Get ready.
And so the fourth day, if you will, of September twenty twenty five, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. This is the Ocelly effect. So I'm coming back for a part two broadcast, and we're not going to discuss what I talked about in the first part, although I'll try and release both podcasts simultaneously later on tonight.
This is more of something that somebody did actually request was a supporter of the show, and I once again want to thank Jimmy James, and our friend Danny, and our friend Chris and b Pete and a few other people who actually do support what it is I do, whether they agree with me or not, which I find extremely ethical on their part because they might find some value in some of the analysis I do that gets them to consider maybe something outside of their comfort zone.
Not too much, because remember it's America, and I know most of you don't want to hear these issues or the news or an actual analysis because the prefabricated, preconceived prescription that is given to you by the various corporate entities and the allegedly independent that are well backed, well broadcast, well produced, and all that are much easier to consume because they are designed for your already conditioned palate to accept. Anyway,
onto it. Let's look at the news from the past week to ten days, and why because I haven't done a news show and it's time to examine a few things. Like, if you're keeping score at home, there was a robin with no batman. That's right, one of one of the many many mass shootings that occurs in America. And I don't even want to dive too deeply into it because it is literally a weaponized grab bag now, a real incident.
I don't say it's fabricated. I'm not a Sandy Hooker, I'm not aj but I am going to tell you that these things are also useful to the propaganda generators out there. And if you don't know that, I look, I don't know what to tell you. Welcome to planet Earth. I mean, you know the initial reaction special report Minnesota
school shooter had a video manifesto and acted alone. They had that out within hours before any ethical, ethical examination investigation could have been conducted regarding these things, right, the inunction shooter, the nunciation shooter, whatever, new video, but it shows the annunciations school shooter at a gun shop days
before the attack. They had, you know, within a few days they had video of the guy, which, by the way, they were allegedly a trans shooter who revealed in his journal that he was quote tired of being trans and wished to quote never brainwashed himself. Use your own judgment as to what this sounds like the school shooter's Nazi salutes and quote erratic and quote behavior revealed by an
ex friend. Of course, they go to the ex friends and the neighbors and such, and he was a quiet boy, and he was a quiet person, and all that did Robin Westman's transition in quote drugs fuel the minus Minneapolis shooting. RFK Junior blames antidepressants pro runder way SSRIs changing brain chemistry. Indeed, they do change behave. Whether you want to accept that or not, that's up to you. But that's sort of
the premise under which they're sold to us. Anyway, what are we looking at at the end of the day. Robin Westman, the Minnesota shooter, posted manifesto video on YouTube. Footage surfaces online, and I'm going to give you the links to all these stories that follow through on a great many of these things. But what did I want
to do. I wanted to dig a little deeper and take a look at the context and why this grab bag of strange where the left and the right could easily adapt this entire scenario and this tragedy to guess what they're talking points one way or another. It is a one size fits all for the left right paradigm. You now have a white male from some people's perspective
that shot up another place. Yawn, of course, and God, and now we'll talk about the type of gun, and we'll talk about the fact that this person had a problem and this was immediately in the immediate aftermath, within minutes, being described by the media as a hate crime against Catholics. Is it a hate crime against Catholics or is it a personal vendetta? And what is the difference? Again, if you're keeping score at home, this whole circumstance is revolting, disgusting,
and something that should have never happened. Absolutely, And if you have any other viewpoint on that, then you probably need to shut this off now, because if you feel it's justified for children to be murdered, or you think it's good for the Catholic Church, to be attacked, even if you hate the Catholic Church, and even if it was filled with pedophile priests, it's not something that could be justified or excused or understood because they're trands and
they're confused, and they were persecuted by the Catholics. Or maybe it's because they were trans They were already a dehumanizing factor. They were already problematic because they were twisted individual twisted by the left ideology that made them identify, you know, from going from Robert to Robin, like I say, Robin, no batman. But what is the real story here and
what is the context? Why is this being amplified? Well, I'll tell you why because as I go and I collect the data about mass shootings just in twenty twenty five as of September. First, let me tell you a little something about American mass shootings. There have already been three hundred and forty eight, clearly making it easy for us to surpass more than one per day. So at least once a day there is a mass shooting event.
