December 12, 2025 • 44 mins
Episode 595 of the A Minute to Midnite show, Tony is joined by Leo Hohmann. Recently there have been a number of important developments that spearhead the drive of the global elite and their puppet governments to forward a creepy dystopian agenda. Tony and Leo discuss this here.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
The Fringe Radio Network is supported by advertising in donations,
but Tony K in A Minute to Midnight is supported
one by donations only. Please visit A Minute to Midnight
dot com and support Tony Kay and his family. Tony
K needs your help, so we ask you to visit
A Minute to Midnight and support him. A Minute to
Midnight dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You are listening to the Fringe Radio Network frengradionetwork dot com.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Hi there, folks, welcome to the A Minute to Midnight show.
This is Tony coming to you from New Zealand. Please
make sure you subscribe to us at our YouTube channel
and at our website A Minute to Midnight dot com,
and please like and share this video. We do run
A Minute to Midnight one hundred percent by donations, and
if you're able to donate to us, that's always appreciated.
(01:23):
To say a big thank you to the small number
of folks that do donate to us, and if anyone
else wants to, as I say, it's always much appreciated.
And any music used I've written, played and recorded. So
now I will introduce today's guest. I have Leo Homan
with me on the show today and obviously Leo should
(01:45):
need no introduction, having been many times on this show
and a favorite guest of many people. So it is
good to be talking to you again Leo today, And
as always, there are plenty of things to cover, and
you've written about a lot of them.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
So welcome back, Thank you, Tony. Good to be back.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
So I guess I don't know where to start exactly,
but I suppose for me the starting point I would
like to quickly go to anyway, is the Genesis mission
Trump and the whole thing with AI and you know,
all the controls that go along with the surveillance and
(02:29):
all that to do with it. And I know you
did write about that, I suppose about a week or
so back.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
So what can you tell us about that?
Speaker 4 (02:39):
Well, I guess people should think about the Genesis project
in the same vein as we saw the Trump administration
unleash Operation warp Speed during his first term. Warp Speed,
as you know, was a program that was largely after
the control of the military, and it allowed the COVID
(03:05):
jabs to bypass all of the normal regulatory hurdles that
a vaccine, a typical regular vaccine would have to go
through before it was approved to go to the pump
into the arms of people in the general public. Well,
the Genesis mission is to AI what warp speed was
(03:27):
to the COVID shots. Okay, this is the proper perspective
to look at it from my opinion, because it eliminates
all of the regulatory hurdles to the expansion of AI
artificial intelligence. They're even trying to now on top of
(03:49):
the Genesis project, they're pressuring states and there may be
legislation coming or an executive order. Actually is what is
report wardly in the preparation stages to make it illegal
for any states to regulate AI. So not only will
be there be no watchdog, no oversight of big tech
(04:13):
in its rollout of AI, it's already rolled out, but
the expansion of AI, they'll know there will not only
be no regulation coming from the federal government, but there'll
be no regulation allowed from the states. And if you
try to regulate it as one of the fifty states,
you can Dardneer guarantee that there's going to be some
(04:33):
sort of blowback from the Trump administration. You'll you'll probably
have some federal funding cut off. There may be lawsuits,
civil suits against the UH, the governor's offices or whoever
might sign such you know, legislation. It's going to be
very predatory in my opinion, because these AI data centers
(04:56):
that are being built in i believe, just about every state,
they do not take into consideration the public's needs or
the public's concerns. It's been well documented the amount of
electricity that these things soak up, the amount of fresh
water they need to cool the servers at these big
(05:19):
data farms. That all means higher expenses for the average citizen,
higher electric rates, higher water bills. There's even some predictions
that when these data centers are all built, we could
see rationing of electricity like they're like typically goes on
(05:39):
in many third world countries, where you know, you're only
allowed to use electricity for so many hours a day,
and then you'll you'll be cut off for so many
hours because there's simply not enough electric power on the
grid right now to power all of these massive data centers.
(06:00):
And it's they're trying to expand the grid with by
you know, rejuvenating some of these old nuclear power plants
that have been mothballed over the years, but that's all
going to take time, and so Uh, there's going to
be a real come to Jesus moment, I believe, for uh,
(06:21):
these companies that are building these data centers hand over fist.
I know, we've got at least a couple dozen of
them proposed in the state I live in alone. Uh
And and several have already been built. So you know,
it's it's just going to be interesting to watch how
that all plays out.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Well, yeah, I can imagine with the electricity thing. You
if you, for example, get a really hot day or
a really cold winter's day and electricity goes up, uh
and and there won't be enough supply to meet the demands.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
And obviously, yeah, then that whole and.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
Who's gonna who's gonna win out in that battle? You know,
you know Bill Gates or and Elon Musk with their
massive data centers, Mark Zuckerberg or you know John Doe
who lives in some unknown neighborhood. You know, I think
we know who's gonna win that. You know, if push
comes to shove and there's not enough electric power to
(07:21):
go around, the data centers are going to get theirs,
and what's left over will go to the people.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
He exactly, that's right. And the whole thing with the
rolled out of legislation to do with AI. And then
it also goes into the the the real idea and
all that type of thing as well. And I know,
you know they're becoming more strict on that in the
use of that too.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yes, sure, yeah, I just came out with an article
a couple of days ago on that where the Trump administration,
you know, that glorious conservative entering a new golden age
of conservatism. Administration of President Donald Trump is now the
one that has been chosen by the globalists to be
(08:11):
the big enforcer of the real ID Act of two
thousand and five. Every president since two thousand and five
has refused to really crack down on the states and
make real ID the law of the land. But along
comes Donald Trump, the champion of conservatives, and he's the
one to do it. He's really holding the feet to
(08:31):
the fire. Then they've just entered what they call the
next phase of enforcement on the real ID and that
involves a forty five dollars fine if you show up
at an airport and want to get on a plane
and don't have a real ID compliant driver's license or
you don't have a passport not only will they find
(08:52):
you forty five dollars, but they're going to take your
biometric data, probably a face scam. Yeah, he is really
cracking down on enforcement of the biometric real ID, which
could evolve into a full blown digital ID at some point.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
And which is already happening in other countries the course.
Speaker 4 (09:16):
Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 5 (09:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
It's pretty sobering and consuming, and it's all always they
use the guise of safety, keeping you, for one safe.
It's either safety or it's convenience, and you know, making
things easier for people, and they sell efficiency.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Right, it's more efficient, and it's safer, and it's more secure,
and it's and we're all going to be happy, happy,
go lucky citizens and not have to ever worry about
terrorism again because Daddy government is looking after us, Tony,
and and the only way they can do it is
to make sure that we're all digitized and and plugged
(09:56):
into this digital's beast system. Uh, having our humanity stolen,
all treated the same like a number. Uh, and that's uh,
you know, you don't need to complain about it. If
you do, you're just one of these uh, you know,
lud apes who don't understand modern technology and you don't
(10:16):
want to go along with it all, and you're you're
going to be considered basically a trouble maker who's going
to uh probably be put on a watch list at
some point.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
And yeah, you mentioned the word, you know, terrorism and
being to make things safer from that. And of course
we've just had this this guy in d C, the
Afghan national who settled in the US that shot up
to National Guards people and and and was shouting apparently
(10:48):
alabahu akba whilst doing it. And so that that's really
interesting that you know, normally the media would shut out
that he'd yelled at sort of stuff out, but now
it's being put out the forever on to see.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
Yes, you know, it's very interesting.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
I'm glad you picked up on that. That is a
really good perception there, because you're exactly right. The media
would normally downplay that or ignore it all together, but
now they kind of highlighted it. It's to get people
afraid of terrorism again, right, Yeah, that's the whole reason
we see terroristic acts. Isn't that interesting? How they can
(11:29):
fade away for years, Yeah, with no attacks, and then
suddenly you have this high profile one in the nation's capital.
