Was Russia Justified?

In today’s episode, we are going to discuss Russia annexing Crimea and their war with Ukraine. Were they justified, or was it a violation of international treaties?

Email, Website & Other Links
[e-mail]
https://WSPRadio.com
https://TheHohOShow.com
https://link.thehohoshow.com/Rumble
https://link.thehohoshow.com/WSPChronicles
https://StinkPikle.com

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-hoho-show--2639419/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yes, Welcome to the show, grated the number one most
listened to podcast on Fluida. So join us now. As
we discussed news, politics, current events, had so much more,
but through the airways and strapped in as we do
because the three broadcasting live from Weabinar Saw Production Studio B.

(00:37):
Welcome to the Ho Host Show and as always I'm
your host, Ho Ho. So hey, y'all's doing I hope
you're doing good? I really do, because today we got
a couple of things to talk about. We're going to
be talking a little bit about some of the executive
orders that President Trump has signed regarding cash list bail,
regarding burning the American flag. We're going to be talking

(01:01):
about that. We're going to be talking about what Trump
is talking about doing with sending the National Guard to
other cities across the US. But first we're going to
be talking about Russia. The simple question was Russia justified

(01:22):
in doing what it did annexe in CRIMEA, going to
war with Ukraine? Were they justified? That's the question right now.
I'm touching base into this because well I went I
kind of went add on it. I really did. I

(01:44):
ain't want to lie, all right, So a while back ago,
I was watching a video on the ticker Talker or
it was a short that was on YouTube or Facebook
or x hell, I don't know, and it was from
the Older Millennia, and it gave me pause. I'll just

(02:04):
be honest with you, now, Look, I like the Older Millennial,
I really do. I've watched a lot of his content
and for the most part, I agree with everything that
he's saying, and I haven't had any issues with it.
You know, haven't had never noticed any holes in any
argument that he made. You know, I like his content.
I like him. You know, I've actually talked to him

(02:25):
before ye emails back and forth and whatnot, dms, you know,
nothing major. It's not like I really know the guy.
Just you know, I've kind of had some correspondence with
him back and forth, and you know, like I said,
the majority of what he talks about I agree with.
I've had no issues with it, not being able to
poke any holes in his argument. But this video he

(02:48):
was talking about Russia, Crimera, Ukraine, and there was some
of the things in here that I'm like, I don't
know about that I really don't And time passed. Time passed,
and it had popped up as a retweet whatever, as

(03:09):
somebody reposting it, you know, people doing you know, edits
of it and posting it as their own all kinds
of other things. But it's been making the rounds, right,
it's been making the rounds. And there were some things
in here, like I said that I really didn't exactly.
It's like I don't know about that. It doesn't really
have the ring of truth. Let me look into that.

(03:30):
And so over the weekend I started doing a deep
dive into this very subject because what the claim was
was that through the CIS and the bell Avisa of course,
the CIS being the Commonwealth of Independent States, and then
the the well, what's that called the bell Avisa Accords,

(03:56):
which is something that came out of the destruction of
the USSR where you had like eleven different countries that
got formed, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine being three of the
of the ones that initially entered into the Belavisa Accords.

(04:19):
And is what this did was, you know, gave them
sovereignty and whatnot. But what the claim was is that
whenever Crimea did the autonomy, you know, and whenever their
government later dissolved, was no more and Ukraine absorbed it

(04:46):
into themselves. That that gave Russia the right to annex Crimea,
because as per the bell A Visa Accords, any government
that dissolved was supposed to revert back to Russia. That's
what the claim was. And then through Ukraine taking Crimea,

(05:06):
they wasn't supposed to do that, that was a violation
of the treaty. And then with Ukraine negotiating with NATO
for membership that that also was a violation of the treaty,
and of which case they had every right to go
in and take care of business. That's more or less
what the claim was. And I was like, I don't
know about that. That to me doesn't really have It

(05:31):
doesn't sound truth. Okay, I like, it didn't sound Toru.
So I, like I said, I went full on add
I went like, like, okay, I gotta research this. I
went into a deep dive, asking all kinds of questions,
researching the answers, tying some things together, and I think
I kind of got a good idea about what's kind
of going on now. I mean, don't get me wrong,

(05:53):
it's not simple. None of these things really are simple.
I mean, when you're talking international global affairs, nothing is
really easy. Nothing is really as plain as the nose
on my face, as they say, but this one kind
of is. Now, look be wrong. There are some nuances

(06:15):
into this, and we'll talk about that a little later.
But the bottom line is, no, Russia was not justified
in going into, you know, war with Ukraine, nor annexing Crimea.
That's the bottom line. Hat tip Dan Boungino. Bottom line
up front, No, Russia was not justified. But let me

(06:36):
get into it, because, like I said, there's some nuances
in here that I don't really think that everybody really knows,
and I don't want them to be misled into thinking
that maybe they were. Okay, so let's get into it now.
We're going to start off by talking about Crimea, because
let's be honest, this whole entire thing of what's going

(06:57):
on between Russia and Ukraine started with Crimea. Now nineteen
forty five, that is whenever, and this was after World
War II. Stalin abolished the Crimean Tatar Autonomous Republican made

(07:18):
Crimea a province of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
or the RSFSR. Please don't ask me to say that again.
The RSFSR. All right. Nine years later, in nineteen fifty four,

(07:40):
the Soviet premier Nikote khrushchevs Khrushchev. There we go. He
transferred Crimea from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR, which
was irrelevant entirely considering Ukraine and the RSFSR were part

(08:04):
of the USSR. It didn't matter. It was completely symbolic.
It was a symbolic gesture that didn't mean anything whatsoever.
But for nine years while it was in the USSR,
Crimea had so called autonomy, right, not exactly, but they did.