What is a mass shooting event? A circumstance where a shooter goes into an area with a population in it and kills what at least two people or one people and wounds at least three others something like that. These are loose definitions, but either way, if you have at least one fatality and a handful of casualties, injuries, etc. Caused by the shooter or by the circumstance of the shooting, you have a mass shooting. By the numbers, this is what exists. Three hundred and forty eight of them have
occurred from January one to September one. We're looking at shootings per day. The average as it stands in America, just the United States one point four to one per day, so close to one and a half, but not quite. The amount of people killed in these mass shootings thus
far has been relatively low. Three hundred and ninety six for three hundred and forty eight, for just a little more than one per mass shooting has been killed in each mass shooting, however, fourteen and forty eight were wounded according to statistics, and who knows how many have been traumatized. But here's another echo that nobody seems to be able to wrap their minds around or quantify into a statistical number how many people have been traumatized or steered by
this politically or socially. And I do mean how many people have been placed into a position of fear based on what it is they've been informed about and what it is they haven't been informed about regarding mass shootings. How many people have changed their behaviors in daily life due to this. How many people are literally scared all the time for either their children or others. You know, because schools are a common target, so are targets a
common target. But grocery stores and any place where people get together, and any group of people that could attract hate, either personal or political reasons, all seem to bring this
on and disproportionately in America. Why because we have at least one gun for every human being in the country, some say, but I don't think so, because even when you can statistically line it up and you don't have necessarily three hundred and somewhdd million people like you do in some other smaller countries, you may still have nearly one gun per person in the population and still not this inordinate high amount, this high frequency, if you will,
of mass shootings. What is it that's doing it? Mental health as a catch all is not a good enough explanation. It's too general, it's too wide open, and statistically it's not proven unless you want to say that anybody that does this proves their ill health mentally by simply committing this act. But by that logic, every crime of violence could be seen as proof of mental instability, and that's
not necessarily true. Plus, it would cause a lot of less people to be punished for their actions who were willfully and completely cognitively aware of what it was they were doing, the consequences, the damage done, and to be non compassmentous in so many cases would cause responsibility to be shifted from the individuals who've done these things. Now, they could have been driven from a you know, a group place into individual acts of violence. I mean, that
does happen, but there are other things to consider. And meanwhile, there was a mass shooting, you know, within a day of it in the same state that I think at a higher level of fatalities, but it wasn't children, It wasn't as extreme in the what bleeds leads paradigm as the Annunciation Church there. Anyway, consider why it is these things are driven at you and exemplified, highlighted or amplified
in the media. Sphere, whether it be social or mass, because both the social and mass casualties that occur from these things are considerable, significant, and relevant to one another. That stands for the media, the casualty events and the dysfunction that we find ourselves wrapped in in this place we used to call America. Anyway, there's a lot more news to consider, and if you weren't keeping score at home with that, you're really going to hate the numerical values.
I'm going to lay on you for other things. I mean, most people have demanded propaganda feeds from social and other media continuously, the clown show in the USA, abandoning critical thinkers to suffer either the MAGA cult or some say even more nefarious new and improved mk ultra slim fast left coded ignorance of logical results. I mean, here we go. It's like, Hey, you're on a skyscraper and you can either jump or burn in the fire behind you. These
are not acceptable either or selections in my mind. But again, the participation trophy culture, the self inflicted intellectual self harm from the Dunning Kruger effect, which I discussed the other discussed the other day and was disgusted by the fluoride the success of master disinformation programs described by William J. Casey in nineteen eighty one in the infamous quote, will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American
public beliefs is false? Not quite, mister Casey, but damn close. Quick side note, By the way, John Travolta is still not dead, despite the fact that there have been many false reports of his death since twenty twenty three. As much as I can track, and indeed, you know, Jet Tribolta died some time ago, but as far as I know, John Travolta is still alive. And even though I've had to encounter YouTube videos giving him tribute for his passing,
people don't understand that this hasn't actually happened. Another piece of fairly good news, in my opinion, is that Florida is going to end vaccine mandates for children as states Central you know Surgeon General likens them to slavery. I think that's progress. But there's other points of interest in the information sphere, in the news that don't necessarily get accented very well, that don't necessarily get presented or amplified very well, And hopefully that's why you tuned into me.
