7/18/23: Ben Shapiro Hits Tucker/Trump On Ukraine, Ted Cruz Blocks Rail Safety, Florida Abandoned By Insurance Companies, Major UFO Hearings, Gilgo Beach Killer, Arizona Water War, Europe Vs Asia, Allie Beth Stuckey On Andrew Tate

so we'll tell you about that. We also have more home insurance companies pulling out of the state of Florida as supremiums there have been skyrocketing. It's become a real issue for everybody in that state, so we'll break that down for you. We've also got some UFO news that Soccer is very interested in and I am mildly interested in, so we will tell you about that as well. And this is really fascinating and horrifying has riveted the nation.

The Gilgo Beach serial killer has been caught, at least allegedly. You know, this is a case. It was a cold case that goes back more than a decade. So we've got some details about how exactly they broke this open and who it was they arrested in some interesting and horrifying details there. We also are excited to welcome to the show a conservative woman who you know, she's been very like okay, grumor discourse and all of that. You know, her politics, my polic is not the same. That's fine.

She has been criticizing Andrew Tait and taking some real heat from her own side, so we wanted to get her rationale and what she is thinking about before we get to any of that. Though, I want to thank all of you guys who support us here at the show. If you are able to sign up for premium membership. We were just talking yesterday about how you cannot rely on any of these social media platforms no matter which

billionaire oligarch runs them. So we really have put our fate in your hands, and we're super grateful for those of you who have supported us.

actually have no id what you're going to get. He can come out with a statement against cluster bombs all he wants, he said he wanted to reset our relationship with Russia while he was president, he broke the Obama standard and actually shipped more Javelin missiles into the conflict, arguably actually heated up the civil war and got us to a point where the invasion seemed appear justified or whatever on the Putin side, at least in the eyes

of Putin. Around how the West really was united against him, not validating the reasoning, just saying though that he did certainly contribute to that same in terms of sanctions, he sanctioned historic amounts of Russian officials and often Christle.

on Russia than President and Obama was. So he may say he's against you know, cluster muinishes to Ukraine, like he put out that statement, but he's also very much leaving himself the door open for way more than like the dreams of all in the hawks and the Biden administration, do not.

policy actions, he was hawkish. He was more hawkish than the Obama administration. And that was where the real criticism should have been, is some of those actions which helped to precipitate this particular crisis that we are now dealing with. You know, you saw this on a variety of issues

as well. He was extraordinarily hawkish towards to run. He talked a big game about getting out of Afghanistan, but ultimately it left it to Joe Biden to actually, you know, pull out of that country, which was a very difficult situation.

So yeah, and even within his rhetoric on Ukraine, he has vacillated between saying that Biden is not hawkish enough, he's not doing enough, he needs to do more, he needs to be more aggressive, and the sort of you know, let's get this deal done, let's negotiate, I have the war over in twenty four hours. He has vacillated between those two extremes, and I think it is the only thing that we could expect is that he would continue

to do the same. And I also think that you know, we were about to talk about the way that the Republican base feels about the Ukrainian conflict. I think the extent of the reluctance to continue with military aid towards Ukraine, I think Trump has a lot to do with that, and I think he has really helped you drive up

that sentiment within the Republican Party. But I also think it could flip on a dime where you could easily, you know, if he starts coming out and saying we should have sent F sixteen sooner, we should have sent Cluster Bob soon, or we should be doing even more. We should let them hit, you know, hit Russia and not complain about it. You could easily see the Republican base flipping to a position of Biden's not being strong enough,

he's not being hawkish enough. And because the news media always is in favor of war hawkishness, you know, they would help to beat those drums as well.

going to go against you. So then are you actually going to stand in your convictions with Trump? He consistently did not do that. He escalated troops in Afghanistan, he didn't actually pull out up until the end of his presidency. Even whenever he did sign that peace deal with the Taliban, the Russia, we gave numerous policy examples, so there's a lot to doubt whenever it comes to some of his rhetoric. And you know, to your point also in terms of

the debate and kind of where it stands. Let's gohead and put this up there on the screen, a shot across the bout from Ben Shapiro.

have an interest in deterring China from invading Taiwan. We are now stuck in this weird binary straw man in which we're told that we must fund Ukraine quote until they win, as long as it takes without defining winning, and it looks like does it mean withdrawing all aid, thus leading Russia to take Keith? In terms of defining what's stopping is quote? All nuance is lost in politics pretty quickly. It is always much easier to malign your

opponents uncaring about their fellow Americans. But demagoguery comes at a pretty high societal cost. So clearly he's coming out there a little bit in favor of aid to Ukraine. I also would note, I mean, if we look at the actual comments we played on our show yesterday, Crystal, Mike Pence can say that he got caught and was responding to one part of the answer all you want,

but rhetorically it's a terrible look. Whenever you're saying quote, it is not my concern whenever you're asked about the binary. I also think that One of the reasons why this analysis is spurious is because everyone's like, well, you know, we can do we can do both at the same time, but we're not doing both at the same time. One gets massive bipartisan majorities and timeliness, and one doesn't with no consensus whatsoever. Now, in terms of the debate, I

think we should always be honest here about Ukraine. A lot of people want to continue and increase military support to Ukraine. Not all Republicans actually do agree on Ukraine. There is room for debate in the party, and we're about to show everybody pulling to that effect.

support for Ukraine increased in the wake of that. But it appears that the Republican base is basically split fifty to fifty on whether they want to continue military aid, whether they're of the sort of Mike Pence view or whether they're of the you know, Trumpian when he's articulating the let's just get to the table and this thing resolved immediately when he's articulating that view. Let's go and put this up on the screen from the Washington Post.