(08:29):
You know, it's kind of like any state in the
United States, and we're going to tie a lot of
things of what happened to how things kind of happened
here in the US. We're going to tie it in
so that this way you kind of get a better
understanding about what was going on over there. All right.
Then in nineteen ninety one, the Soviet collapsed into like

(08:51):
eleven different republics. Okay, So, in January nineteen ninety one,
before the USSR dissolved, Crimea had a local referendum and
voted to restore its autonomous Soviet Socialist republic status inside Ukraine.

(09:12):
And this is key, this is important. It wanted autonomy,
but it didn't necessarily want sovereignty. And again this is
before the dissolution of the USSR nineteen ninety one. In
August of nineteen ninety one, after the failed Moscow Coup,

(09:34):
Ukraine declared independence and Crimea was part of the USSR,
which later became the independent Ukraine. In December of nineteen
ninety one. Just several months later, Ukraine joined the Bella
Visa Accords as one of the founding participants in the CIS,

(09:55):
the CIS being the Commonwealth of Independent States. Crimea went
with Ukraine. The three first participants of the CIS was Russia, Ukraine,
and Belarus. Yeah, Belarus, all right, those are the three

(10:21):
initial signers of the CIS. Later on, you know, five
other republics, former USSR republics joined a buttload of him.
I can't pronounce them, not most of them, but anyway,
you can look that information up, you know, And that
was the Alla Auta whatever. I'll get into that later.

(10:46):
I'm not going to try to scroll and find it.
But you know eight other no, I'm sorry, five other countries,
republics whatever. Of the former USSR joined it later, all right,
but again this was in December of nineteen ninety one.
This is important for a reason because the bel A
Visa Accords is what he was using as a launching
off point to say that Russia didn't, you know, they

(11:09):
had a claim to Crimea, and of which case, no,
they didn't, because according to the Bella Visa Accords, it
recognized the borders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and of
which case Crimea was part of Ukraine, and Russia signed

(11:32):
off on this. They agreed to that as a term
that yes, Crimea is part of Ukraine. It was right
in there, It was in there. Crimea never had sovereignty.
It had autonomy, but that is different than sovereignty, and

(11:52):
in fact, whenever they got there. I'll get into that
here in a second, okay, because this is actually where
the real thing kind of kicks in in nineteen ninety
two to nineteen ninety five, because in nineteen ninety two
Crimea parliament declared self government and even adopted its own
constitution of Crimea. However, within their own constitution, it explicitly

(12:16):
stated that Crimea was still to be part of Ukraine.
They never once sought sovereignty. Autonomy, yes, but not sovereignty.
Where's the distinction, right, I mean, I know that's what
you're thinking. That's what I was thinking. Where's the distinction?

(12:37):
Why does that even matter? Here's the thing with the
okay with Texas. Does Texas have its own president, Yes,
we call it a governor, right, governor of Texas. Does
Texas have its own constitution? Yes, it's own flag, absolutely,

(13:05):
and every single state does. Because the US is the
United States of America. Each state has autonomy within the
United States, sovereignty independently. No, Texas doesn't have independent sovereignty

(13:25):
from the rest of the United States, but it does
have autonomy. It does have the ability to kind of
govern itself within the framework of the federal constitution. So
there's a difference, and that's what Crimea was aiming for.
They wanted an autonomy much like any other state within
the United States, but it wasn't seeking sovereignty, as in

(13:51):
the ability for it to operate as any other independent nation. Does.
Autonomy not sovereignty. There is a difference, all right. Then
in nineteen ninety four, Crimea elected a separatist president, and

(14:12):
this president pushed for closer ties with Russia. They wanted
to separate away from Ukraine and they wanted to you know,
kind of link arms and have a closer relationship with Russia.
Then in nineteen ninety five, Ukraine's parliament abolished Crimeas presidency
and forced the rewrite of the constitution, limiting its own autonomy.

(14:34):
So Ukraine put a stop to it. It's like, no,
that ain't going to happen. You're going to rewrite your
constitution and you're coming back into the fold. Now this
right here, this of what happened again was what he
said was you know, Russia's justification for going into an

(14:54):
nxing Crimea. Then in nineteen ninety seven you had the
Treaty of Friendship. Russian Ukraine signed a treaty recognizing each
other's borders, including Crimea as Ukraine territory, and Russia again

(15:14):
signed off on this. This was actually kind of important too,
because this was you know, not necessarily about Crimea as
much as it was access to a deep water port
in Crimea, which is where you know Russia was using
at the time due to a leasing agreement that Russia

(15:36):
had with Ukraine. That's why this nineteen ninety seven friendship
Treaty came about. You know, it's kind of one of
the things that you know, Russia was pushing themselves onto Crimea,
wanting it because of the deep water port, and Ukraine
was like, no, that ain't going to happen. You have
the Belavisa Accords, and of which case you agreed that

(15:59):
Crimea a part of Ukraine. This is how it is.
You don't like it, tough, This is an international treaty.
If you don't like it, tough. The Friendship Treaty came about.
There you go saying, look, you know it still belongs
to Crimea, or Crimea still belongs to Ukraine. And again
Russia signed that treaty, acknowledging for the second time that

(16:23):
Crimea is part of Ukraine. Then in twenty fourteen there
was the annexation crisis February to March the Ukrainian Revolution,
Russian forces seized Crimea. March sixteen, twenty fourteen, Russia stage
a referendum in Crimea, widely seen as a legitimate by
the UN and most other nations, and Russia formerly annexed

(16:47):
Crimea and incorporated it as a federal subject of the
Russian Federation. So one of the things This got me
into thinking, right, it got me thinking about sovereignty. What

(17:08):
does sovereignty mean? How does this hole with crimea claiming autonomy?
You know, how does that correlate with what happened in
with the United States? What does sovereignty actually mean? What's

(17:29):
the difference between sovereignty and autonomy? Because I mean, you know,
that really was a appointed question and I believe was
pretty significance in it, pretty significant in this and I
am looking for that information, and holy crap, there was

(17:54):
a bunch of information I got in here. There is
a partiarticular something or another video something that is not
a video, it's just videos in the word, and I
am looking for Holy crap, I know it's in here because,