By the way, another thing about those mass shootings in twenty twenty five, just for the record, okay, and just as of September first, I mean, there was a mass shooting in Fort Worth on September first. There was yet another mass shooting in the Bronx and New York on September first. The first mass shooting actually doesn't have a qualified death, but does have first four injured in fort Worth. In the Bronx and New York on the first of September,
there was one dead, four injured. Chicago, Illinois, the favorite whipping post of the Conservatives, there was zero dead and five injured on the first. And hey, if we go back into August, we can start looking at Cincinnati, Ohio with four dead and nobody else injured. Chicago again, zero dead, four injured. Jackson, Mississippi on the thirtieth. Let's see, yeah, the thirtieth of August. Yes, indeed, let's see two dead and two injured, and on and on and on. Minneapolis, Minneapolis.
I mean, I'm only going back to say it's the twenty second and not even getting to the event where we could talk about exactly what happened there. You know, at the Annunciation Church. And there are many many mass shootings that have occurred since and right before that were not identified. And I mean you have juvenile victims. You have you know, because you might say, well it's only children, Well there's victims family, there's a whole family fatality. There's
many juvenile victims. Two children were killed in Minneapolis on the twenty seventh. We know that. Let's see victim fatalities. A twenty seven year old was killed in Chicago. Let's see who else victim fatalities, you know. I mean, it is on and on and on. And to tell you the truth, one of the most effective trackers on this
is actually mass shooting tracker dot site. They've got a pretty good rundown and a continuous ticker on what's occurred the many, many, many mass shootings just in the past month, if you want to look at them. Lots and lots of juvenile victims, some cases no fatalities, some cases multiple many injuries, some cases only one death, some cases, like I said, no death. It's all over the map. But there are constant events where somebody fires a lot of
shots into a crowd. And they're not all great marksmen. Apparently they don't all rack up a lot of victims. But it is a constant trend, and it is clearly an American trend. What else is a great trend in America? Well, political skulldugery, I think so, And I got to talk about that in a minute. But let's see, if I go over my list of things to discuss, we also might have forgotten even though there was a meeting just a short time ago where let's see, Trump put the
onus on Europe to pressure Putin into a Ukraine conference call. Right, that was today, by the way, Zelenski was involved in this, and the envoy was involved in this, And yeah, Trump wants Europe to end the situation there. I guess he couldn't do it all on his own in twenty four hours. And I don't blame him for that, because it's a bit of a complex situation and something that's been going on as a battle for a couple of years, not something you can easily end in a couple of minutes.
You know, it's not a schoolyard brawl. Just saying. But when we begin to compare, the interesting paradigm that emerges from those that say, look, I don't want to be an interventionist. And I go and I study, and I say to myself, well, here's where the United States in beans with either treasure or personnel, or political capital or various deals or whatever else. What do most people bring up?
Their morality and the amount of money spent. They have a moral reason for not wanting to involve the United States and our treasury, which of course could be better spent taking care of people at home. And I get that the non interventionist ideal, But the majority of people you'll encounter are lying to you about this. They're not telling you the truth about what it is they find
truly morally reprehensible. They're not telling you the truth about how it's about money and we shouldn't be involved, and it's not our business, and so on and so forth, because they can easily be swayed from one direction to another. And I took time to study the difference between the acceptable nature or the unacceptable nature of US intervention in Israel versus the acceptable or unacceptable US intervention in Ukraine,
which one of these things is actually more costly. Well, I tried to create certain parameters so I could examine it and take a look at what the comparisons were, you know, forgetting about again the morality or the emotion, just taking a look at the amount of money, the amount of resource, and the amount of obligation that is implied just by agreement, not necessarily by you know, moral
turpitude or whatever. Point is this when it comes to Ukraine and people saying, look, we shouldn't be involved, and you know, screw them, and besides that they're corrupt country
and all these other judgments. Get them to remove the emotional and the judgmental part of it and talk about the brass tax right either side, by the way, whether they think Russia is the great white hope of the world and they are more moral than us and Putin's a great guy, or they think that Ukraine is you know, an absolutely free nation that we should support because they are a democracy like us. I don't want to hear
about the emotional reaction. Let's talk about the agreements and the cost because these things are what are relevant and often left completely out of the emotional exchanges about this.