That broke this down, because there's a real difference between if you ask the overall Republican base how they feel about the conflict versus the most plugged in online activist base of the party, which is overwhelmingly against continuing military aid to Ukraine. So the headline here is gop Ukraine skeptics dominate the debate, but not the party. You've got some numbers here that, you know, sort of illustrate the point.

You had a Quinnipiac poll last month that showed sixty six percent of American said supporting Ukraine was in the national interest of the US will just twenty eight percent said it was not. Even among Republicans, you had a fifty two percent majority that said it was in our interest compared to forty percent who said it was not. In an economist yu Goov poll last month, you found

a similar result. Twice as many Americans favored increasing or keeping the same amount of aid as supported decreasing it. Neither among Republicans nor among twenty twenty Trump voters was decreasing aid a majority position. So in many of these polls you find actually a majority of the Republican base supports the Ukraine consensus. It's hardly a surprise given the fact that you know, elected Republican elites hold that position, given the fact that the media is almost uniformly in

support of that position. But then again you turn to put this next piece up on the screen. From media, you turned to you know, the activists at the Turning Point USA conference and they did a straw pole on this very question, and they found that ninety five point eight percent of attendees in that straw pole said they oppose the US supporting Ukraine against Russia. So I tried

to make this point yesterday. I think if you're you're thinking about this issue and you're just thinking about the politics of it and your Republican presidential contender, you might be on the correct side of overall GOP sentiment if you have the like Mike Pence, let's continue to support them, or the Chris Christy, let's continue to support them position.

But in terms of the people who are most motivated, who are most organized, and who frankly I think care the most about this issue, they're all on the other side of that. And you know, it's a similar dynamic

that we see play out with issues like abortion. Again, taking like you know your particular position on these issues and how you feel about them, out of it, you have a very hardcore, very well organized, very active, very engaged base of the Republican Party that has some very hard anti abortion positions that don't even line up with where the rest of the GOP bass same thing onl

BTQ issues. And so once again you've got an issue with Ukraine where I think the most active, the most organized, that people who care the most about the issue are on one side, and then you have a different sentiment among the rest of the GP.

eleven and Islamic terrorism. Whereas, you know, if you grew if you were born let's say in you know, two thousand and nine, you really didn't even come of age up until you like your memories and all that, they're really in the post Islamic terror eras, you'd be like, what are you talking about? You guys at threat levels and airports. So I think it's the same the same in terms of the carryover effect, and it'll stick with

you for the rest of your life. So anyway, just an interesting corollary, I think to the politics of it now on the policy of it, of which you and

I do certainly care about. There is a crazy interview with the commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who gave one to the Key of Independent from a few days ago that we wanted to make sure that we actually spend some time with because it's extraordinarily revealing as to how the actual Ukrainians fighting this battle think about some of the things that we spend a lot

of time debating here on breaking points. Do they really, crystal not care what we think and they're just going to use our military aid and weapons to do whatever they want? Do they not care about escalation with Russia? The answer to both of those questions appears to be, yeah, they really don't. So let's put this up there on the screen. In terms of what he has said on Ukrainian strikes inside of Russia, quote, it is up to

us to decide how to kill this enemy. Now, once again, you could say that is true, but you know you can use your own weapons. Then oh wait, you don't have any of your own weapons. In terms of partners, he says, quote, if our partners are afraid to use this weapons. We will kill with our own, but only as much as necessary. Once again, ridiculous. They have no industrial base, They don't have any of their own weapons. All of their weapons are provided to them by charity.

They can't even afford them themselves because they basically have no economy. And you know, he does make the point that we always try to emphasize here, he says, to save my people, Why do I have to someone ask someone for permission what to do on enemy territory? You don't if you're able to make your own weapons, and you're able to supply your own military, and you're able to pay your own bills.

a historic amount of aid. I don't know sure if you saw this crystal, but Ben Wallace, who is the Defense Minister in the UK, gave an on the record statement saying, you know, sometimes we'd like to see a little bit more gratitude at the NATO summit, and just that freaked out the Ukraine, NAFO people, the Lithuanians, and Zelenski sarcastically was like, okay, we will say thank you.

You know, is our thank you enough? And it's like it gets to the point of look, the UK, in my opinion, they haven't sent nearly enough military aid of relative to what we have, considering that they actually are on the continent. They are the great power, they have a massive economy, they have a real industrial base.

inviting you know, I guess eventual NATO membership. Now, I would say, though, that his ungrateful attitude works for a reason, which is in almost every case you nothing actually happens to you, or they still get all the aid that

they want. So why wouldn't you keep doing it if you sound like a whiny child and you know, on like, on balance, he actually is getting everything he wants on paper, but there is still a bit of a fraying that is happening, I think, even amongst the most pro Ukraine people who are involved in those decisions, because it's just the arrogance. It's the arrogance, it's the lack of gratitude.