(18:15):
like I said, there is a butt ton of information
that I pulled up research into this, and really what
I should have done was write an article kind of
lining everything out before I did the show, and I
didn't do it. But here we go. I found it

(18:36):
international law with the mantevideo criteria for somebody being a state.
Because I was like, okay, look, crimea sovereignty, what's the difference?
Because tying this together what you had happened in the
United States was kind of simple. Right. We originally was

(19:05):
a Great Britain thirteen colonies. The thirteen Colonies really didn't
like the treatment from the King, and we petitioned to
the world declaring our independence, seeking complete sovereignty, the ability
to act as a free nation. Would act free and independent,

(19:27):
separating and severing all ties to Great Britain. That's what
we did. Great Britain objected. We had a revolutionary war.
After this war, we formed our own government, Constitution of
the United States. It later followed, but we had each
individual state having autonomy within the Greater Federal Court in

(19:54):
the United States of America. That's what we had. So
how does that different from what Crimea did in just
claiming autonomy? So Crimea had Okay, Now, according to the
mantevideo or however you pronounced that criteria, there are one, two, three, four,

(20:20):
four different things that you have to have criteria you
must meet in order to be a sovereign nation, and
Crimea did not meet those. You have to have a
permanent population, which Crimea had. You have to have a
defined territory which Crimea had, a government which it never had,

(20:44):
an independent government that was recognized as separate from Ukraine,
so it didn't have an independent, full on government. Had
a parliament, but it didn't have a full on government.
You have to have the capacity to enter into relations

(21:04):
with other states, which it did not have because no
other state, no other country, recognized Crimea as independent. And
even according to their own constitution, they wasn't claiming to
be independent. They weren't wanting sovereignty. They were just declaring
as autonomy, just like Texas being autonomous with the United

(21:27):
States of America. But they were never seeking full on sovereignty.
So again, Crimea was never a separate thing from Ukraine,
always part of Ukraine. And then the other question I

(21:48):
asked was, you know, what about the whole NATO thing,
because I'd heard that argument many different times. You know,
did the Bella Visa Accords, did any of the other
documents the bell A Visa occords, there's the Alta whatever.

(22:08):
I hate some of these words. I mean, holy crap, man,
I mean, do you realize how hard it is trying
to research something Whenever it's like the word and the
spelling of the word, and it's like, holy crap, it
gets a little ridiculous. It's a lot easier once you
have Okay, this is what it is. It's a lot
harder to research something whenever you have absolutely no idea

(22:28):
how to you know, how to spell it, how to
research it, and it's like, holy crap, all right, So
the I'm getting there, I really am. I'm getting there.
So CIS Okay, the annexation crisis. There you go. But anyway,
the thing that I'm looking for basically is just a

(22:51):
continuation of the Bella Visa accords. And there were eight
different countries that join the CEA afterwards, so you have
you know, of course you had Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, bel
Avisa were in the bel Avisa Forest, which is where

(23:14):
this whole thing took place. So yeah, there you go.
Still trying to find that additional references. Cis membership? Okay

(23:38):
at any rate. Now the other the other question that
I have, I'm kind of moving on because I'm not
seeing it. I lost it in the research, not seeing it.
But the other question that was raised was that did
Ukraine have the ability to seek membership with NATO, you know,

(24:04):
an alliance with NATO. Did Ukraine have the ability to
do that? In accordance with the other previously mentioned thing,
the Bela Visa Accords, the Friendship Treaty, and the the
Budapest Memorandum. I think because also with the Budapest Memorandum. Yeah,

(24:28):
the Budapest Memorandum from nineteen ninety four, Now what that did, Okay,
cause yeah, because because there's three main things that took place.
You had the Belavisa Accords which took place in nineteen
ninety one, the Budapest Memorandum in ninety four, which what
that did was Russia guaranteed Ukrainians borders in exchange for

(24:51):
the nuclear disarmament that Ukraine had, and it was supposed
to be security into this as and then you disarm
yourself and you will have securities from Russia, the United States,
the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, and also afterwards French French,

(25:19):
France and China also joined US at a later date.
But that's what the Budapest Memorandum did. And within the
Budapest Memorandum, Ukrainian border was specifically drawn out and of
which case included even in that time Crimea. And then

(25:43):
in nineteen ninety seven is where the Friendship Treaty took place,
and that was over the deep sea water port of
Crimea and of which case, even in that treaty again
recognized Crimea as being part of Ukraine. So the question

(26:08):
did Ukraine, through these treaties have the ability to negotiate
with NATO or any other nation really in the answer
to that question is yes, absolutely, because what these treaties
did was specifically give all of these countries that came

(26:30):
out to the dissolution of the USSR sovereignty, complete sovereignty
respect to its border, the ability to have international trade,
make treaties, all the you know, form their own government,
complete autonomy, independence from any other nation, any other you know,

(26:56):
nation's influence. I mean, these are the things that these
treaties gave not just Ukraine, not just Belarus, but but
the other eight five, the other five nations that later joined.
That's what it gave them. And what does it mean
to be sovereign, make treaties, foreign relations. These are things

(27:22):
that every sovereign nation has. So because of that, yeah,
Ukraine had the legal authority to do whatever it wanted to, to
enter into any agreement that it wanted to. The decision

(27:43):
that Putin made to annex Crimea and invade Ukraine was
a political decision, but it was not legal. And so
here's where the real question is this, in a matter
of speaking, is where the rubber truly meets the road.