And I predict there'll be more. Why because it is
now advantageous to get the fear stoked up again, because
the government is coming at us with these new digital
(11:50):
security systems, and in order to get us to all
buy into it, conservatives included, it needs to a come
from a conservative president. The liberals have no problem with
these things. Okay, it would never be a problem or
an issue getting liberals to sign up for a digital idea.
They had to get the conservatives rolled up. They had
(12:11):
to get them into the program, into the system. The
way to do that is make it come through a conservative,
Republican president like Donald Trump, the patriotic, chest thumping American president,
and then also stoke up the fear, get some more
terrorist attacks rolling. I think this is just the first
of many to come. It's going to be back in
(12:35):
the news Islamic terrorism. You watch after years of the
media trying to downplay all that and really not US
experiencing many attacks. I think there was one terrorist attack
in Trump's entire first term. I don't remember any. I'm
(12:55):
probably missing one or two, but I don't remember any
during the Biden administration, and now we've already had one
in the first year of the Trump administration, and I
predict there'll be more because it is UH. It just
plays right into the hands of the globalists. At this
point in history when the whole world UH is moving
(13:17):
to the digital ID digital money system and tokenization and
and and and social credit scoring. UH and America will
lag behind the rest of the world if they are
not scared into the system by these fear bongers. And
the best way to do that is to UH get
(13:38):
some of these sleeper cells, get some of these lone
wolf sleepers to commit terrorist attacks. Now interest isn't it
interesting that this fellow who carried out the attack in
d C the day before it was the day before
the day after I think it was the day before Thanksgiving.
(13:58):
He was a c asset in Afghanistan. He was trained
by the CIA, and he was cultivated by the CIA
and used by the CIA in Afghanistan. Then they transport
him here to America. Mission not yet accomplished. Because this
(14:22):
CIA a asset I believe was put up to this
attack in Washington, d C. No question about it. You
don't just travel from all the way from Washington State
across country to shoot two National guardsmen in the nation's
capital with a three point fifty seven revolver, you know,
(14:45):
for Jihat, he could have found numerous other targets and
more and larger targets by going into some no go zone,
no gun zone, excuse me, closer to his home and
killing a bunch of people. If if he was just
you know, if he was just concerned about committing jihad,
that would have been his modus operende. He would not
(15:07):
have traveled all the way across country just to shoot
two National guardsmen.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Well, the CIA, of course was responsible for programs like
mk Ultra and the mind control you know, and all
of that, and so very conceivably it could have been
that way that you know, subliminal messaging to that person
and all sorts of things that triggered them at that
right moment when when they wanted him to act.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
Who knows. We will never know, of course, for.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Sure, absolutely yes, So you know, there's a lot going
on there that we're not being told, but it is
out there that it's not debatable. It is a fact
that he was trained and employed by the CIA and
special forces in Afghanistan starting in I don't know, but
(16:03):
I guess he would have been in his early twenties
when that started, and he's now twenty nine years old
and has been in America since twenty twenty one. You know,
Lang dormant waiting for his assignment, and now it's been given.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
See the other side of this is the US Trump
administration came out a couple of days ago talking about
banning all people traveling from countries that are liable to,
you know, cause problems basically, so we carpet banned blan
you know, ban on all of those countries. And then
(16:41):
it's interesting because I looked at comments on an article
on Fox News about that, and you get all these people,
conservative people saying why not we ban everybody from entering
the US for ten years? You know, it doesn't matter
where they come from. We need to get rid of
all of these ones and stop new ones coming in.
And I'm thinking that's really interesting. I beat a lot
(17:02):
of Emma plants too, sowing that whole thing in there,
so that not only do you stop anybody coming into
the US, but obviously the other side of that is
you then stop people from leaving the US, you know,
citizens and all that too. So it makes it easy
to lock a country down and so I think that
there's a lot of things at play here and more
(17:25):
to than what you know your ices with all of this.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
That's always the case, isn't it. I mean, we're being told,
for instance, that this upcoming war against Venezuela is about
drug traffic. Yeah, you know, I just posted an article
literally minutes before we went on the air here, uh,
pointing out it's an investigative article. I can't cover it
(17:52):
all here, but I encourage people to go read it.
The record of Donald Trump when it comes to drugs,
you know, both illegal drugs and legal drugs that are
harmful to Americans. You know, he goes on about how,
you know, we're going to kill all these drug traffickers
because they're poisoning Americans and poisoning the American people in
(18:13):
our cities, and we need to eliminate them, no questions asked.
If they're even suspected of being a drug runner, We're
going to blow their boat out of the water, no
questions asked at all. We're going to be the judge, jury,
and executioner all in one fell swoop and just shoot
those boats right out of the water, which in my opinion,
(18:35):
is against international law. It's against all norms of military operations,
especially when you're talking about this one case on September second,
where they fired on the US military fired on a
suspected drug cartel vessel, a small speed boat. Apparently two
(18:57):
of the occupants we're still alive, clinging to the wreckage,
and the officer, the admiral in charge of that naval fleet,
gave the order to fire a second time and kill everybody,
including those injured individuals who were out there in the
(19:20):
water trying to survive. And that is just in no way,
shape or form a legal military action. You can talk
to just about any military expert and he will he
or she will tell you that. But we're supposed to
believe that the Trump administration is so concerned about drugs
coming into the United States that it's even willing to
(19:42):
go to that extent to take out drug traffickers when
it doesn't even it hasn't shown any proof by the way,
that these are actual rug drug traffickers, because these speedboats
don't have the capacity to make it to America. They
would have to refuel like a dozen or more times
(20:03):
to get here, and so it's just really really shady
what's being going what's been going on in this regard.
But if you give them the benefit of doubt, I
guess you could say, you know, they're just they've just
had it with all these drugs coming into America, so
they're willing to take extra judicial precautions and go, you know,
(20:27):
maybe take some risks of being convicted as war criminals
because they are just so intent on eliminating any possibility,
no matter how remote, of drugs entering this country. Okay,
I could maybe understand that argument after you read my article.
That argument is not is proven to be invalid, invalid.
(20:51):
And I've got all the receipts, Tony, all the links
showing Trump's record on promoting dangerous drugs, mostly of the
legal nature, starting with Operation Warp Speed and now these harmful, dangerous,
risky weight loss drugs, but also in the realm of
illegal drugs. Do you know that he just yesterday pardoned
(21:16):
the most notorious drug trafficker in Latin America, mister Juan Hernandez,
out of Honduras. He was serving a multi decade decade
sentence at a prison, a federal prison in West Virginia,
and he walked out of there yesterday after being pardoned
(21:38):
by President Trump. If he were that concerned about illegal
drugs being trafficked into the United States, do you think
he would have made that call.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
On walk grounds? Did he pardon them?