And you know it is on the record statements like this from Ukrainian military commanders being like, you can't tell us what to do, and you know once, yes we can, we quite literally can.

for that attack. At this point. Now, between then and now, you know, we've had all these attacks on Russian soil, we direct attacks on the Grumblin and they're there have been no repercussions in terms of all Ukraine has seen is continued escalation of our support. And you know, okay, we will send you the Abram stinks. Okay, we will send you the F sixteen. So okay, we will send you cluster bombs. So from their perspective, they're like, why should we hide it? Why should we do anything other

than exactly what we want to do in this conflict. Again, I don't blame them. I don't blame them for having that view. I blame us for allowing what is a very dangerous situation to unfold. And the blase attitude that some of these people have about potential nuclear war. I

just cannot wrap my head around it. You know, we had an interview yesterday with a former Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson, who is a twenty twenty four contender, really grateful for his time, super nice guy, wildly differ from him on a whole variety of issues. But the thing that was most stark to me that he said is, you know, I asked him a question, all right, so what are you concerned that we're going to get into a nuclear war,

that we're risky nuclear war? And he said, we risk nuclear war every day?

You know, if there was a potential attack on a NATO country, God forbid, it risks you know, Putin and Russia getting into a desperate situation where they create an escalatory ladder that it's very hard to get out of. And listen, I know that people are not as fun up about the nuclear risk as they were, for example last fall when even Biden was talking about trying to

avoid World War three. But make no mistake, this is still a nuclear armed superpower that is facing you know, some at least domestic turmoil and instability, and we need not to take our eye off that ball.

top of mind. And you know, in the most cliche like a phrase of all time, like when people tell you who they are, believe them, like when he says, I don't give a damn what you guys think, believe them. I mean, imagine if you had military, like the US military commander effectively saying this when somebody else was paying our bills and somebody else was like, hey, man, like you shouldn't be doing that. We were acting with such level of arrogance, it would be universally agreed that this

is unacceptable. And yet these comments, they just fly completely under the radar.

sixteens anyway, it's fine. And so yeah, you like his brazen where I'm going to do what I want to do is totally justified based on the fact that it reminds me when when Hillary Clinton said she went to Wall Street and told them to cut it out, and they're like, okay, ladies, sure, sure, we're going to do that. It's the same deal where you know, we'll send our a little like please don't do that anymore, Yes, please don't do that. We don't like it when you do that.

You think that they care, no, because there's no consequences attached to it. So that's where we are.

But it also highlights that we have yet to do anything in response to that horrific trained derailment in East Palastine that led to them lighting the whole thing on fire and exposing all of these residents to some sort of horrific chemical cocktail. The residents of that town may well be dealing with the fallout of those actions for their entire lives. They are certainly right now still dealing with the aftermath of this, but it's slipped out of

the news media's attention. And guess what. At the time, the rail lobby basically said, we're going to wait this out and we're going to wait for republic pressure to die down, and then we're going to try to kill any bill that comes forward. And as of today, it kind of looks like that strategy is working. Let's put this up on the screen, the state of play in terms of what is a bipartisan rail safety effort. The headline here from Politico is GOP discord threatened. Senate response

to railway disaster. The rail safety divide within the Republican Party is a micro cosm of its realignment over the past few years. Trump supports it, but other than centermt Romney, the effort gets almost all is GFP support from the party's small yet growing populous wing, and unless the party's establishment gets more fully on board the safety plan that JD Vance shaped with Senator Shared Brown, they're both from Ohio,

Ohio colleagues, there may stall out. You only have remember what a big game Republicans talked at the time, about how much they cared about this issue and how much they trash the Biden administration, how they have hearings they know all virtue signaled about how much they cared about making sure that this never happens again. Do you know how many Republicans have now said that they support what is a very modest incremental improvement and rail safety seven seven.

That's it. And so you know, again the rail lobby having their way, and they do contribute a lot of money to some of the key members of that party. There's also in the House the situation is even less promising because it's controlled by the Republicans. So in the Senate you have as far as item particulately, all the Democrats on the side of this legislation, which again is very modest. Actually, let me give you the details here. Put this up on the screen from Bloomberg. This is

all that it would do. Would require sensors to detect overheated ball bearings that was a likely cause of that East Palestine crash. Would tighten rules on hazardous cargo and increased maximum fines to ten million dollars. Would require a two person crew on freight trains. Two people. That's it, that's all we're talking about. Labor agreements already require the same. But the Association of American Railroads heads argued that new

technology should allow single person crews to operate safely. Think about how gigantic these trains are and you want a single person crew. A study for the group in twenty fifteen estimated railroads could save more than two billion dollars a year using one person cruise a boon to freight

giants like Norfolk, Southern or Union Pacific. So they've been pushing for this for a while, and you know Republicans now throwing up objections about how, oh, we can't do this because it would empower the Biden ministry, would hand them more power, etc. I mean, these are really modest proposals, and it's just pathetic that you have so little support for this bill, so that you know that was craft in a bipartisan manner, that was on an issue that

everybody seemed to care about at the time. But as the public spotlight has moved on, they feel like they can politically let it die.

