Get ready.
December tenth, twenty twenty five.
Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this the show is live and we're not doing too many live ones this week due to me trying to get back into the swing of things. But don't worry, we will return to full schedule. And while we do have this downtime, let's get to high quality. Who do I mean, Larry Hancock author? You know, author I don't even know?
Extored and air would that be the right word? Every single book.
That Larry has released on my shelf and now I even got the update that someone would have talked, which I didn't have in my collection for a while, but I picked that up recently. And I am looking forward to an addendum to the Oswald Puzzle coming uh sometime in January recording to Amazon, I guess.
But pre orders are available now.
Okay, so we may have a little bit of a sound issue where things are gonna come a little up, a little down. Hopefully I will equalize it during the discussion. But larrydashhandcock dot com is the way to go if you want to keep track of what Larry's blogging about, et cetera, et cetera. And oh, by the way, you might think I'm gonna talk Oswald here, or maybe we'll talk Christmas and the Christmas spirit. No, we're actually gonna talk current events in a way, but also give you
a little history as we do. And why well that might be because of that word context.
Larry. First of all, how you doing tonight?
I'm doing fine, Chuck. I'm actually we have Christmas decorations up and kind of ahead of schedule, so I feel better than usual.
We're going forward with Christmas.
Ah, So your Christmas was not canceled, that's for sure, and I'm.
Glad to hear it.
But look, there is a lot going on in the international politics currently, and usually you and I talk about historical stuff, but we need to frame some history around something that's happening now. Look, I haven't said much about the drug boats and all this other stuff because you know, I've been out of commission.
For a bit.
But frankly, I've got a lot to say because I see a much larger program going on here than the outrage media or the you know, raw raw cheerleader media is doing on the right or the left. It looks to me like something much larger is being implemented and activated right before our eyes, and I think people are
missing some of the boats skews the pun. You know, Larry, you have an idea about some of these things because of your expertise and knowing how the national security state functions, having an understanding at least in the basic sets of how the military functions. But we are in kind of a new age, which means things might be multifaceted and universally directional when it comes to implementing these things.
Right, So what are we talking about tonight?
What we're talking about as an announcement that just came on the wires a couple of hours ago, which is the fact that the United States seized a very large oil tanker off Venezuela. And my first reaction of that was good, gracious, we've dropped back seventy plus years and we're back to you know, President Eisenhower ordering a baid, you know, and yeah, this sort of thing has happened before.
As you say, though, check the context is it's different when when President Eisenhower did to watch regime change against the Arbens regime, you know, it was a it was a popularly elected president. Uh, the country was internally pretty stable. It was populist, it was socialist leading, and we didn't really like their politics.
You know.
It was just part of the US against communist expansion thing and that, and that's what it was.
It's real straightforward. And and Eisenhower ordered two things.
He ordered military intervention to the extent of putting a block aid.
Right, okay, Larry, Larry, we're having a little trouble with the teams. Hold on a second, Larry, you know, Larry, right, Oh boy.
We're having a little I'm still here testing.
We're having a little trouble with the team's connection. So you know what, I'm going to take a break here and bring us into another venue. I'm gonna give you a link and we'll go to another venue to talk because teams is breaking down. It sounded good before we went to air, but now it's breaking down pretty bad.
So I want to make sure people get this. And we got to rewind now and go back to the context of Eisenhower and what he did and how we might judge it differently when we return, Larry, and I'll get you at link and you guys listening, if you're hearing it live or on podcast.
I'm gonna leave this intact anyway. You just hang out.
I'll get you at LAK all right, I'll look for the link. There you go, and you guys listening, hold on. I'll play a couple of spots and fix this up so we can hear what Larry's saying. I hate this team's I really do.
Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Con what do the effect.
Spoken revelation through conversation on the time foot pop life So show effect revelation the fasba A devastation.
Revelation through conversational effect.
You are the effects.
Conversation all lace demonstrator ll sell the fact revelasten conversation through season through conversion, or shall effect revelation con the fation gone had forgotten?