Speaker 4 (21:55):
Um? You know, I don't know. He was a convicted,
notorious drug trafficker. I don't think there's any grounds that
could really justify such a move. But he is a
former president as well, I believe of Hondura, so I
can only surmise that there's something political involved in the decision.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
Mm okay, So what about Trump and Albert bula from
you know, they're going out from party.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
That's another thing I cover in the article that Albert
Borla is one of the most insidious drug company executives
in the world right now. He is the CEO of Pfizer.
Peiser has put out many proven dangerous drugs, many that
(22:50):
have been had to be recalled from the market. Uh,
and many that were never recalled and should have been
like the UH Peiser UH covid UH so called vaccine,
which as you know, has killed hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of people and injured tons of others. Yeah, uh,
(23:12):
with really debilitating injuries in many cases that people are
now living with and yet that that uh medical treatment
whatever it is, I don't even know if we can
call it a drug, which is consists of synthetic messenger
r RNA and spike proteins that were found in the
(23:35):
COVID virus, that it actually instructs the body to manufacture
these dangerous spike proteins. He is one of Trump's best
friends from the pharmaceutical industry. He's been invited to the
White House multiple times, most recently just a couple of
weeks ago, where Trump, you know, uh, two or three
(23:58):
weeks ago, where has heaped praise upon him as a
you know, brilliant businessman and amazing human being. So yeah,
it doesn't seem to matter whether it's a legal drug
or an illegal drug, both of which are poisoning Americans
in spades. We've seen no real accountability applied to these
(24:23):
to the purveyors of these drugs by the Trump administration.
And yet we're supposed to believe now that it is
out of a concern for drugs quote, pouring into America
and poisoning our citizens, that he is taking out these
suspected drug vessels with military munitions. You know, the proper
(24:51):
way way to go about it. I have absolutely no
sympathy for heart and drug traffickers being punished for their
evil doings. But there's a way to go about it.
You board their vessels, You inspect and search the vessels.
If you find drugs, you detain the occupants of those vessels,
(25:15):
You put them on trial, and you lock them up.
This is the way. This is the rule of law.
But you have we become that lawless that we no
longer respect the rule of law in this country and
we just shoot first and ask questions later. I mean,
every American with a conscience should be concerned about this,
(25:37):
because there's absolutely no and now we're going to do
the same thing. President Trump just came out yesterday or
the day before and said we're not only going to
continue doing this on the high seas, which really amounts
to a violent form of piracy. And you could say,
but we're also now going to do the same We're
(26:00):
going to use the same tactics, the same lawless tactics
to go after suspected drug traffickers on land in Venice
in not just Venezuela, but multiple other Latin American countries.
America truly is changing before our very eyes from a
(26:21):
country that has a very rich tradition of the rule
of law to a rogue nation that goes into other
sovereign countries and takes out people of its own, choosing
without a declaration of war, without any respect for the
(26:42):
rule of law, just willy nilly. You know, conservatives were
railing against this type of behavior when President Obama did it,
when he was doing drone strikes on suspected terrorists in
foreign countries. There was a lot of backlash from conservative voices.
But because it's being done now by one of our guys, crickets,
(27:07):
dead silence. I'm one of the few who was even
talking about it, Tony.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
I know, most people are still jumped on that Trump
bandwagon and stayed on it no matter what happens with
the what direction this administration goes, or how much they
bring in the surveillance and this technology AI and all
the other things that go along with it. People have
just stayed on that bandwagon and are not calling it out.
(27:35):
I suppose because you know, well, it would be an
about face and they would struggle to save their own
face if they go, hey, this isn't right. But because
so many of them said you've got to vote for
this guy. You've got to vote for Trump. You've got
you know that this is the reality. And I mean,
I've said all along, I don't believe it matters who anyway.
(27:57):
That the elite have their man that they want in power.
Was never going to be Kamala Harris. She was not
the one for the job. Joe Biden was past it.
You know, they always had Trump as the next guy,
and it didn't matter who you voted for, because that
was who they had.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
One hundred I could not agree more with that statement, Tony.
You really just nailed it. And I am of the
personal opinion, just my opinion. Okay, I can't prove this,
and I don't know that anyone could, but I have
a hunch that all of the law fair and all
(28:33):
of the legal troubles that Trump was faced with while
running for a second term, that was all smoking mears
meant to give him this martyr complex, which really increased
his popularity among Republican voters. I know, personally a lot
of people who were kind of fed up to hear
(28:55):
with Trump after his first term and the way he
handled COVID and everything with the lockdown, what have you
and they were not really excited about going to the
polls again in twenty twenty four with the choice of
a unlikable Democrat and unlikable a now unlikable Republican. But
(29:19):
after they saw all of the lawsuits, all of the
criminal proceedings that were launched against Trump, they really kind
of changed their mind and felt like he had come
under siege by the Democrats, and so they started getting
more excited about Trump. Would they would have voted for
(29:39):
DeSantis or one of those other candidates, or you know,
if it hadn't been for all of the persecution perceived
persecution that came against Trump. Now I'm not saying everyone
who filed a case against him was working for the
globalists knowingly, but I do feel like they were given
(30:02):
free reign at knowing that these cases would never amount
to anything in the end, that they would all be dismissed.
And then you get Trump elected based on this martyr
complex that he had and made him actually way more
popular than he was.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
And then you have another martyr for the ecumenical cause
in that we've got to unite all these religions together,
and everyone jumping on the bandwagon, whether you're a Mormon
or Catholic or Christian or whatever. And I'm talking about
the whole Charlie Kirk thing, which I don't want to
go down that rabbit trail, but it's the same type
(30:40):
of thing. It follows that same playbook in a way.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
Yeah, I mean, isn't it interesting how that just suddenly
faded out of the news too. It came and it went,
you know, almost as suddenly it went, almost as suddenly
as it came into the news cycle. And there's still
a lot of questions about that that will probably never
get answered.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
That's true. What else have you been covering that you
want to mention today?
Speaker 4 (31:12):
Well, I mean there's a lot going on technology wise
that I've been writing about. You know, You've got the
Ukraine Russia war still at as kind of entered a
new interesting phase I would say, where the peace deals
(31:32):
are back on the table. After a few months, two
or three months of backing off, Trump is now trying
to solve that war again. But it still doesn't seem
like it's ready to break forth breakthrough. There's not going
to be any real breakthrough because what's acceptable acceptable to
one party Ukraine is not acceptable to the other. Russia,
(31:56):
and no matter how much forcing or is done by
the Trump administration, you can't force a peace upon two
countries that hate each other, right, I mean, we've seen
the same thing with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Trump played
up that ceasefire like it was a big deal, and
the Gaza peace plan was announced with great fanfare. But
(32:19):
both sides are violating that deal, you know, almost daily,
and so the same thing's going to happen with the
Russia Ukraine war. I think even if they do announce
a big peace deal in the next few weeks or months, whatever,
it will be violated and they'll be back at war
before it's all said and done. And you know, I
(32:41):
think really Ukraine would like a peace deal now more
than Russia because that would give them time to regroup,
re arm and reorganize because they are really losing that
war quite badly right now. They're losing territory pretty much
little by little every day, including some really key cities
(33:02):
that have fallen or are about to fall. So they
really need a peace deal. But Putin, I think is
too smart to be hoodwinked into a peace deal that's
going to end up with him losing all of the
games that he's made through this decision to go in
with his military operation in Ukraine. I mean he needed
(33:27):
a buffer zone. He wanted a buffer zone from Kiev
because they were launching mortar attacks on Russian speaking residents
of eastern Ukraine that had been going on and off
since twenty fourteen. And he saw the Ukrainian army getting
bigger and bigger, being trained by the West, and then
(33:50):
he finally said, you know, that's it. I'm going to
have to go in and create some space between us
and them. And that's basically mostly in the don Bass area.