(28:05):
What's the point, right, what's the point international treaties if
they don't mean anything, if there's nothing stopping one country
from violating it, what's the point. When Crimea was annexed

(28:37):
by Russia, the United States, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, France,
and China were obligated through that international treaty to support
and defend Ukraine. We were obligated to do that, obligated
through this treaty to defend Ukraine. We was like it

(29:02):
or hate it, I really don't care. But that's what
the treaty said. That's what we were supposed to do,
according to the Budapest Memorandum. That is exactly what we
were supposed to do. Defend Ukraine with the annexation of Crimea.
That's exactly what we were supposed to do. You know,

(29:24):
that would be like, you know, that would be like
France taking over Texas again and the rest of the
United States doing absolutely nothing about it, full on invasion,
not doing anything about it. Isn't it France that once

(29:45):
owned Texas at one point in time, I think so.
I mean, isn't that really what we're talking about here?
I think so. But if there's nothing keeping these other

(30:08):
nations in check, why have international treaties in the first place,
Because I mean, really, with what's going on with Russia's
invasion of Ukraine and of course the annexing of Crimea,
nothing has happened. I mean, really think about it. Nothing

(30:32):
has happened. No other nation has stepped up for Ukraine
outside of giving them money, giving them some weapons, giving
them some you know, things to help them out. But
nobody outside of that has stepped up, has stepped in,
and according to the Budapest Memorandum, they were absolutely supposed to.

(30:52):
We're one of the nations that was supposed to be
doing it, and it should have been done back in
twenty fourteen whenever Russia annexed Crimea. Do you really think
here's my question, because nothing really has happened. Nobody's gone

(31:21):
to war with Russia. I mean, at most, what you've
seen are some countries, you know, putting sanctions on Russia.
That's it. But you have other countries that are violating
that still seeking to do business with Russia. I mean,

(31:43):
that's how they've been able to fund this war in
the process, right, because other nations are still doing business
with them, allowing you know, keeping the money flow happening,
allowing them to continue to do war in Ukraine. Well,
what about the nation that are going against that treaty?
You know, what about the nations that are choosing to

(32:04):
do business. Why isn't anything happening to them? Additional sanctions,
freezing assets? What have you anything? America and any of
the other countries that were part of the Budapest Memorandum,
Why haven't they done anything? You know, It's kind of

(32:27):
like this whole thing is kind of like a oh
what's it called? A oh? What's that called? Order of protection?
And OP on somebody? I mean, in all honesty and
OP is as worthless as the paper it's printed on.

(32:51):
It doesn't mean anything. Order of protections are completely useless
because the strength in an order of protection is in
an officer's willingness to enforce it, right, I mean, that's
the whole thing. That's the whole thing with an order

(33:12):
of protection. It doesn't mean jack, It doesn't mean anything,
because if a cop is unwilling to enforce it, then
nothing's going to happen. So what if you have an
order protection saying that this person can't get within five
hundred feet of you, this person can't call you, this
person can't stop by your house. What's the use of
having an order of protection if a cop is unwilling

(33:34):
to enforce it. The same thing goes with this, Why
have these international treaties if nobody's going to be willing
to enforce it? Do you really think that you know?
After this, how hard is it going to be for
the next country to enter into a treaty with Russia,

(33:56):
with US, with the United Kingdom, with Ireland, with China,
with France. How willing is any other country going to
be to enter into a treaty with any of us?
If our word doesn't mean shit, and we have acknowledged
that it doesn't with the Bella Vista Accord, whenever Russia

(34:20):
annexed CRIMEA a direct violation. If nothing is going to happen,
then why would anybody sign a treaty with the United States?
That's the question, Because nothing has really happened. Russia is

(34:44):
still doing business as Russia has. I know that was
a lot of information. I'm going to be putting together
an article throwing all of that stuff in there, tying
it together with the United States. How we got our
sovereignty going into all of it. But that really is

(35:05):
a very important question. Why would anybody sign a treaty
with the United States and any other member, any other
nation that was there at the Budapest Memorandum Because signing
a treaty with the US. We have demonstrated through this
one that that doesn't mean Jack Diday squad, who cares

(35:27):
about international law? If no other nation is going to
enforce it? What's the point? What's the point? And here's
the biggest part of this. Why should it matter to us?

(35:51):
This is Ukraine. I get that, And believe me when
I tell you I don't want American boots on underground.
It's not just US that failed. I mean, there's other
nations that failed Ukraine as well. All right, but let
me give you a cold heart truth. Thanks to our

(36:16):
own foreign policies, thanks to how we treat American business,
we don't offer a lot. We really don't. You See,
during World War Two, America was king on the world stage.

(36:43):
America was king. We had agriculture, we had manufacturing, we
had textiles, We had it all right, We had it all.
And it's not like we didn't lose tanks, it's not

(37:05):
like we didn't lose planes. It's not like we didn't
lose things. I mean, we lost them in the field
of battle. But for you know, but for everyone we lost,
we were able to build more. I mean, not exactly
like the hydrate. You know, you cut one off, seven

(37:26):
more pop up in its place. But you know, it
was like ten to one, and after they got get
done killing ten of ours, then well we had eleven
right there ready to go, right, I mean, that's kind
of what it amounted to. We were able to produce
these things quickly, logistically, we were able to get them

(37:49):
to the battlefield where they were needed or at least
close enough to make a difference. That is what truly
won the war. We had everything we needed to sustain
American interests abroad. Today we cannot say the same thing.

(38:17):
We can't say that most of our industry has been
shipped off to other countries. There are very few things
truly made within the US that doesn't rely on components
made internationally. Regardless of what it may be, very few

(38:41):
things made in America. I mean, you do you truly
realize how hard it is to find something that is
truly made in the US. It's hard. So what happens
when we lose influence? What happens whenever our word no

(39:02):
longer means anythings? What happens whenever the world sees and
understands that our word our you know, us backing up
and defending a treaty and actually carrying out what it says.
What happens when the rest of the world figures out
that that doesn't mean anything. What happens to America whenever

(39:26):
people start turning their back on us and we're not
able to sustain our own sovereignty, when we're not able
to defend ourselves, whenever we are not able to produce
what it is that we need, not just to maintain

(39:47):
a lifestyle we have grown accustomed to, but actually survive.
There was a time not that long ago in our
nation's history that you know, and this was before and
during the beginning part of the Industrial Revolution, where people
actually knew how to do basic things. When was the

(40:11):
last time you slaughtered your own livestock to put food
on your table? When was the last time you milked
a cow turned butter? When was the last time you
did any of that kind of stuff. I mean, don't
get me wrong. I'm not saying this like I know

(40:31):
a lot, because I don't. I don't know how to
do that kind of crap. When I want to hamburger,
I go to the store and I buy one. I
buy some ground meat, ground beef, ground meaf. Yeah, what's
a ground meaf. That's what I do, right, just like
most of you out there, that's what I do. I
wasn't raised on a farm. I mean, there's farmers in

(40:51):
my family. Most everybody around where I live. They know
a farmer. I've worked for a farmer. Not that kind
of stuff. Though. How many of us are actually going
to be able to do that kind of stuff? Not
very many of us. That's one of the things that
Trump's trying to do. He's trying to make America great again.