What show you a fact beyond the place of that? And fears are safe?
The minutes of years find that shall find me unafraid, And there's not a brain.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times, and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information the Warstate dot Com.
Now continuing with Larry Hancock, as he began to explain, there is some context the history with Eisenhower and what he did versus what we're looking at today.
Now.
I mentioned the boats and all that, and everybody's focused on the drugs and is there drugs?
Is there not?
Are they mules? Are they traffickers? Are they coming near the shore? But that's not what we're talking about here. And yeah, you were talking about Eisenhower and his actions and the things that occurred in some of the Central and South American countries. That's as far as I got and then things broke up, So Larry please continue.
Yeah, I think you have to step back and say, there are two things that are being talked about in the news today. One is the president keeps talking about he wants regime change, which is is a very outspoken statement. You know, you weren't going to find that back in the fifties or sixties. The president is not going to constantly go to the media and say I want to change you know, the elected government in another country. We just didn't used to do that. Different nowadays, he's saying
that almost every day. In terms of he wants to outstay president.
Diplomatic.
You know, you can argue whether he's elected correctly or not collected, but he's his position is the US is now has the assumed the authority of the president being literally able to say I want to change the foreign government.
That's very different.
Eisenhower would not have said that. Now. That doesn't mean Eisenhower would not have tried to do that, which he did do repeatedly. And Chuckie and I both know that's what shadow warfare is all about. So it's not that we didn't do regime change or attempt regime change before.
We were just not kind of like in your face about regime change.
Well, right, it was part of the strategy.
Well, Larry, hang on a second, it was part of the strategy at one point to keep it hidden or to keep it keep the public guessing, so to speak, wall guess what the secret agenda would be implemented, regardless of what the President said, regardless of what the Congress said,
regardless of what was on the surface. This is almost, I dare say a little more of an honest approach, where it's like there is no mystery about the current administration and what regimes they are supporting, and what regimes they'd like to see changed.
They seem pretty upfront about it. But then again, could that be a.
You know, a double reversal strategy, right where you pretend to support somebody and at some point you pull the rug out. Anyway, it's keeping everybody guessing. It's almost like, I don't know, the reboot of the Nixon madman theory, what will you do next? We're not sure regardless of what he says. And that's what it really came down to. Well, that and the terror bombing of Cambodia and et cetera.
But you know, put that aside because we're back to talking about the stuff that Eisenhower was definitely involved in. So yeah, please proceed, But it's the public face versus what we would have done anyway. Yeah, it really hasn't changed in my mind, it's just a matter of what we're being told has changed.
Am I wrong about that?
Yeah, it's a style change plus I guess the other thing is it's a style change plus it. You know, basically it is riskier in a sense because you are risking the people that you're going to send out to do it, because you telegraphed your intention.
Before, there was some caution. You know, it's like orational sory.
I don't risk people by telling the guys what I'm going to do to them in advance, you know. And and when the President Trump says we're going to do ground strikes, you know immediately, well, you've got to understand that folks that you're going to do ground strikes against are going to watch for coming and you may lose more people because of that. So part of it, part of its style, part of it is being in your
face about what you're going to do. But there's certainly there was a little more President and Ra was concerned about things like operational security. President Trump obviously doesn't understand it or is not concerned about it. So there's there's a difference in style, but there's also a difference in method The other big difference is rained. Then Trump is, well, I just blockade.
Okay, hang on a second, on a second, I missed the difference in the methodology there. I know you're bringing up the blockade here, and that is a difference in methodology aside from the covert actions that took place before. But yeah, give us another run at that difference in methodology.
Please, Well, I've got to get through about three steps of it.
And the point the methodology that Eisenower used is, first, he did use military force. He set up a blockade up around Guatemala and actually stopped everybody ships, allies, adversaries, because the pretext for the blockade was to prevent Soviet block weapons going to the country. I mean, that was straightforward and actually in that sense was much more comprehensive than what President Trump is doing because he was actually seizing ship, holding them, searching them, and letting them go.