And you know, he's largely accomplished the mission. There's still
some areas of don Bess that he has that the
Ukrainians do hold. But the longer this war goes on,
(34:13):
I think they're going to lose all of it. And
so Ukraine knows that they need a piece deal. They
need one soon or the whole front is going to
collapse and the Russians are just going to march through
and take it all and they're going to be left
with a really bad deal then. But the problem is Trump,
and Trump knows this, but he can't get putin to
(34:35):
take the bait and agree to a deal that is
not in Putin's best interests.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
My wife Holly and I covered last week in the show.
One of the things we did was about the Economist
magazine cover the Wild to Heat for twenty twenty six,
and that of course is a globeless magazine through and through,
you know, partly Rothschild owned and so on. But that
cover is full of war, you know, for twenty twenty six,
(35:04):
as well as what looks like probably economic collapse or
something along those lines.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
AI all the things US dollar failure.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Yes, yeah, and you know the two hundred and fiftieth
anniversary for the US and you know they had a
fist coming out of the cake and things. You know,
it's like probably unrest, civil unrest and whatever else. So
twenty twenty six, you know, looks like a very unstable
(35:37):
year coming up. And I know we're getting towards the
end of this year, but I can't see at this
point the Ukraine Russia war ending anytime soon. You know,
it just doesn't seem likely to me.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
No, I think you have good reason to believe that.
And the question for me isn't when is it going
to end? The question is when is it going to
get broadened and expanded to include other countries. Yeah, because
we've seen the recent statements just this week out of NATO,
(36:11):
a high up NATO officer. He's in charge of the
Military Committee of NATO, which I find interesting that they
have a military committee when the whole thing is a
military alliance, you know. But anyway, this gentleman from NATO
said that, for the first time, we have a NATO
(36:32):
officer saying that, you know, we may have to launch
a first strike against Russia, preemptive strike. Those are dangerous
words and Putin. They were not lost on Vladimir Putin,
who shot back and said, you know what, Russia does
not want war with Europe, but if Europe wants to
(36:55):
persist in having war with us, basically he said, bring
it on. I'm ready.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Yeah, I heard that. I saw that, Yeah, exactly. So
it does look ominous for that situation.
Speaker 4 (37:10):
I had predicted, or you know, some months ago that
I thought, you know, world War three. We're already in
World War three, but the kinetic version, we should say
of World War three. We're direct combat between US and
Western troops and Russians and Chinese and North kore I
thought that might not happen until maybe twenty twenty seven.
(37:33):
But given this NATO commander's statements and some of the
other things we're hearing, and you know, I have to
wonder now if maybe twenty if I don't need to
move up my timetable for World War three to break
out for twenty twenty six instead of twenty twenty seven, Tony.
Speaker 5 (37:52):
Yes, well, that's a distinct possibility. I think.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
It won't be accident to what ever happens, it'll have
to It'll it in with the timeline for everything else
they're trying to get in place first, you know, all
these other things we've discussed. I think it'll be something
that they'll want to use all the crisises together to
finally put the clamps on everyone.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
That's how I see it.
Speaker 4 (38:18):
So with it, I mean, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (38:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Whether that ends up in twenty twenty six, I don't know.
It could well be.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
Yeah, yeah. I think for the global lists, they know
that they need war to pull off all what they
have on the shelf. The digitization of humanity and the
total control of every facet of our lives through algorithms
and the depopulation and all of that. I think they
(38:51):
know that in order to pull that off in a
widespread fashion, not just in pockets of the world, but
on the whole world, I think they know that they
need a not just a war, but a big war,
a world war, because when you look at the World
War one, World War two, and I'm sure some of
(39:11):
the other huge wars down through history, that's where we
see the biggest changes coming on the on the on
the heels of a big war like that, they redraw
the maps, they're able to get all new economic systems
in place. You know, the power brokers who sit at
(39:32):
the table of the world strategic decision making changes in
many cases. And so yeah, I think world War two
it's not a question of if, but when. Unfortunately.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
Yeah, So okay, I guess we'll leave it at that
and look to wrap up. But can you tell the
listeners again where they find you and your articles.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
Yeah, A couple of places, excuse me. My substack is
probably the most active place for my writing. You can
find that by going to Leohoman dot substack dot com.
I also have a website at Leohoman dot com and
(40:22):
you can find me on Telegram where I post as well.
Not just on there, I post not just my own articles,
but articles that I find interesting from other people, and
you can find me there on Telegram by searching Leohoman
author slash journalist.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
Okay, well, thanks again for your insight today, Leo. It's
been another fascinating discussion, and I always look forward to
having you on, actually, because I learn a lot from you,
know what you're researching all the time, and I read
all of your articles pretty much too. So I do
encourage others to subscript. I think that's a very sensible
(41:03):
thing to do because they will get a lot of
information they won't find elsewhere, because no one else much
is writing a lot of what you are that type
of subject, so at least not from the pollective.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
That's because I'm independent. I don't get you know, I
don't take ads from pharmaceutical companies. I don't take grants
or handouts from the government. I rely solely on my
readers for donations or sub You know, you can subscribe
to my sub stack. You can get my articles for free.
I do not withhold. I think maybe two times in
(41:36):
two years I posted an article that was for paid
subscribers only. But yet I am only able to continue
because I do have some gracious readers who you know,
have upgraded from free to paid subscriptions or sent me donations,
so that's what keeps me going. I don't have to
(41:57):
answer to any corporations or any government.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Yeah, that's good. And that's pretty much the same with
a minute at midnight. We don't do any ads.
Speaker 4 (42:06):
Yes, exactly, exactly, And I appreciate your work tremendously, Tony.
And if I don't touch base with you again this month,
Merry Christmas to you and all of your wonderful viewers,
and the same to you.
Speaker 3 (42:22):
Too, Merry Christmas and everything to you. I'm sure we
probably will catch up earlier in the new year.
Speaker 5 (42:27):
I'm hoping after this. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 4 (42:33):
I really appreciate you and your audi and vice versa.
Speaker 5 (42:38):
So folks, that's it.
Speaker 3 (42:40):
Please, as I said earlier, make sure you subscribe to
us at our website and our YouTube channel, and also
we have an Apple Podcasts channel as well. And as
I mentioned earlier, I was much appreciated when people donate
to us as well. So God bless and God will
and we'll be back with another show in a few
(43:00):
days time. So stay safe and keep looking upwards.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
The Fringe Radio Network is supported by advertising in donations,
but Tony K in A Minute to Midnight is supported
one by donations only. Please visit A Minute to Midnight
dot com and support Tony Kay and his family. Tony
K needs your help, so we ask you to visit
A Minute to Midnight and support him. A Minute to
Midnight dot com.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
You are listening to the Fringe Radio Network Radio Network
dot com.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
MMM
The Fringe Radio Network is supported by advertising in donations,
but Tony K in A Minute to Midnight is supported
one by donations only. Please visit A Minute to Midnight
dot com and support Tony Kay and his family. Tony
K needs your help, so we ask you to visit
A Minute to Midnight and support him. A Minute to
Midnight dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You are listening to the Fringe Radio Network frengradionetwork dot com.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Hi there, folks, welcome to the A Minute to Midnight show.