(41:14):
And one of the ways of doing that is to
bring manufacturing back to the United States because relying on
all these other countries is a security it's a security risk.
It puts us in danger. It very much does when

(41:35):
our word no longer matters, which is hard. Right. We're
constantly in a political battle between the right and the left.
It's a constant battle It's been going on for decades.
You have the left that want to do this, the
right the ones to do that. But where they have

(41:57):
usually met in the middle is in something that they
are all, regardless of what side of the political aisle
they land on, they are supposed to honor them, supposed to.
But what happens when we don't and the rest of

(42:19):
the world take notes? That's the issue. Nothing so far
has really come of it, thankfully. And I'm not saying
that I want boots on the ground over in Ukraine.
I am not saying that because I don't want that.
I really don't. I don't want American boots on the ground.

(42:42):
But we're not the only one to sign the Budapest Memorandum.
Is that the right name? Yeah, we're not the only
ones to sign it. It's not just us that is
at fault here. I'm not saying that we are the
only ones. Were not. But what happens when our word

(43:06):
is no longer our bond and these other countries take note?
What happens when they turned their back on us. Let
me know what you think about Russia, Russia annex in Crimea,
the war in Ukraine. Let me know what have you heard.

(43:26):
Have you heard kind of the same thing that I
heard that Russia was justified in doing it? And what
reason did they give? Did you hear that they were
completely in violation and if they wasn't supposed to do it?
Have you heard about the Budapest memorandum? Have you heard
about the Belavisa Accords? Did you know what it said beforehand?

(43:54):
Did you know that we were supposed to go win
there and defend Ukraine whenever Russia annex Crimea? Did you
know that we were supposed to do that? I mean
I actually did know that, And I questioned then why
nobody was holding Russia accountable for what they didn't and why,
in light of what happened, would anybody trust any of

(44:17):
these other nations again and enter into a treaty with us?
Why would anybody do that? If we don't honor our treaties,
if Russia doesn't honor their treaties, if the UK doesn't
honor their treaties, if Northern Ireland does not honor their treaties,
if France and China doesn't honor their treaties, why would

(44:37):
anybody sign another treaty treaty with any of us? That
to me is a damn good question. Just a couple
of minutes and I'll be right.

Speaker 2 (44:49):
Back rolled into Monday. The engine just quick. Spent all

(45:12):
my week leaning under that good of it, knuckles augusted,
grease stains on my jeans. The truck won't starting and
mocks my dreams. I checked the butts, I checked the plug,

(45:33):
prayed the song, got in the motors, guns a week's
worth of sweat. Nothing turns out right, this hunk of
jump stealing all man night sold in something dumb. I
know it inside, but the answer keeps running, and it loves.

Speaker 1 (45:54):
I had turned the keen.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
Nothing moves. You'll sound as soon You've got the heavy
heart and broken down. Blue brought a buddy over, said

(46:16):
he'd take a look. He shook his head side and
cursed the book. We've tried every trick under the sun,
but we're losing this battle. The truck is won. Leaning
over the always wat open and got him sucking my

(46:37):
heart just standing at chase this driveway prison, gotten out
there to proof CA's body is broken down. Blooe on

(47:10):
something side answer jeep side turned Geane ons no sound soon.

Speaker 1 (47:51):
Do you work at any of the merit of jobs
where you might have to set on your bum all day. Well,
if so, maybe you know what it's like to suffer
from the condition known as swamp as well. If so,
have I got the solution for you. It's high monkey
buck powder. That's right, it's high monkey buck powder. You
can use an indoors, outdoors, work or play, or on

(48:13):
any occasion when you sit on your bum all day.
Don't let your buns get read. Use anti monkey butt
powder instead, available wherever anti friction powder is sold. All right,
and we are back. So I want to talk about
the executive orders that President Trump has signed. And he's
signed a couple pretty big ones, he really has, and

(48:36):
one of which I'm like, I don't quite know how
I feel about this one. You know, the Supreme Court
has already kind of made a ruling on it. But
at the same point, I think I understand where he's
going with this and I approve, But at the same time,
I don't know the other one. Oh, I am completely
in support of it. So this headline from just the

(48:59):
News headline, Trump signs executive order ending cashless bail. Are
you as excited about that as I am? Because I
am very stinking excited about that. One. This is something
that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The fact

(49:22):
that these mayors, these attorney generals, these police officers can
just say, oh, yeah, you broke a crime, but we're
just going to give you an order to appear and
let you go back out there on, you know, and
do whatever the hell you want to never made any
sense to me. And it's something that they don't even

(49:44):
enforce from top to bottom. They don't. I know, I
told this story a while back ago, but let me
just reiterate in order to really hit home and drive
the point that I'm trying to make where I'm from.