But it applied to everybody. You know, he was It wasn't sinking anybody's ships. Yeah, you know, he was blockading them. Did one get sunk, that's another story. That's an accident, you know, row CIA officer, whatever. But you know, there was no over violence involved at that point in time.
After that, it all became covert and it was all CIA regime change surrogates psychological war And by the way, psychological warfare implies that you're not being in your face, I would say from one of the things that you just said, you can't really you can do. Book threatening is not psychological warfare, you know, telling telling Maduro that you know, we're ousting your regime.
That's not that's just, you know, just just a threat.
That's not the way you do psychological warfare with the popular and actually it's one hundred and eighty degrees away from the way you do real psychological warfare. But the third step to this is that President Trump has a series of tools that he can use legally that Iceinower actually did not have. Iceinower would have required going to Congress and getting certain authorities to do what President Trump
is doing right now. And this all goes back to the military authorizations that were passed by Congress after the nine to eleven attacks. And basically this set of authorizations allows the president to use military force at his command only with no authorization, no permission, against anybody he declares is supporting terrorist activities. Okay, now, now step back a step. He's been accusing the Venezuelans of narco terrorism. That's not
really what that legislation was passed to address. It was addressed to, you know, it was addressed to go specifically against al Qaeda Iran, those folks that were were getting money and providing support to attacks that could go against the US physical attacks, not drugs. Okay, what was the most interesting thing I saw today was the fact that he is literally using those same authorities to seize a tanker that is owned by a Russian oligarch, part of
Russia's shadow fleet. But it's not really Russia's shadow fleet. It's Russian oligarch's shadow fleets that they used to ship Russian oil Venezuelan oil and do this kind of under the table without regulation. So and the reason this ship itself is sanctioned today was because it was listed back in twenty twenty two as being used to carry oil that was sold to generate funds for Iran, and since Iran is on the terror list, the authorities allow the
president to do that. It's just something that would have been impossible back in the Eesnower administration. Those authorities weren't there. And the fascinating thing is it literally has nothing to do with Venezuela except Venezuela and oil. And so the way I'm reading it at present is we're using the authorities anti terrorist authorities to sanction that oil and we're going to take it. And the President says, we're just claiming it. It's now ours we seized it on the
high seas because it's sanctioned. And the fascinating thing about that is we could you could apply those He can apply those same authorities wherever he wants to. He's choosing to do it against Venezuela to put more pressure on Venezuela. But in essence, it was not Venezuela. A's all oil.
It had been sold. We don't know if it was really going to Iran.
We don't know if it was going to China, who's the big consumer of the oil. We don't know. I mean, they may know. The public doesn't know at this point. But it's kind of a fascinating ramp up of the authorities that and it's going back to these same authorities that are now it's twenty twenty five. These were passed fifteen years ago, more than fifteen years ago, to use them in an.
Entirely different context.
But one of the things we have to do is Congress has never stepped back to address any of those authorities. And this is part of the evolving a crule of military power to the presidency, where the president is the sole person to make the decision on those authorities and Congress is completely out of the picture. We ran into
this situation in Vietnam alluded to that earlier check. Eventually Congress had to take it back and really revoke an authorization that had been given to Johnson, and they took it back from Nixon. But it just kind of shows you how the system can look the same but not be the same. But it's like it keeps going back to this overtime. It's constant.
This cons a struggle.
Well, I have a question here because based on what you're saying, right, isn't there a ninety day limits on these types of operations? Like isn't there some sort of limitation where at a certain point the president, even though he has the full authority to do XYZ, can only do it so long before having to go back to Congress and saying, either extend my authority or you have to sign off on this for me to continue with this action.
Or am I reading that wrong.
There was a point in time, back during the quote unquote War on Terror where that was true that he was supposed to have to go He could he could conduct a kind of emergency action today, but within a set period of time he had to go back and report to at least the oversight committees and Congress had to agree that that was the right thing to do. Okay, at least it went back to them, he had to report to them. There was some oversight, still unclear into my I mean, you can't take it back. I mean,
that's the thing. If you exercise this and you wait ninety days and Congress says we don't agree with that, it's done, you know, and they can do another one whenever they want to do another one. So there was some oversight, but in terms of anything meaningful, that was more on the nature of requiring the president to explain his action right, not empowering them, you know, to do it, and they could not say, don't do this again.