problem comes to the four, what happens nothing? And in fact, one quote here is perfect from a Republican senator who actually does support the bill quote. JD's gotten the classic run around here, which is we want to work with you, we want to work with you, but then they try and kill it in the committee, and now they're slow walking it to the floor. What I'm told is that there are not sixty votes. They also note people like Susan Collins, the queen of bipartisanship, Lindsey.

obstacle to the bill coming to the floor. I actually asked Jad about this whenever he was on our show previously.

to do more. You can't, on the one hand, say they're not doing enough and on the other hand, find a piece of legislation that forces them to actually take action. There's a deeper problem here, which is if you think that we're going to have to fight back against corporate America, against big tech, against the pharmaceutical industry, if you have to do these things, well, the governments pretty much the only path in town.

that it shouldn't fight. But if we're going to win the argument, we have to be willing to actually use the levers of power and use what the people gave us. That's what this fight is all about.

can poison waterways for like a fifty mile radius. And so, yeah, Ted Cruz, he was happy to posture for the cameras and a whole bunch of them alongside him as well. But when it comes down to it, guess what he's going to side with the donor class. He's going to side with big business. And they throw up the most transparent, like tired talking points that if you dig one inch deep or don't hold up to scrutiny, and they'll just say, like, oh, it's too much government, you know what, don't be so

stupid about regulation. Yes, some regulation is way over the top and becomes counterproductive and is genuinely an impediment, and you should be opposed to that regulation. I don't care if you're on the right, left, center, whatever. Some things are important for health and safety. And you know what, these rail giants have turned massive profits, record breaking historical profits.

They can afford to have two people on their crews, They can afford to install a few sensors on their trains to keep these horrific derailments from happening, and these and you know, one of these other things is just they have to notify officials in the state if their train is carrying hazardous materials so that first responders are prepared.

I mean, we're talking about such basic, obvious stuff. But rather than get into any of those details, because any thinking person would look at this and go like, well that makes sense. I can't believe we don't have that already, instead of getting into those details, they just handwave away, Oh, we can't give the Biden administration power. It's too much government or in favor of small government. And so we're just gonna wait and sit back and let this whole

situation unfold again. It is truly disgraceful.

even help. I'm literally just doing this on my own accord, but consider it, you know, especially if you're from the industrial Midwest and you have a senate or you know in that or you have a lot of railway that moves through your state, because you know, nobody thinks about it until an entire town gets basically, you know, allegedly poisoned. And after that, you know, it becomes a flash in the pan moment and then boom, it's gone. And unfortunately

it's just business as usual. And these are people who actually want to do something Sharon Brown is a serious person, so is Jade Vance. Many of the Democrats and Republicans just signed on to this bill. There's a reason the former President Trump endorsed it, and there's a reason that President Biden endorse it. It's not a joke. It's not one of the rare messaging things. In my opinion, that's why they're trying to kill.

and go, wait, I thought you cared about this. I thought you said you were going to do something about it, and as of today, absolutely nothing. So yes, shame and pressure these people. Where at seven Republican votes, we need like three more in the Senate to get it over the line. Then maybe you know, the House might take it up and feel some pressure to do something as well. It'd be great if President Trump would instead of just sort of tacitly approving it, if he would actually get involved.

But as of today, this is, you know, a shameful episode as it stands at this point.

in history have taken place in that state. And so we've got another ensure that is pulling out at the state, making things even more difficult. Let's go and put this up on the screen. So far has now joined Banker's Insurance, Lexington Insurance, which is a subsidiary of AIG and withdrawing from the market just since last year. So multiple major insurers just pulling out as a market completely. Again, this is not just a Florida problem, a though, it may

be the worst in Florida. It is a huge problem in California because of wildfire's huge problem in Colorado, also because of wild fires, Texas, Louisiana. There are a number of states that are really struggling with this. And by the way, these huge floods that we just had in New England are going to exacerbate problems for them there

as well. This piece from The Guardian was I think really powerful because they actually talked to some of the residents in the state that are struggling with this, and what they're seeing is that as homeowners insurance is getting completely unaffordable. Normal middle class, working class, longtime residents of Florida are being pushed out. And guess who's coming in

to gobble up their homes. It is permanent capital. It is, you know, these gigantic Wall Street investors who are snapping up a lot of the Florida real estate that is being made available by these homeowners that are being pushed out. They say in this piece that climate change is threatening the very existence of some parts of Florida. The costs are being felt by Floridians. At the end of twenty twenty two, average annual property insurance premiums had already risen

to more than forty two hundred in Florida. That is three times the national average. I saw estimates. I did a monologue on this a while ago that they the estimate is that they're going to see another forty percent increase in homeowners insurance costs just this year. They spoke to one resident I think this guy was in Vero Beach who said, none of my immediate neighbors have hurricane insurance.