And I made notes and I'm going to share them in the show notes here for this podcast, and hopefully you guys will follow through on some of these things, but they're very partial, scatterbrain kind of notes where I decide to analyze something, not just read a news story and agree or disagree and let my own opinion be the driving force behind things, but come up with an
objective way to measure results, actions, costs, and the agreements. Anyways, when I compare contrast Israel versus Ukraine's support allies and alleged agreements, I come across something in nineteen ninety four where the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear arsenal. Okay, the signatories provided security assurances,
including guarantees of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The contingent there was that they would be helped or defended, and that was the bargaining chip to get them to surrender a nuclear arsenal which they still had in their possession. With the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine received financial assistance and compensation for dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure. Okay, And when I take a look at the amount of aid
given to Ukraine in the past, I don't know. Let's see, you know, in recent times, let's say, right, and in the recent actions. By the time we get to August of twenty twenty five, from the beginning of the conflict with Russia, where some people say they invaded, some people say they continued and they entered the eastern part of
Ukraine and the live fire started there. Not going even back to the crimea incident, separating it the recent action, the special military action that Putin describes as not a war. But this is what this is anyway, three hundred and sixty billion dollars as best I can observe and get from public sources, you know, things that are not necessarily classified, hidden in black ops, et cetera. Three hundred and sixty billion by August of twenty twenty five from the beginning
of the conflict. One hundred and seventy five billion is usaid at this point, So one hundred and seventy five billion dollars one way or another, almost any way you slice it. In security assistance. All that stuff is what has been spent on the Ukraine conflict by the US. When we have an agreement in place that look, if you give up your nukes, will help you defend your territorial integrity, sovereignty. All of that whatever that means to Ukraine.
This is the agreement we gave them. They remain independent, they keep their territory, and we're supposed to help them do that. Along with signatories from the United Kingdom right, and Russia signed onto this too. Anyway, this was the assurance for surrendering the military arsenal and dismantle the infrastructure for it. That's the public agreement, right And like I said, one hundred and seventy five billions since the beginning of this stage of that conflict where the invasion of the
East happened. There's a lot of different ways to measure this and look at it, but I've done the best I can to come up with that number. When I look at the current campaign against Palestine and Israel now we're switching to I easily see a bunch of line items which are difficult to quantify in some cases. You know,
you got to consider a bunch of things. There was security assistance, there was you know, actions in neighboring countries to assure the integrity of the borders of Israel, okay, and the borders of the area of conflict, you know. And then Operation Midnight Hammer, which is the bombing right
of Iran. And when you've got you know, a single strike involving a fourteen GBU DASH fifty seven bomb on Iranian nuclear sites, fourteen of those costs six point six billion dollars, with individuals successful hits costing one hundred and fifteen million apiece. Okay, estimates you know, because of again classified cost command and control resources, excluding you know, determinations of other infrastructure costs which might already be endemic of
other circumstances and might have joint usefulness. I'm talking about dedicated resources, right, fourteen guided bomb units, massive ordinance penetrators, right MOP, the thirty thousand pounds or fifteen kilogram bunker buster bombs, right, carried by the B two and all that, and you got to work with declassified cost estimates, and conservatively that operation alone had to run about eight point
three billion dollars. Now that doesn't include the Israeli controlled weapons, which were an assorted equipment, logistics, human resources that may or may not have been paid for by the United States previously that were involved with the Israeli support of this operation. That's another situation. I'm talking about direct fresh contributions, right.
And there was also a supplemental package passed like almost as an emergency by the US Congress, where they gave twenty six point three eight billion dollars total in support to Israel, also to reimburse US military operations and provide humanitarian aid. Five point two billion for replenishing and expanding Israel's missile and rocket defense systems, including the Iron Dome,
David Sling, and the Iron Beam okay. Four point four billion to replenish US stockpiles of defense articles and services provided to Israel, three point five billion for advanced weapons systems, one billion to enhance artillery and critical NISIS production conditional aid. In February of twenty twenty four, the US issued a memo requiring recipients of US military aid to provide assurances that they would use the weapons in line with international law.