It was oversight, It wasn't control.
So oversight after the fact as opposed to the ability to see because I've seen some other people analyzing this saying, at some point he's going to have to go to Congress, but it is unclear to me what he has to do there.
And what you're saying is.
What it effectively is is Okay, here's the oversight, and they can criticize it afterwards, but what's done is done, and there is nothing stopping him from saying, Okay, I got another emergency, and therefore I have to take another action, and the process begins again, and within ninety days Congress has to deal with it with the oversight committees again.
And I saw this set and I said to myself, you know, something doesn't make sense here, But okay, the way you're explaining it also doesn't make practical sense in my mind. But at the same time, this is the way things are. I get it, Okay, I wanted to Yeah, thank you for clearing that up.
This is the Trump approach. It's it's pragmatic in a way. I think there are two statements there that are both equally true. Trump has literally declared war against Venezuela, right, and it's threatened to send troops into Venezuela, you know,
threatened military action. I think what what people are saying is if that really you know, no, he doesn't have the authority to declare war on his own, and he would have to go to Congress and and he would have to sell this, oh, it's really war because they're drug running is causing tens of thousands.
Of casual he'd have to sell it.
So I think that's what those folks are saying, because he's been talking that way, you know, like we want regime change, and if we don't have regime change, you're a threat and we're going to war, We're gonna military action. What happened today is totally different, and that's the fascinating thing about it. It is very cunning in a way because this has nothing to this wasn't military action against Venezuela.
Involves Venezuela and oil, right And in a sense, it's doing what the the Ukraine is doing to the Russian uh you know black oil fleet uh by by sinking their ships. You know, they're shaking these these ghost ships. Basically, nobody's gonna want to risk one of those vocal oil characters. They're not going to get insurance. So this is a way of reverse pressure on a Venezuela by doing the same thing to venezuel Wala, who's really going to want to carry Venezuelan oil if we're going to play this
sanction card on all the shipments that go out. On the other hand, what if China, who is probably the biggest the US and China are the biggest consumers of venezuzuel and crude. So what if China starts sailing Chinese flags vessels into Venezuela? Going to do that to China?
I doubt it.
What about the US companies that are buying Venezuelan and oil? What are they going to It's it's so, it's it's two different ones. We're talking about oversight in terms of declaring war and military action.
The other this is an anti terrorist action.
Because I was I was somewhat confused by who released the footage, and it's sort of like, oh no, it's not a Department of Defense, it's a Department of war. Whatever this is I mean out of the the part of the government that enforces sanctions.
So it's different game, right, Okay, So it's difficult to sort out because the public outcry does not match the facts, to be honest with you, And that's what keeps going on here regarding all of this, and this is all intermingled, but quite frankly, it's actually separate things going on. And this idea with the oil, I mean, one does wonder though, what do you think the benefit is here in the strategy?
I mean free oil?
What you know, are we going to just be able to do this it will you know, how long is the Russian flag ship's going to put up with it before something is done?
You know, I got a lot of questions, what about you?
Yeah.
One of the fascinating things here is again and that's why I was confused at the very beginning, because I saw this news story. It says Attorney General Pam post a forty five second video of the operation on the freighter. Point why in the heck is the United States Attorney General posting footage of a military helicopter line dropping troops and you know what, right, But that's because it's being approached as a as a legal it's seizure of assets.
Right.
It's just you know, a little more dramatic than having you know, the FBI walk into an office and sees company records or whatever. This is the Attorney general. W it's a little scary using armed forces to enforce legal sanctions.
That's the confusing part. Yeah, that's the confusing part about the headlines though, Larry, because look, you have drug interdiction okay being run through the same type of offices here, right, and it's about homeland security now, so that's another issue, and you know they're not just seating, but they're not seizing the boats.
They're just blowing them up.