Various of them are now trying to self ensure, meaning they're trying to build up pots of money to pay for possible damages, which is a huge risk and probably will not work. Some of them rejected by citizens, for instance, for not having sufficient storm coverings on their windows and could not afford other insurance to make matters words, I mean, the Republican legislature basically gave like giant giveaway to the industry,

create a big bailout fund from them. Made it more difficult for homeowners to sue some of these property insurers who have been out and out scamming them, especially in the wake of Hurricane Ian. Put this up on the screen from Politico. They say that Hurricane Ian battered these

middle class beach communities. Repair costs finished them off. That hurricanes's assault on southwest Florida is speeding a transition already occurring in some of the state's coastal communities, driving out middle and working class people, replacing them with deep pocketed buyers. In the waterfront cities of Fort Myers Beach and Cape Corral, even homeowners with flood insurance are finding they cannot afford the cost of rebuilding their houses to modern building codes

as federal rules demand. And part of that is, as I was saying, there was a whole investigation, a series of investigations into the fact that many of these homeowners, even the ones that had insurance, were basically scammed by

their insurers, which were these fly by night operations. Since the big guys are pulling out of the state, they're either giving them pennies of what they actually are owed, or they're tying them up in paperwork and not paying out at all for the damage that has been incurred to their property. So this is a huge deal in Florida, but it is a growing deal across the country.

I mean, just think about the percentage costs. Then you include a car payment, and you include a mortgage, or you include rent, what exactly you're supposed to eat on, you know, especially consider when you have inflation and food. So a good reminder save for retirement. But if you're not, and you're already in that, you know, in that environment.

They also quote somebody in that Guardian reference point story that you're referencing, quote, my insurance premium went from seven fifty to nineteen ninety nine to a little over three k last year, before then jumping to four thousand, six hundred and seventy eight and twenty twenty three, despite the fact that I live in an area that has not been hit by a hurricane in over one hundred years,

and quote, I have an itty biddy house. Luckily I was able to then get insurance through a state funded program. This brought my own premium down to twenty two hundred annually. So I think that the answer here is one that you know, many Ted Cruz people are not gonna like. We're gonna have to have some sort of government sponsored insurance program.

And if we're gonna have, you know, external factors like hurricanes, wild buyers and all these other things become such an impediment to a very basic tenant of living, then.

California they have a fund set up as well, but like, let's be really clear, this is going to be a tremendous cost. Tremendous cost for states, for taxpayers, if you have a federal government program for you know, the federal government. This is going to be a huge cost, especially as the climate crisis continues to work. So, I mean, we're in the middle of this massive heat wave. I'm talking

about one hundred and eighteen degrees in Phoenix today. We just had these huge floods and you know, listen, you can't tie all of these things and say one hundred percent this is because of the climate crisis. But we can see the way that one in one hundred year floods are coming like every year. Now. You can see the way that these massive catastrophes just fallow one on top of another, and say, we know that this is not normal from what we've experienced even in the recent past.

So it's going to continue to escalate as a major issue and a major cost of not mitigating the climate crisis. And you know, you're leaving a lot of homeowners high and dry and making it very difficult for them to stay in communities that they have lived in, you know, for literally decades. They're being pushed out right now for a lack of any sort of comprehensive plan to really deal with this.

Senator Schumer, so full disclosure. But whenever we're looking at this legislation, the most important language is one that jumps out immediately, and that is specifically about quote non human intelligence. So let me read directly from the text of the bill here. The term non human intelligence means any sentient, intelligent, non human life form, regardless of nature or ultimate origin, that may be presumed responsible for unidentified anomalist phenomena, or

of which the feed federal government has become aware. So specifically written in the text, now, in terms of the UAP phenomenon, here's how they describe it. Quote means any object operating or judged capable of operating in outer space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces under sea, lacking prosaic attribution due to performance, characteristics and properties not previously known to be

achievable based upon commonly accepted physical principles. Unidentified anomalist phenomena are differentiated are both attributed and temporarily non attributed objects by one or more of the following observables. Instantaneous acceleration of absent apparent inertia, hypersonic velocity, absent thermal signature, and sonic shockwave trans mediums such as space to ground and air to undersee travel positive lift contrary.

lot of questions about it. According to Ross, quote the Representative Andre Carson. We've played actually some clips about him before. He was the first UAP hearings that were held in Congress. He's a Democrat from New York. He says that he would actually love to get Dave Grush to the hearing before the House Permanent Select and Intelligence Committee on Intelligence. But quote, he is currently in the minority, so we'll

see how that works. So we don't yet know who the wetnesses are going to be before the Oversight Committee. I should also note, you know Burchett himself, he's a believer. This guy knows a lot about Roswell, the history, so he's been one of the people pushing for this behind the scenes. But overall, I would say that this is a victory in terms of getting transparency and answer from these lawmakers.

that are on video. Trans Medium is one that's been reported for a long time from people in the US Navy and in the US Air Force specifically being able to go ser a seed to air almost seamlessly, and in some cases even reporting seeing things that were under the ocean and trans medium actually would make sense if you had some sort of not even propellant, because that's probably the wrong way to think of it in terms of the way that these things move, but it would

make sense in terms of the way that something that does defy the current laws of physics would have to be able to theoretically move between these and the medium itself. Air or sea should not matter, as it would to like a conventional jet engine. That's where they get the term from.

who's a freaking White House chief of staff. They have something I believe it's called Yankee white that is the highest clearance that you can get whenever it's the President of the United States and core national security people around him. He tried to find out and they wouldn't tell him. If he's the one who's trying to find out, what are you supposed to do? Bill Clinton is on the record say quote, I am embarrassed to say that I tried to find out and I couldn't really get to the bottom of it.