While the Administration found quote a reasonable it reasonable to assess that Israel had acted inconsistently with these obligations, in some cases, it asserted Israel's assurances as credible because they assured us they had even though we had evidence to
the contrary. You know, different informations collected by Trump and Biden White House fact sheets okay reveal a whole bunch of interesting costs here, different border support costs, you know, equipment transfers, the cost of just doing that, not just the equipment, but the cost of actually transferring it. You got a low ball estimate on that conflict at about one hundred and fifty three billion dollars since that October seventh ignition point. So again, let's go back to the
one hundred and seventy five billion in Ukraine. So you have two conflicts that I know. It sounds like, what is it? Ten twelve? Let's see. Now, let's do the math real fast. Yeah, just real fast here, So seventy right, okay, so twelve billion dollar discrepancy. Let's see one five to three versus let me just make sure about this because you know, you gotta be careful when you're gonna tell
people numbers because they will correct you. Seventy five to fifty three, okay, So a twenty billion dollar approximate discrepancy when we're talking about massive numbers like that that could easily disappear into critical assets that publicly we don't even know about, which will also be incurred costs here because nobody's talking about any of the costs of advanced scouting or logistical information recon in advance of operations, a twenty
billion dollar discrepancy and military t ters in operations over the course of two years each a piece easily he could be swallowed into either one of these things. So you could have, you know, a bit of a margin of barrere based on the fact that there's facts that are as yet unknown to the public. And I'm not an insider anyway, taking a look at what the CFR has had to say about this, taking a look at what various you know, mouthpieces in you know, various political circles,
media circles, etc. Had to say about this. Has anybody made that cost comparison or tried to remove the agreements, you know, tried to actually bring them out and say, you know, we have agreements here, we have agreements with Israel as well, and we have conditions we placed upon them that we've turned around and ignored, even when that should be to their detriment when it comes to Israel. A lot more scrutiny on Ukraine. So is it the
emotional reaction is the flip of a coin? Is it that we like Vladimir Putin better than we do hamas
weird comparison, but is that where we're at. So the people that tell you that it's about cost and intervention and all that, figure out how fast they're lying to you when they try try to cover their emotional and discriminatory prejudices as the primary movers in these cases, not the numerical values, not the amount of treasure is spent, not the amount of risk, not the fact that it will incur blowback from others in a region or across the world, or how it is it looks when we
don't stand up to some and we stand up to others on behalf of alleged allies. And don't forget Ukraine was supposed to be an ally of ours one way or another. I know they're very corrupt, and Israel's another place that's rather corrupt. I mean, they keep trying to remove the guy who's in charge of the government. Now, they've tried to, you know, get him out of their for corruption several times. But due to the fact that they're engaged in a war right now, nobody can move.
Take a look at their current Prime minister and various other people that are in control of the government being brought up constantly on corruption charges. Actually, over the past few years, is Zolensky suffering from the same problem. What level of corruption causes you to not have an ally anymore or to embrace an ally? These are questions nobody wants to ask, because their mind was made up long before the conflict was loosed. It doesn't matter how many
bodies pile up. It doesn't matter how many children who didn't ask to be involved in a conflict, whether it's in you or it's in Palestine, are murdered because they don't care about that. They don't care about the death, they don't care about the cost. They don't care about US intervention. It's just the prejudice driving whether they support or demonize either side of those two equations. I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
I'm crazy. You think about it. I'm gonna take a quick break in my voice rest for a second, and try and blow through some more news and some more analysis before I'm done with this particular podcast. Here on a Thor's Day, stick Around and Get shod.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national tree 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 armed 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, Oh Chili dot.
Com, conversation ja affect the conversation silence, broken, connection of devastation, valolation to conversation, has all the effects.
To conversation and falls bring no shine straight.
Yeah, radio nuclear holocaust.
You know what uranium is, right?
I think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is, right, Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is, right, I've been nuclear holocaust, Nuclear holocaust.
You know what uranium is right, level like.
Through calm sage.
Here through.
The use expressed like coller stools there anyone else who happens to get on the air to Jelly dot com do not necessarily reflect the views little Jelly dot com or and we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue. Thank you, Cole.
Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninjas to take down the illuminati.
Oh that's interesting, yeah in the clatoon.
Yeah did that ever work out too good?
No?
It didn't, did it? But here on o'celly dot com radio network, things work out a bit better, don't they much better?
Much media is clear and understanding about the programs, the programs much clearer, getting live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better, so much better scene.
I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen to the radio network.
I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like that idea.
Oh, Shelley dot com, do you like history, real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in 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 in 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, Through conversation, as.