So I'm going, well, it looks like a military you know, it looks like a duck walks like a duck. It seems like a military action, but it is a military action in you know, operation, but it's not being run by the military. Is basically like in other words, this old thing with Pete Hegseth.
You know, cheering it on and all.
He's not the one who's making the decision then, because if it's about interdiction, right and the legal process for putting a stop to something that's damaging, then that's not his venue, right, I mean, that's not under his control.
Sorry, it is, Chuck, because they're doing both at the same time. As far as those boats are concerned. That's that didn't you know, the Attorney General didn't declare war on drugs. You know that basically, we're we're taking there, we're doing interduction out of the Department of Defense. And I'm still gonna call it that because that's what it is. We're doing military action as if those were I mean, the line that's being given is each one of those.
And I think the President said this, you know, each one of those boats carries enough drugs to kill twenty five thousand Americans. So it's the same as if we if we saw, you know, a guided missile coming to the United States. It's the same as if we saw, uh, you know, a hijacked aircraft coming to the United States. We have the military authority and homeland you know, Homeland Defense to shoot it down, to kill it, to eliminate that threat. So the boats are being covered as a
Department of Defense action. We're defending the homeland those little boats. This is a totally different type of operation and they're happening at the same time, which is going to confuse everybody.
And of course the President is not going to describe it that way.
No, that way the people who.
For him do. No, he can't describe it that way. And here's why, Larry.
Look, there is if you were talking about a guided missile, you could say, based on its trajectory it was on its way here, you could say that we have a sufficient amount of confidence that it was going to be used against us.
The fact is that even if.
There are drugs on these boats, which by the way, I haven't seen proven publicly. But let's just say there were drugs on those boats, how.
Do you even know that was going to be delivered to the United States?
Because as far as I know, we don't have a grand history of this coming from that country, Venezuela.
So where is your you know what I'm saying, where's your proof on that?
Not you?
But what I'm saying is, if you wanted to treat it as a weapon being deployed against us, how do we know it's being deployed against us and not some other nation, in which case it's not our problem.
You know, That's all I'm asking.
Yeah, got Historically, historically there's president for this.
Okay.
Historically what would have done was the president would have had done a briefing or Congress. Now it might just have been the committees. It might have just been done in a skiff. But it's the same thing that we did on a rank. Okay, And I had to offer that up, the same thing we did on a RAQ.
You know, a RAQ.
We have a briefing and somebody goes in and does a very nice briefing that says, okay, a Saddam Hustin is building these chemical factories weapons of mass destructions. Here's the proof of it.
Not later we learned none of that was true.
But okay, but you go in and you do a briefing and you offer your evidence, and the Congress of the United States supports you or doesn't, and generally it would. But it shows that at least that you have an obligation to the people's representatives to engage them and involve them. That's not being done at all. That could have been done, and actually it could have been. What boggles my mind is considering the majorities in play and everything, it would
have been easy to do. You can do it forty five minutes, you can get Congress to authorize it, and you're good. And it's it's fascinating to me that the President doesn't even feel the need to go through the I won't say, you know, go through the process, involve Congress.
Well, I don't blame him at this point, because when has the Republican controlled Congress fought him on anything?
So you know, he's got a reasonable and that would yeah, afternoon.
Yeah, I'm just saying it's a reasonable assumption on his part that I don't need their approval because they're going to give it to me anyway.
So you know, yeah, I agree.
Okay, you know, so I at you know, here here.
Is me not even thinking that Trump is doing something wrong. He's doing something practical and cutting out a middleman of anything.
Uh, you know. But it's just it's a little confusing to me.
Because again I would say that, you know, you'd have to show before you do something like this, but I have I have these things a little backwards apparently.
You know.
And that's the thing that that history keeps teaching me is that, you know, the the good government in the textbook approach is not necessarily what it is we're looking at here, because this is pretty this is pretty rough, and this can get even darker and more twisted as we go on. And also, you know what about angering those Russian oligarchs, you know, and getting that whole thing started up again? Are we looking at a problem with Russia in the near future or whoever that oil was intended for?