(50:07):
In my hometown, somebody was arrested for possession with intent
to sell. They went to his house. They found his
girlfriend dead, and according to odd Topsy, she had been
dead for a week prior. He didn't do anything, he

(50:32):
didn't call the cops. He just left her in the
apartment for a week dead. And again, you know, she
died of an overdose. It wasn't murdered. She died of
an overdose. And then you know the whole he had

(50:55):
possession with intent to sell. He was processed and he
was released within a week. A buddy of mine was
arrested for failure to appear on a traffic violation. They

(51:17):
put him in jail for the entire freaking weekend, same county,
same police officers involved, as in you know, city police
or county police, whichever, same police force, same state. Two

(51:39):
very different outcomes in the arrest. One was a simple
traffic violation. He was held, arrested, held waiting for to
see his his uh, you know, to stand in front
of a judge. The other one possession with intent to

(52:02):
sell somebody dead in their apartment that had been there
for a week, cashless bail, released the same day with
an order to appear. Are you fucking kidding me? How
does that make any sense? And this is the type

(52:25):
of stuff that we are seeing all across America, people
being caught, being charged for doing violent crimes murder, assault,
armed robbery, getting processed and getting released just to go

(52:51):
out and do the same thing again. President Trump signed
an executive order putting an end to all of that.
None of it made any sense whatsoever. I mean, you know,
like I've talked about this in the past. I've mentioned
this quote from Adam Adam Smith I believe is what

(53:12):
his name is. Let me go ahead and bring that up.
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent that
goes a step further. I mean that's going, Hey, you
know what, We're just going to ignore this. Yeah, we
arrested you, you were caught. You know you were caught,
but we're going to let you out and just trust
that you're not going to go out and do it again.

(53:33):
And then what if they do. The very justice system
that was supposed to hold them, in my opinion, are
just as liable for the additional people that were hurt,
that were murdered, that were assaulted, any other crime that

(53:54):
happened because of this cash list bail policy. Every one
of these people should be held accountable for all of
the crimes that these people committed because these This policy
has been in place for quite some time now. This
article was written on August twenty fifth, so this was
a couple of days ago, and the executive order ending

(54:19):
cashless bail was signed on Monday, Monday being the well
twenty fifth, same day the article was written. Holy cow, wow, cool,
I'm all for this one. I really am. Cashless bail
is a It made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

(54:40):
In fact, it really toicked me off, because again, what
we have is we are saying to criminals that it
is okay to commit crime. It's fine, nothing's going to happen.
And what's to stop these people from actually just saying, no,
I'm not going to show up to court. That's a problem,
a problem that they've had. I mean, do you really

(55:01):
think somebody has just got done killing somebody and assaulting somebody.
Do you really think that they are overly concerned about
getting caught by police? Again, do you really think they're
going to show up for court? No, that's been the problem. Now.
Not only signing an executive order ending cashlest bail, President

(55:22):
Trump also signed another executive order, and this one was
in dealing with flag burning. Now I didn't necessarily agree
with this one. I really didn't, because the Supreme Court

(55:48):
had already ruled saying that flag burning is protected under
the First Amendment as basically freedom of speech. Do you
have the right to protest, you have the right to
burn the American flag? There, the Supreme Court's already ruled
on this and on that ruling. As much as I
don't like it, as much as I detest it, as

(56:09):
much as I think it's infuriating that somebody would burn
the American flag, you know, burn the symbol of the
very country that allows you to do a detestable act
like that is infuriating, it really is. But I agreed
with the Supreme Court that just because I don't like

(56:29):
it doesn't mean you shouldn't be free to do it. Now,
one of the things that I have heard is that
the this executive order that the President Trump signed was
an acknowledgement that, yes, you technically have the freedom to

(56:50):
do it through the First Amendment. However, in most cases
where this is done, it is done to a site
violence and inciting violence is not short nor should it
ever be allowed. I mean, you don't just have the

(57:13):
right to work a crowd up into a frenzy, to
destroy property, to commit assaults, to rob to steal anything.
I mean, you shouldn't be doing that, and that type
of behavior should be punished. If that is the reason

(57:34):
behind this executive order, then I'm all for it. However,
if it goes within the scope of just arresting somebody
for doing it, regardless of the reasoning, I'm not exactly
for that one. This headline from justinnews dot com, again

(57:57):
using justinnews dot com. Man arrest to the outside White
House for burning US flag hours after the Trump order.
There's a First Amendment right to burn the American flag,
the man said. A man who identified himself as a

(58:17):
twenty year combat veteran was arrested outside the White House
for burning an American flag, hours after President Donald Trump
signed an executive order to crack down on flag burning.
The US Secret Service told The Hill that they detained
a person at about six fifteen pm on Monday in
Lafayette Park for igniting an object and turned the person

(58:39):
over to the US Park Police, which has jurisdiction. D
Park Police said that it arrested the person in the
park at about around six thirty pm, violating thirty six
CFR two point one three a sub section one, which
prohibits fire in public parks okay except in designated areas.

(59:00):
The police didn't identify the person, saying that the information
was not become publicly available until the charges are formalized
by the court. This right here is a very convenient
work around. Right. Did you notice that in this article
that he wasn't technically arrested for burning the American flag.
He was arrested because he started a fire in an

(59:25):
unapproved spot. He didn't do it in a fireplace, and
he should have done it in a fireplace. Okay, convenient
work around, right now, Like I don't, I don't want

(59:48):
anything to happen to the American flag. Don't get me wrong.
I think it's detestable whenever people burn the flag, especially
whenever you consider what its st for, the freedom that
it stands for, the men and women in service that
has fought and died for the freedoms that that you demand,

(01:00:12):
that you want, the very freedom that gives you the
right to burn the flag is. I don't like it,
but that's not to say that it's not protected, nor
should it be protected. I mean like it should be protected.
Let me be clear on that it should be protected.
I mean if I said it once, I've said it
a million times. You know, you have certain freedoms in

(01:00:36):
this country, and mind you, you got freedom of not
necessarily freedom from Okay, let's just make that perfectly clear too,
but you had the freedom of speech. And when push
comes to shove, I will defend anybody else's freedom of
speech regardless of what they're saying. It doesn't matter to

(01:00:58):
me what they're saying, you still have the right to
say it. You still have the freedom to say it,
and you have the right to say it without any backlash.
I mean, assault is a crime. Right just because your

(01:01:20):
feelings got hurt, It doesn't mean you have the right
to punch somebody in your face for saying something you
don't like. Doesn't work like that. And oh yeah, by
the way, that person has the right to fight back,
just saying, but assault is a crime. Speaking out against
something is not a crime. You have the freedom of speech.