I continue to do my level best to not just let my prejudices drive what it is I'm assembling and trying to independent analysis of what is being propagandized out there directly. Man, oh man, it is difficult, gotta tell you.
So I'm going to go to the New York Post here and yes, indeed there will be many many links in the show notes to describe all of what it is I've discussed here tonight, where it is I've gotten some of the information, but not all of it, because quite frankly, I read hundreds of pages before I do
any one of these shows. I examine a lot of different things and don't necessarily bring up every single point because I'm not a parrot, and I try to make composites of the available information, the available realities, the observable to try and give you guys something a little different
than the script reading morons. But occasionally I've got to read off of something, So I'm going to go to the New York Post and something they published yesterday on the third, Okay, because I was planning on doing this show on the third, and my voice is barely holding up, So I apologize for the bad sound and all that, but I'm doing the best I can here and hopefully this helps you anyway. What I find fascinating is this New York City may or run because New York City
is a significant part of America. It is one of those things that is seen internationally, as you know, one of the exemplars of like American society and all that. And I know it's a deep blue liberal area for a lot of people, but trust me, not everybody in New York is so liberal. Plenty of rich people they are very conservative, but the majority of people that live there end up being on what the democratic side of things.
And I think the manipulation in the mayoral race that's occurring right now in broad daylight would be taken differently if a different party were doing it. But it's fascinating nonetheless, and is again a great example of American politics and how things really work. So here's the headline, Eric Adams white House and talks over Trump admin job as pressure mounts for NYC mayoral candidates to sink Zoran mad Mamdani whatever his name is. Sources and they just say sources.
I love that. Yeah. The New York Post, by the way, super conservative, generally speaking, tabloid headlines Rupert Murdoch's media empires part of them that goes along with Fox News. So reading directly from that, and I'm going to tell you
what's missing from their article. But anyhow, the White House officials, top excuse me, top White House officials are in talks over a potential job for Eric Adams in President Trump's administration, as pressure mounts for mayoral candidates to drop out and clear the lane for the strongest challenger against socialist Madonni.
The Post has learned the conversations about a potential plum gig for Adams, including an ambassadorship, have been taking place among high level Trump officials, as polling shows the mayor in fourth place in the approaching November election. Sources said Adams landing a job and the Trump administration would arguably benefit Governor Andrew Cuomo, who's increasingly seen as the best anti Madonnie candidate, at least in a head to head race. Okay,
let me pause from the article. Is this, Eric Adams has done some unpopular stuff. He is definitely not a Democrat, even though he's listed as one. He's a former cop, and he's definitely all about supporting the establishment and the power of the police state, whether you like it or not. Whether he's weirdly liberal on certain things or not. That's
who he is. Not super popular. Once they figured out who they selected in the mayoral election last time, they would have been better off with a guy like Sliva, who at least has a street level understanding of certain things, even though he's got the unrealistic Republican idea. And by the way, he is a candidate still, but he is kind of in the way. This is how they could bleed off votes from semi legitimate you know, voting pools
where people want reasonable solutions, not socialism. So you got to come up with one reasonable candidate to face the socialist because Adams has now done enough damage and the past couple of mayors, not just the liberal ones, but the conservative ones even have turned around and created such a circumstance in New York. It's not because oh it's high crime and it's crazy. It's not that bad compared to many, many different time periods since I've been alive.
But that's not the point. The point is that the living the quality of life for people trying to survive in that city is down, so they're going to look for a radical solution, and compared to Adams, either one of these guys is a radical solution, but there is a risk that socialists could be elected to a very large and powerful city economically speaking, socially speaking, etc. Who the hell really wants that outside of the people in
the city who are just begging for anything. This is how outsiders get selected into positions, and it seems like it's realistically chosen by the public, but it's because of the manipulation of the menu in the first place. And this is an open manipulation of the menu, which I don't necessarily disagree with. This is how political strategy is done.