If we're seizing it, you know what do you think there?
Certainly one of the things that's going to happen is and it's of course, the price of oil has been going down this afternoon after this was hit the news. It's starting to go back up because obviously, you know, nobody knows what is there's no stability, nobody knows what's going to happen next. I would say Putin, regardless of the oligarchs, will be quite happy.
But about this, this is, this is.
Entirely in line with Putin's agenda because it will increase the sensitivities and the nervousness about oil supplies and it'll boost prices again.
Which he desperately needs.
So if anybody's happy about this afternoon, it's probably mister Putin.
There you go.
So what else do we need to understand about this?
Because, like I said, these headlines are coming fast and furious.
But I'm telling you that the regular media is.
Doing a bad job explaining this because I mean I've tried to sample it across the spectrum, so to speak, and it's just you know, they're off on their own tangency or not putting it all together, so you know, they're not understanding. And this is always the problem, by the way, with reporting on you know, political actions in
real time. They get this very narrow point of view going about what's happening, and then they don't explain, well, you know, that's going to actually cause these connected things to start to occur or to become activated, or to become an issue.
They never do that.
It's always this where laser focused on this one problem and they oversimplify it. They don't understand that, you know, this is going to affect other things. Ever, you know, with their outrage or their support, it doesn't matter. It's always this very narrow vision, very much a tunnel vision media that we're dealing with when they're reporting.
On these things, even Larry, So, I mean, what do we do about that here?
Because obviously you're looking at this from a much broader perspective than your average you know, media analyst or talking head they're bringing on. I mean, I haven't looked at CNN lately, but I'm sure Spider's up there already. You know, if he's still alive, I don't even know. But you know, the different generals former this guy, former that guy. What do you see, sir? And then you know, and they're
doing their narrow, narrow minded approach. So you know, what, what are we to learn about this and to put together for ourselves if we want to be you know, ahead of the curve, so to speak, and understand the actual implications of this to fall out the intended consequences and unintended consequences, Cause these things do not happen in a vacuum, none of them do.
So you know, I don't know. I probably sound like I'm rambling, Larry, I'm sorry, but I mean.
That's where it's at though, because I'm frustrated. It's like, Okay, you gave me your narrow point of view, I get it. What about the fact that you just mentioned, you know, four nations and one shot that all have different agendas that might be interlocked on this one point.
But this is going to affect more then.
You know, somebody's not going to get paid with this oil seizure, right, somebody's missing money now who laid out money in order to Okay, So just that alone, somebody's going to want some of their money back, you know what I mean. And some nation is going to suffer for this, So they're going to have a change in attitude or trade or whatever with us. Things are going to start to happen here that aren't going to seem connected because they're not showing us any of the connections
in their analysis. So what do you say to that, I mean, do you see where this is going.
Yes, what would what would help is if they did something very simple like made up a list of you know, six parties that are going to be who's impacted by this, and that's not unusual news. It's sort of like, what is what is the impact of this action? You know, how is China going to react? How's Russia going to react? And literally kind of bulleted out and show that there will be different impacts on different people. What they're the
media is talking about. And I think Trump is happy about this is he's putting it all in the context of Maduro in Venezuela, right and basically presenting the fact that I'm putting all these pieces to pressure him into leaving Venezuela and regime change. So and and I'm even there was a story Yesterday's saying and by the way, here's the plan for how essentially the US is going to take over and control of Venezuela, which isn't healthy, and he telegraphed it. You know, maybe you even have
a plan. But it's sort of like, oh, lord, how are we going to cope with the refusees? How are we going to do this? And that it is all of these things are coming out as if it's an organized strategy, where it's anything but an organized strategy. It's and he loves chaos, and sometimes chaos.
Does work for you.
So, but what is not coming out? And I've seen only a couple of places. How does this really play in Venezuela? You know?
Was there an opposition party to Maduro in Venezuela? Yes?
Should there be?
Yes?
Is he a dictator?
Yes?
You know, but how is this going to play inside Venezuela?