This is Tony coming to you from New Zealand. Please
make sure you subscribe to us at our YouTube channel
and at our website A Minute to Midnight dot com,
and please like and share this video. We do run
A Minute to Midnight one hundred percent by donations, and
if you're able to donate to us, that's always appreciated.
(01:23):
To say a big thank you to the small number
of folks that do donate to us, and if anyone
else wants to, as I say, it's always much appreciated.
And any music used I've written, played and recorded. So
now I will introduce today's guest. I have Leo Homan
with me on the show today and obviously Leo should
(01:45):
need no introduction, having been many times on this show
and a favorite guest of many people. So it is
good to be talking to you again Leo today, And
as always, there are plenty of things to cover, and
you've written about a lot of them.
Speaker 4 (02:00):
So welcome back, Thank you, Tony. Good to be back.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
So I guess I don't know where to start exactly,
but I suppose for me the starting point I would
like to quickly go to anyway, is the Genesis mission
Trump and the whole thing with AI and you know,
all the controls that go along with the surveillance and
(02:29):
all that to do with it. And I know you
did write about that, I suppose about a week or
so back.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
So what can you tell us about that?
Speaker 4 (02:39):
Well, I guess people should think about the Genesis project
in the same vein as we saw the Trump administration
unleash Operation warp Speed during his first term. Warp Speed,
as you know, was a program that was largely after
the control of the military, and it allowed the COVID
(03:05):
jabs to bypass all of the normal regulatory hurdles that
a vaccine, a typical regular vaccine would have to go
through before it was approved to go to the pump
into the arms of people in the general public. Well,
the Genesis mission is to AI what warp speed was
(03:27):
to the COVID shots. Okay, this is the proper perspective
to look at it from my opinion, because it eliminates
all of the regulatory hurdles to the expansion of AI
artificial intelligence. They're even trying to now on top of
(03:49):
the Genesis project, they're pressuring states and there may be
legislation coming or an executive order. Actually is what is
report wardly in the preparation stages to make it illegal
for any states to regulate AI. So not only will
be there be no watchdog, no oversight of big tech
(04:13):
in its rollout of AI, it's already rolled out, but
the expansion of AI, they'll know there will not only
be no regulation coming from the federal government, but there'll
be no regulation allowed from the states. And if you
try to regulate it as one of the fifty states,
you can Dardneer guarantee that there's going to be some
(04:33):
sort of blowback from the Trump administration. You'll you'll probably
have some federal funding cut off. There may be lawsuits,
civil suits against the UH, the governor's offices or whoever
might sign such you know, legislation. It's going to be
very predatory in my opinion, because these AI data centers
(04:56):
that are being built in i believe, just about every state,
they do not take into consideration the public's needs or
the public's concerns. It's been well documented the amount of
electricity that these things soak up, the amount of fresh
water they need to cool the servers at these big
(05:19):
data farms. That all means higher expenses for the average citizen,
higher electric rates, higher water bills. There's even some predictions
that when these data centers are all built, we could
see rationing of electricity like they're like typically goes on
(05:39):
in many third world countries, where you know, you're only
allowed to use electricity for so many hours a day,
and then you'll you'll be cut off for so many
hours because there's simply not enough electric power on the
grid right now to power all of these massive data centers.
(06:00):
And it's they're trying to expand the grid with by
you know, rejuvenating some of these old nuclear power plants
that have been mothballed over the years, but that's all
going to take time, and so Uh, there's going to
be a real come to Jesus moment, I believe, for uh,
(06:21):
these companies that are building these data centers hand over fist.
I know, we've got at least a couple dozen of
them proposed in the state I live in alone. Uh
And and several have already been built. So you know,
it's it's just going to be interesting to watch how
that all plays out.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Well, yeah, I can imagine with the electricity thing. You
if you, for example, get a really hot day or
a really cold winter's day and electricity goes up, uh
and and there won't be enough supply to meet the demands.
Speaker 5 (06:58):
And obviously, yeah, then that whole and.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
Who's gonna who's gonna win out in that battle? You know,
you know Bill Gates or and Elon Musk with their
massive data centers, Mark Zuckerberg or you know John Doe
who lives in some unknown neighborhood. You know, I think
we know who's gonna win that. You know, if push
comes to shove and there's not enough electric power to
(07:21):
go around, the data centers are going to get theirs,
and what's left over will go to the people.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
He exactly, that's right. And the whole thing with the
rolled out of legislation to do with AI. And then
it also goes into the the the real idea and
all that type of thing as well. And I know,
you know they're becoming more strict on that in the
use of that too.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yes, sure, yeah, I just came out with an article
a couple of days ago on that where the Trump administration,
you know, that glorious conservative entering a new golden age
of conservatism. Administration of President Donald Trump is now the
one that has been chosen by the globalists to be
(08:11):
the big enforcer of the real ID Act of two
thousand and five. Every president since two thousand and five
has refused to really crack down on the states and
make real ID the law of the land. But along
comes Donald Trump, the champion of conservatives, and he's the
one to do it. He's really holding the feet to
(08:31):
the fire. Then they've just entered what they call the
next phase of enforcement on the real ID and that
involves a forty five dollars fine if you show up
at an airport and want to get on a plane
and don't have a real ID compliant driver's license or
you don't have a passport not only will they find
(08:52):
you forty five dollars, but they're going to take your
biometric data, probably a face scam. Yeah, he is really
cracking down on enforcement of the biometric real ID, which
could evolve into a full blown digital ID at some point.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
And which is already happening in other countries the course.
Speaker 4 (09:16):
Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 5 (09:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
It's pretty sobering and consuming, and it's all always they
use the guise of safety, keeping you, for one safe.
It's either safety or it's convenience, and you know, making
things easier for people, and they sell efficiency.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Right, it's more efficient, and it's safer, and it's more secure,
and it's and we're all going to be happy, happy,
go lucky citizens and not have to ever worry about
terrorism again because Daddy government is looking after us, Tony,
and and the only way they can do it is
to make sure that we're all digitized and and plugged
(09:56):
into this digital's beast system. Uh, having our humanity stolen,
all treated the same like a number. Uh, and that's uh,
you know, you don't need to complain about it. If
you do, you're just one of these uh, you know,
lud apes who don't understand modern technology and you don't
(10:16):
want to go along with it all, and you're you're
going to be considered basically a trouble maker who's going
to uh probably be put on a watch list at
some point.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
And yeah, you mentioned the word, you know, terrorism and
being to make things safer from that. And of course
we've just had this this guy in d C, the
Afghan national who settled in the US that shot up
to National Guards people and and and was shouting apparently
(10:48):
alabahu akba whilst doing it. And so that that's really
interesting that you know, normally the media would shut out
that he'd yelled at sort of stuff out, but now
it's being put out the forever on to see.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
Yes, you know, it's very interesting.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
I'm glad you picked up on that. That is a
really good perception there, because you're exactly right. The media
would normally downplay that or ignore it all together, but
now they kind of highlighted it. It's to get people
afraid of terrorism again, right, Yeah, that's the whole reason
we see terroristic acts. Isn't that interesting? How they can
(11:29):
fade away for years, Yeah, with no attacks, and then
suddenly you have this high profile one in the nation's capital.