And quite frankly, if you can lure somebody away with a better job and get them out of the race, that's a whole lot more of a legitimate way than blackmailing them or simply paying them off to you know, take a dive, which could also be in the works, but we're not being told about that, and has happened in the Northeast before I've seen it. I mean, you know, couldn't necessarily prove it all the way, because if we could, there would have been a lot more sensational stories against
certain people that became mainstream people of interest. You know, Governor Christy in New Jersey, corrupt as all hell, and not nearly as corrupt as many of his Democratic predecessors, but still corrupt as all hell, but taking as legitimate and taking as two vanilla in a time where upheaval
was required in this country. Anyway. The point is that Adams is a terrible failure of a mayor, and so was his previous you know counterparts who had been liberal, conservative whatever, allegedly, but in theory and in practice they were not necessarily the same thing. In theory, this guy should have been, you know, liberal and kind of unique in his way of thinking, but in practice he might as well be a more realistic GOP candidate than Curtis Slee,
who was the leader of the Guardian Angels and all that. Anyway, Sleeve was not even going to get a mentioned in this article probably, and I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but I'm reading it with you. Let's get back to this. I think in this in quotes, I think Adams would be able to craft a position and a portfolio that's to his liking. A source close to the Trump administration said, I've heard the Adams team wants it.
In quotes. Another source close to the White House said, now, who the hell are these sources close to the White House? Obviously I'm not talking from the article, but isn't that interesting close to the White House? That could be a lot of people, or it could be nobody because they just learned that this is in motion and nobody wants to confirm it. And here we are with the unnamed sources again. Anyway, who am I to question the New York Posts journalistic integrity except for the fact that at
one time. I did write background pieces for them. Anyhow, a source in the mayor's orbit confirmed his team has pushed him to take the federal golden parachute, but Adam seemingly hasn't bought in. Now again pulling away from the article, this isn't the first time the Trump administration has tried to recruit Eric Adams into a position with the Trump administration for different reasons. They tried to say, look, we'll get your corruption problem to go away if you just
come and help us out. That didn't work out so well. That was publicly done. This is being floated out there to see how people respond to it. And to me, this is actually a logical, strategic, intelligent move here. So I don't think Trump designed it, but his people are
working on it. Anyway, I have a job. I'm running for reelection in quotes, I'm still doing that and I'm looking forward to getting re elected and quote, Adams told reporters when asked about the discussions during an unrelated press conference Wednesday. The back room talks came as the scandal scored. Adams independent reelection bid did not only appears dooone, but is only likely to erase Madamie's path. Okay, ease Madamie's path the victory among a crowd field of four mayoral contenders.
See that's the problem. Among Democratic style voters, Adams may still have some sway. He is the mayor after always recognizable. Madamie is coming from the left, so he's going to be able to consume part of the left voter block. And Cuomo, who you know, is the runner up for the Democratic primary, right another runner up, a better runner up in fact, is also eating all off of the left. So you've got three leftist possibilities and a seemingly non
existent possibility when it comes to Sliwa. So wild card of Madamie being such an agent of change, if you will, means that he could very likely take it. And that's kind of messed up.
Now.
If you were dealing with this twenty thirty forty years ago, somebody would step in and tell Cuomo, look, step aside, Adams. Listen, nobody's going to reelect you, dude. Get out, Go take a job doing something, Get out so that we can have, you know, a left wing alternative running from the Independent who can actually cash it in. Adams would be the first one to be asked out, and yes, somebody would
give him a job, a corporate job, something. Somebody with sway somewhere should offer him a job to get him the hell out of there, because he's an obstruction now to getting anything other than a socialist candidate selected in New York City, which will not well for almost anybody except you know, some initially, some people will make some gains because there will suddenly be a level playing field
in certain ways. But he's not going to be able to effectively even you know, put into action half of the things that he's going to try to put into action. He's going to make a mess of things one way or another, no matter what his intent is or no matter how solid he feels as though the socialist movement could go in New York City. He's going to do damage.
And then who's going to get blamed for it? Probably not him, because that's not the culture we live in right now, where people take responsibility for the disasters they create, and the egos of these people that realize that they're about to ross Perot to hell out of the establishment left.
I mean, come on, dude, you're subdividing to It's like two ross Paro's got in the race, so they could split the Republican possibility into three places instead of two during that selection when Clinton got in, I mean, imagine double Ross Parode. That's what's happening in New York City. Scary. Anyway, Cuomo didn't listen to voters rejection and also mounted an
independent run, which is what I was just saying. The constellation of candidates has only helped solidify Madamie's lead in the race, with Poles showing he only really faces a light a fight in a one on one contest against Cuomo. Yeah, Trump surrogates and officials for months have been trying to get weaker candidates such as Independent Jim Walden and GOP mayoral nominee Curtis Slee would a drop out, sources said, Uh, anyway,
I look that it's poor political strategy. If you want to clear the lane entirely, you clear everybody out, and you put Cuomo against Madami and then you push the common sense of Cuomo will at least not attempt to implement socialism in a singular mayoral term, which will not work. Either he'll fail to do it or it'll make a disaster one way or the other it will not be fully implemented, and it's going to do nothing but damage.
