woman. And then you got Uncle Ben they
took away from and they took the Indian out. They
kept the larmb but threw the Indian off of the
damn butter Box, and then they try to take Uncle
Hershel from his act, from the family business.

Speaker 1 (01:57:29):
I am much more in favor of them keeping the
old brand. I don't think that it should have gotten
the amount of publicity that it got. Companies changed their
logos all the time. But also I'm glad that enough
of the public was so pissed off about it that
they decided to go back to what was working. If
it ain't broke, don't fix it. And for some reason,
these companies keep trying to fix what is not broken,

(01:57:51):
and they wonder why their stocks plummet afterwards. It's it's
maddening to me.

Speaker 8 (01:57:56):
But look at McDonald's. Like McDonald's I grew up. It
was a colorable, playful place. Now I'm a depressed dot
and McDonald's like a depressed adult, and I don't like it.

Speaker 7 (01:58:07):
I need an adult. You adult.

Speaker 1 (01:58:10):
Rebranded McDonald's rebranded, Pizza Hut rebranded. All of these big
chain food restaurants have rebranded in one way, shape or form.
And then they noticed that not as many people still
come there, and they just can't figure out why. And
it's like, because you did the cardinal sin of business.
If it's not broken, don't fix it. If business is booming,

(01:58:33):
continue doing exactly what you're doing. Don't change a thing.
Why why would you change anything? But they just they
for some reason, when they go to the open market,
they get this new border directors, a new CEO, whatever
the case is. They get all these quote unquote business
experts who are probably fresh out of college and have
never actually accomplished anything on their own to come in

(01:58:54):
and tell them all the things that they're doing wrong,
even though they got to their level of success by
doing exactly what they know how to do right. And
it never works out, It always is a net negative.
But for some reason they keep trying. So perhaps Cracker
Barrel saw the error of their ways and will not
make such a ridiculous mistake again. We can only hope, yes.

(01:59:16):
See anyway, all right, like I said, I wanted to
end this episode on a lighter note once again, for
anybody who would like to join in the conversation next week,
the link is in the description below. Go to the
Cajun Night on Patreon. As always, thank you everybody for
joining me this evening. I am the Cajun Knight, and
as always, God bless

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Cajun Knight Live 33

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

All Episodes

Cajun Knight Live 33

Stuff You Should Know