there and they just do whatever they want yeah, because they're the ones who are actually in the permanent government. That's how they think of a government, whereas we kind of tend to think of it as elected. And while you would want us to live in a more directly responsible system, the truth is that the deep state and all these things are real.

the Church Committee. And these guys were in the Oversight Committee. They had no idea about what was going on here. The point here is about public pressure about people like Grush, who sees people like us talking about this, Jeremy Corbel Ross and out there and say, hey, you know, I'm looking at some stuff which directly contradicts what this guy is saying in Congress, and I feel pretty compelled to come out and to talk about it. So do I think Congress is going to get the answer?

life of chaos and control. He was painstaking in his Manhattan professional pursuits, but at home in Massapequa Park he left neighbors discomfident. So they paint a portrait in the New York Times of a man who was an architectural consultant,

worked with you some well known entities. His professional reputation was that he was very fastidious, almost over the top attention to detail, which some of his clients apparently appreciated, and some of them he was, you know, a sort of irritated them the level of attention to detail and obsessive focus that he had. But interestingly, his neighbors really had a very different feeling about him, and tried to

avoid him and gave him the creeps. For lack of a better term, one neighbor, mister Firshaw, said, I was not surprised at all when he was arrested because of all the creepiness. Mister Firchaw recounted several run ins with his neighbor, none pleasant. There was the time he said hello to him as he was cutting wood and mister Huerman responded by slightly silently glaring back between chops of

his splitting mall. Another neighbor who has lived in that neighborhood for ten years, has a friend who lives behind mister Huerman. Sometimes mister Schmidt would visit his buddy, have a few beers in the backyard, look out at the sagging Huerman house and say he probably has bodies there, so obviously giving off some really weird vibes. There was another instance where that same neighbor, mister Schmidt and his friend resolved to take their kids treating at his house

just to get a look inside. There was surprise when mister Human answered the door gave each child a small plastic pumpkin, But when they got home, mister Schmidt's wife was like there is no way in hell you're letting our children eat that candy based on who it came from, and threw it in the trash, made him throw it in the trash. It's also a weird incident where he stole oranges from a whole foods that were meant for kids.

So anyway, there was a really mixed picture of this guy, I guess consistent with the idea that he was really living and leaning two lives. He was married. He has one report I saw said one child, another said two children. His daughter worked with him at the architectural firm. He was arrested, you know, outside of that firm. But part of what makes this, you know, something that we wanted to go into here is that this case was basically

dead and this was horrific. We're talking about ten years ago, roughly more than ten years ago. They found four bodies. Then they started to really, you know, look more extensively, and they found remains of up to sixteen different people in this area near Gilgo Beach. Put the next piece up on the screen. But there was a huge corruption issue in the local among the local police officers, and

so they didn't want to work with the FBI. Because the head dude was actually under investigation by the FBI for corruption, for the fact that he beat up some suspect and then got everybody to cover it up and lie about it, etc. So he didn't want to work with the FBI, so he let the case drop, and so it didn't come back up and get close to any sort of conclusion until they brought in a new

police chief. There was also another element here where because the women who were brutally murdered and their bodies left in this area of the beach, they were mostly they were escorts on Craigslist, and they had moved to New York from other areas, and so they were seen as sort of like not that important and became not that high a priority for the people who were involved. So it was a really horrifying look at who people actually

care about and who they thought mattered. So snoopleice chief comes in decides because there's new technology related to DNA evidence that maybe she could have another crack at solving this case and being able to bring to justice this

Long Island serial killer. Also, this woman really had an understanding of how much even if the news is horrible and families find out that you know, yes this was my daughter and yes this was her killer, that that sort of revelation can at least bring some closure to the family. So she was really committed to that and ultimately is able to sort of break this case open.

Ye know, there was a pizza crust and DNA evidence that was involved and matching his truck with a truck that was seen at one of the scenes of the crime, and they were able to bring the alleged killer to justice.

the time, rather than having to go retrospect. It's not like DNA also didn't exist also, and then all you know, I always am I always am of two minds whenever I think about neighbors and witnesses and all this, because on the one hand, like I've got some weird neighbors.

who've got gun rooms. I guess they wouldn't let a lot of people into them, So you know, maybe that's what they were just willing to brush it off. But I think the fact that you had to bring in a new police chief after a decade to really just do some very basic leg work here is really an awful look for this area.

be discarded with. These were mothers, these were daughters. These were people who had hopes and dreams and aspirations and yeah, maybe struggling at that particular point in time in their life, but they were human beings who really mattered. So there's

there's that piece of it. There's the part of like who society cares about and who these police cared about to actually try to identify their killers and think about all these years that went by, like we don't know that this maniac, this bloodthirsty killer wasn't continuing to murder girls during this time. So there's also the piece of like, you could have saved lives if you had gone aggressively

after this and actually tried to close this case. Let me just tell you because that the other piece about that the corruption aspect of this really speaks to an abusive power and like a power trip piece too. So here's the details. They say that the former chief of the police department in Suffolk County who was the one that had the corruption issues. His name was James Burke, and he was the one who really sort of let this case drop because you didn't want to work with