Who are who are the powers in Venezuela?
Are they going to be able to leverage this?
Not leverage this? One of the interesting things is when you compare this with regime change in UH, the earlier programs that I was talking about with the events over show in Guatemala. Compare Venezuela with Guatemala, and it would be fascinating to see the major differences. The Guatemalan regime was democratically elected, it was popularly supported. The only people that objected to it were a few rebellious army officers and the United States, And from that context it was
somewhat easy to ast him. It was you know, really the leverage was on our side, As I understand it. In Venezuela, Maduro has a very much stronger position.
It's kind of like Putin in Russia.
You know, he has authoritarian control over the media, he has his own military forces. The military is not going to defect from him.
He's if I.
Believe the story, he's heavily support worded by the drug lords who have their own forces. And if I object to this, you know, he may They'll probably take me out first. So he has a much stronger internal base. Plus, literally, he has the biggest crude oil supply of heavy crude in the world. Now, unless he is intrinsically stupid, somebody is going to want to do a deal for that oil, and somebody is going to get it. And you know what, if China wants it, China is going to get it.
And Trump is not going to stop chying. So this this all sounds good on a short term and when you put it through, it all against the wall. Right now, boy, we're really implying a tense of pressure against Venezuela. The question I'd like to see the media address is is that really true. That's the way it looks from out here, What does it look like from inside Venezuela. And I got to tell you that, you know, seizing Venezuela and oil if Maduro was claiming that we were looking like
a bunch of colonial colonials. Again, you know, the US wants to just seize Latin American resources. Uh, we're certainly feeding that agenda.
Yeah, point taking you know. Okay, So yes, we did sees it.
There's no denying it. See it's sees the boat.
Yeah, I mean we.
Sees the oil wells.
You know.
Yeah, I mean what comes next?
There you go?
And is the threat of what what is next? Really the strategy?
So this is kind of a new way of doing something, but using a lot of old tools seems like to me. And look, I I hate to do this, but I know it's not Trump who came up with this, but his people did. And this is a multifaceted approach to dealing with a few different issues in one shot. And uh, and in one program that's difficult to suss out what's happening, which kind of makes sense. It's almost it's another form of the plausible deniability from before, right where you know, yeah,
try and sort this out. And they can't because again, like I said, I think media everywhere does a very narrow sort of you know, they have to narrow things down in order to explain this, so they don't have time to explain it all. They don't have the wherewithal to explain the the you know, consequences of it, whether intended or unintended. So therefore these things are going to be said and done before anybody actually explains what happened. That's the way I'm seeing it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you gressed.
I think you grabbed one part of that right. This just raw gass on my part. Okay, My raw guess is that he went out to all his major you know, department heads and just literally said, talk to your people, and what can your organization, what can justice, what can
homeland or what can do in you guys? Tell me what each one of you can do to make life hard for the Venezuelans and maybe to the CIA, although at this point in time, Lord, the last people that would be able to operate inside you know, Venezuela would be the CIA. But I suspect he just went out and did a shopping list and he's doing it all and that's you know, maybe there is something to be said for Kathos theory, but it depends on Maduro. See,
the interesting thing was when you compare the two. In Guatemala, our Bentz literally was not a fighter. He was a progressive, populist, democratic elected. You know, he didn't get there because he led a military force and he had a private military force.
Maduro's a different guy.
He's tough, so I don't certainly you're not going to break him the way they did our bents. You know, is there something in this that may break him or does it just make him? Does it make him more dictatorial? Does it make him you know, I don't know, but.
Certainly their opportunities I'll be faceted.
Right now, he's literally gone and claimed that the US is pirates.
So I think one of the things that he will be doing is up to now, he has actually.
Been rejected by most of the Latin American leaders because he is a bad guy, no doubt about that.
But it's going to be hard for them, harder and harder the more.
We do things like this to totally reject his You know, they're playing the old colonial game again, guys that first they're coming after me, next they'll come after you, right and for.
That matter, Trump's new are the New US New US.