And I predict there'll be more. Why because it is
now advantageous to get the fear stoked up again, because
the government is coming at us with these new digital
(11:50):
security systems, and in order to get us to all
buy into it, conservatives included, it needs to a come
from a conservative president. The liberals have no problem with
these things. Okay, it would never be a problem or
an issue getting liberals to sign up for a digital idea.
They had to get the conservatives rolled up. They had
(12:11):
to get them into the program, into the system. The
way to do that is make it come through a conservative,
Republican president like Donald Trump, the patriotic, chest thumping American president,
and then also stoke up the fear, get some more
terrorist attacks rolling. I think this is just the first
of many to come. It's going to be back in
(12:35):
the news Islamic terrorism. You watch after years of the
media trying to downplay all that and really not US
experiencing many attacks. I think there was one terrorist attack
in Trump's entire first term. I don't remember any. I'm
(12:55):
probably missing one or two, but I don't remember any
during the Biden administration, and now we've already had one
in the first year of the Trump administration, and I
predict there'll be more because it is UH. It just
plays right into the hands of the globalists. At this
point in history when the whole world UH is moving
(13:17):
to the digital ID digital money system and tokenization and
and and and social credit scoring. UH and America will
lag behind the rest of the world if they are
not scared into the system by these fear bongers. And
the best way to do that is to UH get
(13:38):
some of these sleeper cells, get some of these lone
wolf sleepers to commit terrorist attacks. Now interest isn't it
interesting that this fellow who carried out the attack in
d C the day before it was the day before
the day after I think it was the day before Thanksgiving.
(13:58):
He was a c asset in Afghanistan. He was trained
by the CIA, and he was cultivated by the CIA
and used by the CIA in Afghanistan. Then they transport
him here to America. Mission not yet accomplished. Because this
(14:22):
CIA a asset I believe was put up to this
attack in Washington, d C. No question about it. You
don't just travel from all the way from Washington State
across country to shoot two National guardsmen in the nation's
capital with a three point fifty seven revolver, you know,
(14:45):
for Jihat, he could have found numerous other targets and
more and larger targets by going into some no go zone,
no gun zone, excuse me, closer to his home and
killing a bunch of people. If if he was just
you know, if he was just concerned about committing jihad,
that would have been his modus operende. He would not
(15:07):
have traveled all the way across country just to shoot
two National guardsmen.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Well, the CIA, of course was responsible for programs like
mk Ultra and the mind control you know, and all
of that, and so very conceivably it could have been
that way that you know, subliminal messaging to that person
and all sorts of things that triggered them at that
right moment when when they wanted him to act.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
Who knows. We will never know, of course, for.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Sure, absolutely yes, So you know, there's a lot going
on there that we're not being told, but it is
out there that it's not debatable. It is a fact
that he was trained and employed by the CIA and
special forces in Afghanistan starting in I don't know, but
(16:03):
I guess he would have been in his early twenties
when that started, and he's now twenty nine years old
and has been in America since twenty twenty one. You know,
Lang dormant waiting for his assignment, and now it's been given.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
See the other side of this is the US Trump
administration came out a couple of days ago talking about
banning all people traveling from countries that are liable to,
you know, cause problems basically, so we carpet banned blan
you know, ban on all of those countries. And then
(16:41):
it's interesting because I looked at comments on an article
on Fox News about that, and you get all these people,
conservative people saying why not we ban everybody from entering
the US for ten years? You know, it doesn't matter
where they come from. We need to get rid of
all of these ones and stop new ones coming in.
And I'm thinking that's really interesting. I beat a lot
(17:02):
of Emma plants too, sowing that whole thing in there,
so that not only do you stop anybody coming into
the US, but obviously the other side of that is
you then stop people from leaving the US, you know,
citizens and all that too. So it makes it easy
to lock a country down and so I think that
there's a lot of things at play here and more
(17:25):
to than what you know your ices with all of this.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
That's always the case, isn't it. I mean, we're being told,
for instance, that this upcoming war against Venezuela is about
drug traffic. Yeah, you know, I just posted an article
literally minutes before we went on the air here, uh,
pointing out it's an investigative article. I can't cover it
(17:52):
all here, but I encourage people to go read it.
The record of Donald Trump when it comes to drugs,
you know, both illegal drugs and legal drugs that are
harmful to Americans. You know, he goes on about how,
you know, we're going to kill all these drug traffickers
because they're poisoning Americans and poisoning the American people in
(18:13):
our cities, and we need to eliminate them, no questions asked.
If they're even suspected of being a drug runner, We're
going to blow their boat out of the water, no
questions asked at all. We're going to be the judge, jury,
and executioner all in one fell swoop and just shoot
those boats right out of the water, which in my opinion,
(18:35):
is against international law. It's against all norms of military operations,
especially when you're talking about this one case on September second,
where they fired on the US military fired on a
suspected drug cartel vessel, a small speed boat. Apparently two
(18:57):
of the occupants we're still alive, clinging to the wreckage,
and the officer, the admiral in charge of that naval fleet,
gave the order to fire a second time and kill everybody,
including those injured individuals who were out there in the
(19:20):
water trying to survive. And that is just in no way,
shape or form a legal military action. You can talk
to just about any military expert and he will he
or she will tell you that. But we're supposed to
believe that the Trump administration is so concerned about drugs
coming into the United States that it's even willing to
(19:42):
go to that extent to take out drug traffickers when
it doesn't even it hasn't shown any proof by the way,
that these are actual rug drug traffickers, because these speedboats
don't have the capacity to make it to America. They
would have to refuel like a dozen or more times
(20:03):
to get here, and so it's just really really shady
what's being going what's been going on in this regard.
But if you give them the benefit of doubt, I
guess you could say, you know, they're just they've just
had it with all these drugs coming into America, so
they're willing to take extra judicial precautions and go, you know,
(20:27):
maybe take some risks of being convicted as war criminals
because they are just so intent on eliminating any possibility,
no matter how remote, of drugs entering this country. Okay,
I could maybe understand that argument after you read my article.
That argument is not is proven to be invalid, invalid.
(20:51):
And I've got all the receipts, Tony, all the links
showing Trump's record on promoting dangerous drugs, mostly of the
legal nature, starting with Operation Warp Speed and now these harmful, dangerous,
risky weight loss drugs, but also in the realm of
illegal drugs. Do you know that he just yesterday pardoned
(21:16):
the most notorious drug trafficker in Latin America, mister Juan Hernandez,
out of Honduras. He was serving a multi decade decade
sentence at a prison, a federal prison in West Virginia,
and he walked out of there yesterday after being pardoned
(21:38):
by President Trump. If he were that concerned about illegal
drugs being trafficked into the United States, do you think
he would have made that call.
Speaker 5 (21:51):
On walk grounds? Did he pardon them?