the FBI. The reason was the Justice Department was investigating him for corruption. In late twenty twelve, a year after assuming control of the Suffolk Police, mister Burke assaulted a man who was being held for a parole violation. The parole whose name is Christopher Lobe, had been brought on suspicion that he had stolen a bag from the police chief's car that contained pornography and sex choys. Mister Burke then pressured detectives who saw him beat this man deny

that they saw the attack. Even the Suffa County District Attorney, Thomas Spoda, helped with that cover up. Eventually, both of them were convicted of conspiracy, and Suffolk County became notorious as one of the nation's most corrupt law enforcement jurisdictions. So the other piece of this is, you know, these these guys who felt like the rules didn't apply to them, They felt like they were the law. They thought that they could abuse their power and engage in a cover

up and get away with that. The fact that they had their own personal issues of corruption is part of why they did not aggressively look to, you know, to solve this case and just let it linger for years and years while vulnerable women continue to be at risk.

burns death. Valley May now notch a new record for the highest temperature ever reliably recorded, and Phoenix broke its daily record with a high temperature of one hundred and eighteen Now these record breaking temperatures are causing misery for the homeless and for outdoor workers in construction, package delivery, and farming. They are also exacerbating a problem that has

been many years in the making. Dwindling water supplies. High temperatures from climate change plus a long term drought also likely caused by climate change, are drying up rivers, groundwater, and reservoirs at an increased pace. In fact, this water crisis has gotten so dire that Arizona has decided to ban additional construction in certain Phoenix neighborhoods to try to

slow the depletion of this absolutely vital resource. Now, these Western water wars have been escalating in every state in that part of the country, and they often pit rural residents who need water for irrigation with growing urban centers. But in Arizona, a new foe and new battle lines are being drawn because, as the Washington Post reports, and as we've discussed here before, one of the main consumers of water in the state doesn't have urban or rural

Arizona roots, or even American roots at all. A giant agribusiness with ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Ira is guzzling up Arizona's water at a stunning clip. Here's the Washington Post quote. A mega drought has seared Arizona, stressing its rivers and reservoirs and reducing water to a trickle in the homes of farm workers near this desert valley. But greenfields of alfalfa stretch across thousands of acres of

the desert land, shimmering in the burning sunlight. Wells draw water from deep underground, turning the parched earth into verdant farmland. For nearly a decade, the state of Arizona has leased this world terrain west of Phoenix to a Saudi owned company, allowing it to pump all the water it needs to grow the alfalfa hey, a crop it exports to feed

the Kingdom's dairy cows. Now in their own home country, the Saudis have actually banned growing water intentsive crops like alfalfa in order to protect their own limited water resources, So in order to feed their cows, they've turned to Arizona, exploiting the state's water usage laws to suck up vast quantities of local groundwater, and for years they have faced next to no scrutiny, even nyeing Arizona's the ability to

know just how much water they are actually using. The company, Fondamante Arizona, aggressively lobbied the legislature and the governor, hiring key people with high level connections. One of their top lobbyists had served as finance chair for the Arizona Republican Party, and as if that wasn't enough, they put a former Republican member of Congress on their payroll as well. Now it made some sense to target Republicans first of all,

until quite recently the state was reliably read. Second of all, their pitch landed with free market conservative types who viewed water as part and parcel of the property rights of landowners, rather than as a public resource to be managed collectively. Perfect example of how companies and foreign governments have figured out how to use our own free market ideology against us. Now. The company also took advantage of the relative poverty of the county that their farm is in to attempt to

foster goodwill. They donated few thousand dollars the local high school for sports programs, pony up the cached by White paint needed for a local landmark purchased company branded face Mass for local distribution during the COVID pandemic. The patoes for them, but a big deal for a local community that was starved for funds. In this program of buying politicians and buying local goodwill, it worked for years, but as drought, heat, and scarcity had become urgent problems, the

company has come under some increasing scrutiny. Accordingly, the new Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, has signaled a tougher line. In assign of mounting pressure, the company was forced for the first time to reveal just how much water it is actually sucking up, and the number is pretty shocking. They announced they had used sixteen thousand, four hundred and fifteen acre feet of water in a single year. Now, from perspective, that's equivalent to the water usage of an entire city

of fifty thousand people. Just this one company. It's enough, as the Post put it, to cover twelve thousand, five hundred football fields with a foot of water again in a single year. And this did not go to feed, bathe or cool human beings. It went to feed cows in Saudi Arabia because that country has wisely decided to

conserve their own resources, while of course guzzling ours. Goes without saying that in a drought strictened state, this astonishing level of water usage is a threat local farmers and city dwellers are facing alike. In fact, it's already having major impacts locally, where wells are running dry and the very workers who tend those alfalfa fields have to whul buckets of water for showers and cooking. According to a proposal that the Post was able to get their hands on.