(01:01:41):
It really is about time we honor that, no matter where,
no matter who, no matter the party affiliation. It's high
time we actually remember that one. Moving on, there's another
thing that I've seen that that uh oh, I thought
it was pretty stinking awesome. So thirteen days ago President

(01:02:07):
Trump seized control of DC Police of law enforcement within Washington,
d C. President Trump seized it, and wouldn't you know,
for the past thirteen days, there has been no murder.

(01:02:28):
All crime, especially violent crime, is down significantly, but there
has not been one homicide in Washington, d C. For
the past thirteen days. That is huge. I don't remember
if it was a police officer or captain of the police.
He was like, dude, I've been here for twenty years.
I've never once seen a day without murder. Washington, d C.

(01:02:52):
Is the murder capital of the nation, if not the world.
Holy crap, that's huge. They're not no longer operating as
a sanctuary city. They are no longer doing nor have
they been doing the cashless bail. They're not doing that.
They catch you doing something, they lock you up. They're

(01:03:18):
not allowing any bravosierra whatsoever at all. They ain't doing it.
They ain't messing around on this. And crime is down.
Actual crime is down, not just the seeming of crime
being down, you know, not the fudging of the numbers,
crime being down. No, actual crime is down. They're cleaning

(01:03:40):
up the streets. People are happy. And not that long
ago there was a protest people that objected to President
Trump actually cleaning up the streets and enforcing laws and
you know, putting criminals behind bars. They were protesting this.

(01:04:01):
And one of the things I heard about this, you know,
reports from people that were there that were like, these
people that are protesting this, don't they're not even from here,
not at all. These are people that don't live in DC,
that don't have roots in d C, that don't have
family in DC, that don't work in DC. These are people.

(01:04:24):
The protesters are people that could care less about DC.
They're doing this as a political move. That's all the
people that are actually there. The people that live in DC,
have roots in DC, have families in DC, go to work,

(01:04:45):
send their kids to school, have homes. These people are
applauding Donald Trump, and the rest of the country is
seeing what's going on because what Donald Trump, in essence did,
and I talked about this, I believe on the Lane episode.
What Donald Trump is doing is he's making a playbook, right,

(01:05:06):
He's writing the playbook on how to do this. He's
telling everybody that lives in these cities that, yes, your city,
too can be safe. If the people running it would
actually enforce the laws and do something about crime, do
something about illegals, if they would end the nonsense and

(01:05:31):
actually fight for the citizenry, something would happen. People are
taking note. This is huge, and the left is absolutely
pissed about this. They really are. I mean they are
absolutely infuriating. In fact, I mean they're all saying that, oh, well,
I mean, you know, are you going to do this,

(01:05:53):
you know, because one of the things Trump said is like, hey,
I'm going to put together a specialized National Guard unit
for public safety to go into these various cities and
to help restore order, one of which he's talking about
sending them to one city, and I applaud in Chicago.

(01:06:20):
Oh boy, howdy, I absolutely approve of that one. But
one of the you know, worthless people that you know,
worthless so called journalists, was like, hey, are you going
to go into a you know, a city in a
in a in a red state instead of just going

(01:06:41):
after blue station. He's like, oh, well, yeah, of course
I would do that. I would go into him because
oh yeah, by the way, here's the thing that you're
ignoring that even though some of these major cities that
are in these Republican states, you know, these red cities,
they are firmly in or I'm sorry, these red states

(01:07:07):
have blue, firm blue cities in them, and that is
where the crime is at because they are enacting Democrat
policies soft on crime, sanctuaries cities. We're going to ignore
the criminals and we're going to punish the victims. That's
the mentality going on in the left Trump's like, yeah, absolutely,

(01:07:31):
I do the same thing there. I would do it
not about party politics, but about actually protecting citizens and
punishing criminals. That's what it's about. I'm all for it.
I couldn't be happier. I'm like, this is amazing. Now.

(01:08:00):
The big question is does the president actually have the
power and authority to do it? That's the question because
in DC, it's a no brainer. DC is an estate.
It is the federal seat of government, and of which
case the president being the head of the executive branch,

(01:08:21):
which is to make sure that the laws are executed faithfully. Right,
I mean, that's what his job is. That absolutely, President
Trump has the right to do this in Washington, d C.
But the question goes, does he have the right to
do it in any other city, in any other state?
What's the limitations on that. Let me break it down

(01:08:46):
to you like this, much like whenever we were talking
about Crimea and Ukraine, Texas has autonomy, but Texas does
not have sovereignty outside the United States. That yes, a

(01:09:12):
governor has the right to call the National Guard to
make certain rules and whatnot. However, every single state that
entered into the United States of America, they agreed to
do certain things as per their entry. Uphold laws are

(01:09:34):
one of them, in a universal law across all fifty states.
Punishment may be a little different, but the laws are
the same. He ain't supposed to kill somebody. You ain't
supposed to walk up to somebody punch them in the mouth. Assault, robbery,
these are things that are universally across the entire fifty

(01:09:55):
states are illegal. And these mayors, these governors, every single
one of them, they have an obligation to their people
to make sure that crimes don't go unpunished. That's part
of their oath of office. These governors, mayors, all of
them taking oath and oath of office the same as

(01:10:16):
a president in the United States, where America does. So,
what's the recourse if they don't do their job? Well,
The recourse is there is a higher authority. A recourse
to a mayor is a governor. If the mayor's not
doing their job, the governor has the right to step

(01:10:37):
up and do something about it. If a governor is
not going to do his job, the president has the
right to step up and do something about it. I mean,
it's play and simple. There may be time limits on