Speaker 4 (21:55):
Um? You know, I don't know. He was a convicted,
notorious drug trafficker. I don't think there's any grounds that
could really justify such a move. But he is a
former president as well, I believe of Hondura, so I
can only surmise that there's something political involved in the decision.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
Mm okay, So what about Trump and Albert bula from
you know, they're going out from party.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
That's another thing I cover in the article that Albert
Borla is one of the most insidious drug company executives
in the world right now. He is the CEO of Pfizer.
Peiser has put out many proven dangerous drugs, many that
(22:50):
have been had to be recalled from the market. Uh,
and many that were never recalled and should have been
like the UH Peiser UH covid UH so called vaccine,
which as you know, has killed hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of people and injured tons of others. Yeah, uh,
(23:12):
with really debilitating injuries in many cases that people are
now living with and yet that that uh medical treatment
whatever it is, I don't even know if we can
call it a drug, which is consists of synthetic messenger
r RNA and spike proteins that were found in the
(23:35):
COVID virus, that it actually instructs the body to manufacture
these dangerous spike proteins. He is one of Trump's best
friends from the pharmaceutical industry. He's been invited to the
White House multiple times, most recently just a couple of
weeks ago, where Trump, you know, uh, two or three
(23:58):
weeks ago, where has heaped praise upon him as a
you know, brilliant businessman and amazing human being. So yeah,
it doesn't seem to matter whether it's a legal drug
or an illegal drug, both of which are poisoning Americans
in spades. We've seen no real accountability applied to these
(24:23):
to the purveyors of these drugs by the Trump administration.
And yet we're supposed to believe now that it is
out of a concern for drugs quote, pouring into America
and poisoning our citizens, that he is taking out these
suspected drug vessels with military munitions. You know, the proper
(24:51):
way way to go about it. I have absolutely no
sympathy for heart and drug traffickers being punished for their
evil doings. But there's a way to go about it.
You board their vessels, You inspect and search the vessels.
If you find drugs, you detain the occupants of those vessels,
(25:15):
You put them on trial, and you lock them up.
This is the way. This is the rule of law.
But you have we become that lawless that we no
longer respect the rule of law in this country and
we just shoot first and ask questions later. I mean,
every American with a conscience should be concerned about this,
(25:37):
because there's absolutely no and now we're going to do
the same thing. President Trump just came out yesterday or
the day before and said we're not only going to
continue doing this on the high seas, which really amounts
to a violent form of piracy. And you could say,
but we're also now going to do the same We're
(26:00):
going to use the same tactics, the same lawless tactics
to go after suspected drug traffickers on land in Venice
in not just Venezuela, but multiple other Latin American countries.
America truly is changing before our very eyes from a
(26:21):
country that has a very rich tradition of the rule
of law to a rogue nation that goes into other
sovereign countries and takes out people of its own, choosing
without a declaration of war, without any respect for the
(26:42):
rule of law, just willy nilly. You know, conservatives were
railing against this type of behavior when President Obama did it,
when he was doing drone strikes on suspected terrorists in
foreign countries. There was a lot of backlash from conservative voices.
But because it's being done now by one of our guys, crickets,
(27:07):
dead silence. I'm one of the few who was even
talking about it, Tony.
Speaker 3 (27:13):
I know, most people are still jumped on that Trump
bandwagon and stayed on it no matter what happens with
the what direction this administration goes, or how much they
bring in the surveillance and this technology AI and all
the other things that go along with it. People have
just stayed on that bandwagon and are not calling it out.
(27:35):
I suppose because you know, well, it would be an
about face and they would struggle to save their own
face if they go, hey, this isn't right. But because
so many of them said you've got to vote for
this guy. You've got to vote for Trump. You've got
you know that this is the reality. And I mean,
I've said all along, I don't believe it matters who anyway.
(27:57):
That the elite have their man that they want in power.
Was never going to be Kamala Harris. She was not
the one for the job. Joe Biden was past it.
You know, they always had Trump as the next guy,
and it didn't matter who you voted for, because that
was who they had.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
One hundred I could not agree more with that statement, Tony.
You really just nailed it. And I am of the
personal opinion, just my opinion. Okay, I can't prove this,
and I don't know that anyone could, but I have
a hunch that all of the law fair and all
(28:33):
of the legal troubles that Trump was faced with while
running for a second term, that was all smoking mears
meant to give him this martyr complex, which really increased
his popularity among Republican voters. I know, personally a lot
of people who were kind of fed up to hear
(28:55):
with Trump after his first term and the way he
handled COVID and everything with the lockdown, what have you
and they were not really excited about going to the
polls again in twenty twenty four with the choice of
a unlikable Democrat and unlikable a now unlikable Republican. But
(29:19):
after they saw all of the lawsuits, all of the
criminal proceedings that were launched against Trump, they really kind
of changed their mind and felt like he had come
under siege by the Democrats, and so they started getting
more excited about Trump. Would they would have voted for
(29:39):
DeSantis or one of those other candidates, or you know,
if it hadn't been for all of the persecution perceived
persecution that came against Trump. Now I'm not saying everyone
who filed a case against him was working for the
globalists knowingly, but I do feel like they were given
(30:02):
free reign at knowing that these cases would never amount
to anything in the end, that they would all be dismissed.
And then you get Trump elected based on this martyr
complex that he had and made him actually way more
popular than he was.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
And then you have another martyr for the ecumenical cause
in that we've got to unite all these religions together,
and everyone jumping on the bandwagon, whether you're a Mormon
or Catholic or Christian or whatever. And I'm talking about
the whole Charlie Kirk thing, which I don't want to
go down that rabbit trail, but it's the same type
(30:40):
of thing. It follows that same playbook in a way.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
Yeah, I mean, isn't it interesting how that just suddenly
faded out of the news too. It came and it went,
you know, almost as suddenly it went, almost as suddenly
as it came into the news cycle. And there's still
a lot of questions about that that will probably never
get answered.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
That's true. What else have you been covering that you
want to mention today?
Speaker 4 (31:12):
Well, I mean there's a lot going on technology wise
that I've been writing about. You know, You've got the
Ukraine Russia war still at as kind of entered a
new interesting phase I would say, where the peace deals
(31:32):
are back on the table. After a few months, two
or three months of backing off, Trump is now trying
to solve that war again. But it still doesn't seem
like it's ready to break forth breakthrough. There's not going
to be any real breakthrough because what's acceptable acceptable to
one party Ukraine is not acceptable to the other. Russia,
(31:56):
and no matter how much forcing or is done by
the Trump administration, you can't force a peace upon two
countries that hate each other, right, I mean, we've seen
the same thing with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Trump played
up that ceasefire like it was a big deal, and
the Gaza peace plan was announced with great fanfare. But
(32:19):
both sides are violating that deal, you know, almost daily,
and so the same thing's going to happen with the
Russia Ukraine war. I think even if they do announce
a big peace deal in the next few weeks or months, whatever,
it will be violated and they'll be back at war
before it's all said and done. And you know, I
(32:41):
think really Ukraine would like a peace deal now more
than Russia because that would give them time to regroup,
re arm and reorganize because they are really losing that
war quite badly right now. They're losing territory pretty much
little by little every day, including some really key cities
(33:02):
that have fallen or are about to fall. So they
really need a peace deal. But Putin, I think is
too smart to be hoodwinked into a peace deal that's
going to end up with him losing all of the
games that he's made through this decision to go in
with his military operation in Ukraine. I mean he needed
(33:27):
a buffer zone. He wanted a buffer zone from Kiev
because they were launching mortar attacks on Russian speaking residents
of eastern Ukraine that had been going on and off
since twenty fourteen. And he saw the Ukrainian army getting
bigger and bigger, being trained by the West, and then
(33:50):
he finally said, you know, that's it. I'm going to
have to go in and create some space between us
and them. And that's basically mostly in the don Bass area.