Governor Hombps is considering taking significant action, potentially even blocking Fondamante's land leases when they expire. It's not so easy to take on big business, so if she does, she should definitely be applauded. We need a whole mental shift, though, on how these questions are handled. How do we handle competing interests in a time of resource scarcity, what core interests need to be protected from the whims of the free market, and who should our economy and regulatory environment

actually be set up to serve. As our world warms and disasters become more common, more devastating, these questions are only going to become more difficult to resolve, and the stakes that much more catastrophic. Sager really fits with the conversation we had earlier about property owners insurance and how just and.

in the years to come. Basically, none of that is true anymore. You can think that Ukraine is important for your own reasons if you want, but here's the truth. Whether Kiev remains under Ukrainian hands or Russian hands has zero impact on our way of life. Ukraine in twenty nineteen was our sixty seventh largest trading partner. Russia was our twenty sixth. This isn't even to say that shouldn't help Ukraine. It is simply a truth though, that it

doesn't really matter that much to us. Same with Russia. It is only important because of its nuclear weapon status and oil reserves. And as we have all found out, we can effectively blockade the entire country and it will not change anything about the way that we do business here. So why are we spending some ninety percent of our foreign policy thinking and obsession over Ukraine and Russia. The answer is two. Part One is we share a long

cultural heritage with Europe. Many Americans are of European descent. Of course, our histories are long intertwined, going back to our founding.

the European continent. From NATO to the EU to the bilateral meetings that our President Biden spends all this time on.

they only getting even more so. As the Wall Street Journal Rights quote, Europe's current predicament predicament has been long in the making. An aging population with a preference for free time and job security over earnings has ushered in years of lackluster economic and productivity growth. Then came a one to two punch of the COVID nineteen pandemic and Russia's protracted war in Ukraine. It's actually very simple. They have huge welfare states, they don't make very many goods.

They also don't innovate very much. Most of their energy also came from Russia. Zoom ount and it's clear. The Eurozone economy grew six percent over the last fifteen years, the United States has grown by eighty two percent. Now, look, America's got a lot of problems, but ours mostly boils down to proper distribution of our riches rather than being

actually poor in the aggregate. As the journal so aptly puts it, quote, if the current trend continues, by twenty thirty five, the gap between economic output per capita in the US and EU will be as large as that between Japan and Ecuador today. I will take the action on that, considering the state of politics on the continent. Meanwhile, let's check in on the rest of the world. You

couldn't see a more different picture. A new demographic analysis shows that by twenty fifty, people above the age of sixty five and older will make up forty percent of the entire European population. For context, as Time notes, this is twice the current old population of Florida. It effectively will become a retirement colony, as will the major countries

in East Asia, including China, Japan, and South Korea. So who's actually growing now, As the chart shows, by twenty fifty, the countries with the largest working AIG shares of population will be South Africa, me and mar India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Pakistan, Kenya, Indonesia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. So basically South Africa, North Africa, Southeast Asia

and India. How much time do we spend thinking about our bilateral relationships with these countries the importance that they have to the current and the future of US economy and our way of life. Already it is clear the top ten trading partners of the United States in twenty twenty two, whereas follows Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, the UK, Taiwan, India, and Vietnam.

when that risk is existential to you. If you think of it like business, you would never allocate so much time, effort, and money towards a dying share of your business. You would look clearly at trends and you would allocate resources both for reality today and for the future. If we

do not change course soon, our future is obvious. We will end up like Europe, irrelevant to the affairs of the world, arrogant writing our cultural co tales from the past, and worst of all, vulnerable to the wants of whomever controls Asia. And you know, I was just thinking about a crystal in terms of you know, a lot of people misunderstand.

his degeneracy. And I was curious, you know, to get your perspective on this as a conservative woman kind of in our media sphere, and all of that as reaction, not to the interview itself, although maybe, but really Andrew Tate, some of the embrace that we've seen out there.

the problem is feminism. You need to take responsibility, you need to be strong, you need to work out all of these things.

you know, it's normal for fifteen sixteen. I mean, wait, it's the age of consent eighteen year old girls to come and work for me.

against her will via emotional cohersion. Well, he knows these two girls, they have TikTok emotional coersion convincing her. That's what I'm accused of, because they have no proof of me doing anything wrong.

vulnerability on the right. People are susceptible to kind of taking mental shortcuts, and so if he sort of signals some of the right things and then the people you hate seem to be against him, then that's enough of like a proof that he's actually on your side. Could you talk about, you know, where the some of the specific vulnerabilities are on the right, because I just have fewer insights, fewer sort of like intel into that world.

us cool. Maybe maybe it's not just the religious writer, maybe it's not just Christian conservatives who have the same ideas about feminism or masculinity or family or whatever as we do. So when we get like one comedian or one celebrity or one person who happens to express a kind of heterodox, almost conservative opinion, like, we get really excited about that, and we like, you.

only disagree with but vehemently oppose. And look, I'm a I'm a Christian conservative and so or a conservative Christian.

a man who was actually accused of human trafficking. And then the other thing that struck me is just a little bit of research. You see, he is just out and out lying about what the charges and the allegations against him are. And listen, he deserves stay in court. We'll see what evidence he brings to be beart et cetera. There are seven different victims whose text messages they have who you know, have spoken to the prosecution about the coercion that was used. He is. There is physical violence

that is alleged. There is rape that is alleged. There's you know, creating fake debts and keeping these women basically in hawk to him and to his brother that is alleged. So even just the you know, the basics of what he was spinning Tucker on are out and out false.

I think most conservatives probably agree that Andrew Tait is a degenerate that shouldn't be voiced up as a hero.