(01:10:59):
how long it can be done. But there's a lot
of arguments supporting Donald Trump in the decision that would
at least allow him to do it for a time,
a couple of weeks, a couple months. That argument can

(01:11:21):
very much be made and defended in court, defended in
the Supreme Court. Absolutely could be. It gets a little
shakier him going into Chicago, you know, sending National Guard
into Chicago to clean up the mess. There's not that

(01:11:43):
same issue with DC because d C is not a state.
D C does not have a governor. The President has
full authority to take care of business in DC. But
there are limitations, as there should be. Don't get me wrong,
there should be limitations. But this is the genius of

(01:12:05):
what President Trump is doing though, because President Trump knew that,
you know, if we would just arrest the criminals and
punish the criminals, maybe just maybe we can you know,
kind of start reducing crime, especially violent crime. Isn't that
what we want? We want people to be able to

(01:12:25):
go outside and play at night without the risk of
being shot or assaulted. That's what we want. I think
everyone across America would agree. Unless you're a fucking jackass
criminal that yeah, that's what we want. And again, President
Trump is demonstrating to the entire nation, every single person

(01:12:47):
that lives in these hell holes, every one of them,
is seeing that it is possible. What's the next point
of recourse? Vote these sons of bitches out of office.
See just how lazy and competent these Democrat leaders are

(01:13:07):
in any of these big cities. And you know, do
you want safer cities? Do you want you know, do
you want safety in your city? Or do you want
the criminals to run free and do whatever they would
to you, to your family, to your children, to your property.

(01:13:31):
Is that what you want? Or do you want the
criminals to actually go to jail? Do you want the
laws to be enforced or do you want lawlessness? Because
that's really what the question is. It's pretty stinking simple.

(01:13:53):
President Trump is demonstrating that you can clean it up
if you're willing to do it. You don't need another law.
You don't need somebody else to step in and say, hey,
look at me. Vote for me and I'll write this
amazing law and I'll actually do it. No, no, no, no,
the work's already been done. All you gotta do is

(01:14:13):
send word down to chain the chain of command and
say enforce the laws. Now, that's it. It's that simple. Yes,
Trump can step in. He can step in for a time.
He's very limited on how much of his will he
can force on the national Guard in these various cities,

(01:14:34):
in these other states. He is very limited on what
he is allowed to do. However, he does have limited
ability to do it. I think it may only be
a month. I'm not one hundred percent sure, but he
does have the ability, but it is limited. But either
way you look at it, what he's demonstrating is your

(01:14:56):
city can be safe to if they would just enforce
the laws, use the resources that you already have, put
people behind bars, clean up your streets, actually clean things
up a bit, enforce the laws, all of the laws,

(01:15:20):
not just the most heinous, but all of them. Your city,
too can be safe. What a novel? What a novel idea? Right,
That's what's genius about this entire thing. And maybe he

(01:15:40):
was serious about doing it, maybe he wasn't as far
as going into these other major cities. But you know,
regardless of whether he's serious or not, regardless of whether
this is something he actually intends to do, because I've
heard arguments both ways that oh, he's not actually going
to do this, he can't actually do it. But regardless,
what is it that President Trump has accomplished in saying this?

(01:16:04):
In general? He's put it on the public awareness. He's
made us think about it. Hey, I live in a
big city. Do I want President Trump to come in
here and actually actually enforce the laws, get rid of
the homelessness, get rid of the homeless on the streets,
and put him in shelters? Do I want him to

(01:16:26):
deport and get rid of all the illegal aliens that
has overrun the cities, the gangs and everything else. Do
I actually want criminals to be punished for committing crimes.
He's putting these questions on the national stage, and in time,
here's what I foresee happening. In time, there's going to

(01:16:49):
be an outcry in these cities that, yes, I want
President Trump to clean up my city too. Mind you,
you already have people that are praising Donald Trump in Washington,
d C. About what he's doing cleaning up the streets,
putting the homeless in shelters, arresting criminals for committing crimes.

(01:17:16):
He's actually doing the job that the police should have
been should have been doing for a long time. And
even though he is in a city that is run
and control from top to bottom by Democrats, like ninety
six percent Democrats in Washington, d C. And even they

(01:17:39):
in the filthiest, most one sided city I have ever
heard of in my entire life, even they are praising
Trump for cleaning up the city because they knew what
it was and they see what it's becoming and they
want more. That's awesome. He's putting it on the world stage.

(01:18:04):
As as Stewart would say, Look what I can do.
That's what Trump did. Look what I can do cleaning
up the streets. And how long did it really take him?
Once he set his mind, once he made a goal,

(01:18:25):
once he said I'm gonna do it, and once he
started doing it, how long did it take? Holy crime?
Thirteen days later, crime is down significantly and not a murder,
not a homicide in those thirteen days. That's freaking huge, people,

(01:18:45):
That's huge. That's all I got for y'all today. That's it.
Do me a favorite. Head on over to stinkpickle dot com.
That is s T I N K P I k
l E dot com. Stinkpickle dot com. I got some
of the merch I have over there, maybe you'll see
something you like. And if you don't, if you have
an idea for a design to be put on a

(01:19:06):
product that I don't quite have it on just yet,
send me an email. Let me know ho ho at
the ho host Show dot com. And of course you
can also check out the articles that I have used
in the show over at the host Show dot com.
Just click on the newsfeed tab. There you go, and
I will be putting that article together with the Ukraine

(01:19:26):
crimea Russia thing. I'll be putting all of that information
there this way, you know, just in case you hear
the argument that maybe Russia was justified, you'll have a
means by wish to combat that and say, mmm, no
they weren't. Anyway, that's all I got. You also have
yourself a great one, and I will see you and
the next one. This has been the ho Host Show.

(01:19:48):
For more information, you can head to the hoo Hostshow
dot com and for the merchandise store, you can head
on over to Stinkpickle dot com. That is s T
I N K P I k l E dot com.
Until next time,