And you know, he's largely accomplished the mission. There's still
some areas of don Bess that he has that the
Ukrainians do hold. But the longer this war goes on,
(34:13):
I think they're going to lose all of it. And
so Ukraine knows that they need a piece deal. They
need one soon or the whole front is going to
collapse and the Russians are just going to march through
and take it all and they're going to be left
with a really bad deal then. But the problem is Trump,
and Trump knows this, but he can't get putin to
(34:35):
take the bait and agree to a deal that is
not in Putin's best interests.
Speaker 3 (34:41):
My wife Holly and I covered last week in the show.
One of the things we did was about the Economist
magazine cover the Wild to Heat for twenty twenty six,
and that of course is a globeless magazine through and through,
you know, partly Rothschild owned and so on. But that
cover is full of war, you know, for twenty twenty six,
(35:04):
as well as what looks like probably economic collapse or
something along those lines.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
AI all the things US dollar failure.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Yes, yeah, and you know the two hundred and fiftieth
anniversary for the US and you know they had a
fist coming out of the cake and things. You know,
it's like probably unrest, civil unrest and whatever else. So
twenty twenty six, you know, looks like a very unstable
(35:37):
year coming up. And I know we're getting towards the
end of this year, but I can't see at this
point the Ukraine Russia war ending anytime soon. You know,
it just doesn't seem likely to me.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
No, I think you have good reason to believe that.
And the question for me isn't when is it going
to end? The question is when is it going to
get broadened and expanded to include other countries. Yeah, because
we've seen the recent statements just this week out of NATO,
(36:11):
a high up NATO officer. He's in charge of the
Military Committee of NATO, which I find interesting that they
have a military committee when the whole thing is a
military alliance, you know. But anyway, this gentleman from NATO
said that, for the first time, we have a NATO
(36:32):
officer saying that, you know, we may have to launch
a first strike against Russia, preemptive strike. Those are dangerous
words and Putin. They were not lost on Vladimir Putin,
who shot back and said, you know what, Russia does
not want war with Europe, but if Europe wants to
(36:55):
persist in having war with us, basically he said, bring
it on. I'm ready.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
Yeah, I heard that. I saw that, Yeah, exactly. So
it does look ominous for that situation.
Speaker 4 (37:10):
I had predicted, or you know, some months ago that
I thought, you know, world War three. We're already in
World War three, but the kinetic version, we should say
of World War three. We're direct combat between US and
Western troops and Russians and Chinese and North kore I
thought that might not happen until maybe twenty twenty seven.
(37:33):
But given this NATO commander's statements and some of the
other things we're hearing, and you know, I have to
wonder now if maybe twenty if I don't need to
move up my timetable for World War three to break
out for twenty twenty six instead of twenty twenty seven, Tony.
Speaker 5 (37:52):
Yes, well, that's a distinct possibility. I think.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
It won't be accident to what ever happens, it'll have
to It'll it in with the timeline for everything else
they're trying to get in place first, you know, all
these other things we've discussed. I think it'll be something
that they'll want to use all the crisises together to
finally put the clamps on everyone.
Speaker 5 (38:17):
That's how I see it.
Speaker 4 (38:18):
So with it, I mean, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (38:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Whether that ends up in twenty twenty six, I don't know.
It could well be.
Speaker 4 (38:28):
Yeah, yeah. I think for the global lists, they know
that they need war to pull off all what they
have on the shelf. The digitization of humanity and the
total control of every facet of our lives through algorithms
and the depopulation and all of that. I think they
(38:51):
know that in order to pull that off in a
widespread fashion, not just in pockets of the world, but
on the whole world, I think they know that they
need a not just a war, but a big war,
a world war, because when you look at the World
War one, World War two, and I'm sure some of
(39:11):
the other huge wars down through history, that's where we
see the biggest changes coming on the on the on
the heels of a big war like that, they redraw
the maps, they're able to get all new economic systems
in place. You know, the power brokers who sit at
(39:32):
the table of the world strategic decision making changes in
many cases. And so yeah, I think world War two
it's not a question of if, but when. Unfortunately.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
Yeah, So okay, I guess we'll leave it at that
and look to wrap up. But can you tell the
listeners again where they find you and your articles.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
Yeah, A couple of places, excuse me. My substack is
probably the most active place for my writing. You can
find that by going to Leohoman dot substack dot com.
I also have a website at Leohoman dot com and
(40:22):
you can find me on Telegram where I post as well.
Not just on there, I post not just my own articles,
but articles that I find interesting from other people, and
you can find me there on Telegram by searching Leohoman
author slash journalist.
Speaker 3 (40:39):
Okay, well, thanks again for your insight today, Leo. It's
been another fascinating discussion, and I always look forward to
having you on, actually, because I learn a lot from you,
know what you're researching all the time, and I read
all of your articles pretty much too. So I do
encourage others to subscript. I think that's a very sensible
(41:03):
thing to do because they will get a lot of
information they won't find elsewhere, because no one else much
is writing a lot of what you are that type
of subject, so at least not from the pollective.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
That's because I'm independent. I don't get you know, I
don't take ads from pharmaceutical companies. I don't take grants
or handouts from the government. I rely solely on my
readers for donations or sub You know, you can subscribe
to my sub stack. You can get my articles for free.
I do not withhold. I think maybe two times in
(41:36):
two years I posted an article that was for paid
subscribers only. But yet I am only able to continue
because I do have some gracious readers who you know,
have upgraded from free to paid subscriptions or sent me donations,
so that's what keeps me going. I don't have to
(41:57):
answer to any corporations or any government.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
Yeah, that's good. And that's pretty much the same with
a minute at midnight. We don't do any ads.
Speaker 4 (42:06):
Yes, exactly, exactly, And I appreciate your work tremendously, Tony.
And if I don't touch base with you again this month,
Merry Christmas to you and all of your wonderful viewers,
and the same to you.
Speaker 3 (42:22):
Too, Merry Christmas and everything to you. I'm sure we
probably will catch up earlier in the new year.
Speaker 5 (42:27):
I'm hoping after this. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 4 (42:33):
I really appreciate you and your audi and vice versa.
Speaker 5 (42:38):
So folks, that's it.
Speaker 3 (42:40):
Please, as I said earlier, make sure you subscribe to
us at our website and our YouTube channel, and also
we have an Apple Podcasts channel as well. And as
I mentioned earlier, I was much appreciated when people donate
to us as well. So God bless and God will
and we'll be back with another show in a few
(43:00):
days time. So stay safe and keep looking upwards.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
The Fringe Radio Network is supported by advertising in donations,
but Tony K in A Minute to Midnight is supported
one by donations only. Please visit A Minute to Midnight
dot com and support Tony Kay and his family. Tony
K needs your help, so we ask you to visit
A Minute to Midnight and support him. A Minute to
Midnight dot com.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
You are listening to the Fringe Radio Network Radio Network
dot com.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
MMM
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.