Strategic Policy that was published this week literally says that we don't care about the rest of the world, but we're really interested in all of the Americas.
Right, So I guess that's a good way to sort of almost tie a bow around this whole thing as we go forward. Hopefully you'll send me a couple of links though I can accrue with the show notes because you referenced a couple of articles and reports here. But even if you don't, I mean, it's it's one way
to observe it, even if you're digging into this. I mean, I don't even know that this is at the top of the headlines at this point, but probably not because the latest epsteam email gets it, you know, all the time and whatnot.
But yeah, check for real time. Don't look at CNN. They're doing a terrible job right at the moment.
CBS really is doing the best news real time and death reporting what I was saying, And I'll send you the links.
Okay, great, look, I'll look at it and definitely include it with the show notes. But I mean, is there anything else we need to understand about this before I close out with you for this very interesting way discussion, which I'm really grateful that you went into it with me, because I'm telling you, I'm having trouble with clarity on this mess, you know, because it's just I do see the narrow points and I'm having trouble stitching them together.
Still, even with what you explained, I still have a little trouble understanding how it is that.
You know, it almost looks like they're they're not worried about what come, you know, like we'll deal with tomorrow when tomorrow comes, and we're going to deal with this this way today. It seems like a very short sighted kind of strategy to me, But maybe I'm wrong.
I mean, I'm willing to.
Admit that, you know, something new would be something new, and maybe this is something new, but I'm seeing a lot of the old toys and tools being implemented here. So, you know, makes me worry a little bit about our actual security in case we do actually anger some other nation in this process who might get serious about it real quick.
You know.
I think a couple of things to watch, just this last reminder, look at who's Trump announces everything on true social so it's not like you had any organized mechanism at the White House anymore to consolidate the news and put it together.
And you know that just doesn't exist.
So you're gonna hear things from him directly from whatever his view. I think point is to look, now he's got two senior leaders, you know, Secretary of Defense and Justice, right who are have tools that they can you know, Justice has nolitary force at its disposal now like.
It's never had before.
And so you have Bondie Hexpeth both look at who's what announcement. One of the questions you have to ask are they in competition with each other? Are they coordinating? Or are they just running a game? And the end interesting player that's not in any of this. We have like a Secretary of State, you know, Rubio, who's not even this game.
Yeah, do we even have a statemow.
But keep your eyes on, you know, between Bondi and Hasbeth because they're running things specification and look.
At the way they're describing what they're doing to try to separate it right.
Fair enough, So look go over to Larry dash Hancock dot com, which is where and I'll give you a link in the show notes where you can keep track. I'm sure you'll you'll be blogging on this somewhat in the next few days, right.
Oh yeah, absolutely right, So keep track of it over there, guys.
But I'm telling you it to me, it's very confusing still, and I you know, with whole judgment on some things, but man, oh man, you know, when it looks it's like a certain thing, maybe it is a certain thing. But keep track of what Larry's got to say, because it's giving me a different idea about it, and hopefully it's given you guys something else to think about outside of the very narrow minded stuff we're seeing out of
most reporting. Although Larry says CBS is doing a good job, so I got to go check that out too, and see I'm a little surprised. But then again, you know, they've also changed up their management all over there, so who knows. Maybe Ellison's good for CBS, huh or whatever mega corporation that's going to become when they merge all together with Netflix and everything.
But stay tuned for that too. You never know.
Anyway, the Ocelli effect has done Larry Hancock the author, and next time we'll probably talk about something slightly more conventional unless the news dictates otherwise, and if not, hey, you get definitely got something different here tonight, and hopefully we all learn something together.
I'm ocelly, you are the effect going to Chuck o'celly.
You're shark Orchelle, you know it's Shark Shelley.
You are about to embark upon the great crusades.
The eyes of the world are upon you, the hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with him, in company with our brave allies and brothers in arms on other front.
Your task will not see an easy one.
Your enemy is well trained, well equipped, and battle heartened. He will fight savage man demand the tide has turned.
The free men of the world.
Are marching together to victory. Good luck, and let us all be seeking the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.