Sliva could remain in the race and peel off some of the conservative left possibility, you know, but that's all he's gonna do. That's not gonna hurt Madami, you know. So the only guy that can the only people that can hurt Madami are people that are coming from the left. There's no way that you're either a Sliwa or Madamie voter. I mean, it's just that simple. And Sliwa is just not a good enough speaker or intellect to properly counter or you know, create the proper strawman to even make
this work. So yeah, I can see why Sleeveo would have to get out of the way. But probably the only common sense choice in this race, because like I said, the current mayor is unelectable. Sliwa is unelectable. The only common sense guy would be guess what, Andrew Cuomo and there is his comeback in a nutshell and totally supports you know, the status quo is just it works out nicely. Plus you know, he won't be wildly popular or able to work with a lot of other people because of
the ick factor. So honestly, it allows the status quot to continue in New York City and possible small improvements over the Adams regime. But anybody else who is now selected out of the people that have been even remotely supported in New York City, and that look, I don't know very much about this Jim Walden, who's an independent, but I mean, all he could possibly do is bleed off what some of the more conservative voters. Well, they're
clearly not going to be madamie voters either. I mean, unless you're gonna get somebody to go in there and take a dice roll before they flip a switch. I don't see how there is any other strategy. So the fact is that, yeah, this is clear and open manipulation of the voting circumstance in New York City. It's probably the only rational and positive thing that could be done
in this circumstance. And this tells you something about what's wrong with the rank choice voting and how it turns out to create, you know, circumstances that almost nobody will want in hindsight, I assure you. Anyway, Sliwa had indeed refused a job offer from the administration one source set. Quote. Now they are seeing if Adams would be interested in
working for the administration. The source set. Adams is in a unique position in the sense that he does share a lot of the administration's goals, especially on crime and immigration, so he could likely make a real impact, whether at home or brought. The prospect of an ambassadorship is seen as the most enticing for Adams, given his long standing plan to do international consulting work after his mayoralty. Another set, mayoralty,
another source set. That's a little bit of an awkward wording there, But okay, after his you know, mayoral term, I would say, but may oralty, yikes. Anyway you can have. He can have any ambassadorship he wants. A source close to Adam boasted White House officials didn't respond to requests for comment. Mayor Adams has made it clear he will not respond to every rumor that comes up. He will remain focused, not distracted, and grind and grind for New Yorkers. Quote.
Adams campaign spokesperson Todd Shapiro said in a statement, Adams hasn't hadn't okay, hasn't hadn't any discussions. I swear that's the way it's written, hasn't hadn't any discussions. God, the New York Post is atrocious. Anyway, let me correct it. Adams hasn't had any discussions with Trump, nor has he met with the President. Regarding the mayoral Shapiro said, the mayor is fully committed to winning this election. Blah blah blah.
Let's see move ahead. Although Mayor Adams has been the most pro housing mayor in New York City's history, had no time, did he ask for nor was he offered a job at HUDGE. Shapiro said, if the HUD job does open, Andrew Cuomo held that position before and can always continue where he left off. Anyway, all of this nonsense,
here's the facts. Okay, again, this is actually rational. And if I had any sort of input with the Trump administration, I tell them to embrace this and outwardly state, yeah, this is what we'd like to see done, because who in their right mind in America? And I wouldn't have Trump say this, because you know it'd be automatically tainted with us sorts of prejudicial ideas and concepts and emotional reactions.
I would have somebody responsible in the Republican Party say, look, we as a party, we as an administration, the collective, not just the strong man at the top, have decided this is the best idea because we don't want to see a socialist in control of a large city, a huge economy, and something that could make trouble for all
of the surrounding states. If this guy's in control of a city and makes the kind of disaster that a socialist implement could throw into the machinery, the monkey wrench that he is, so for the interests of New Yorkers and America in general, yeah, damn right, we're trying to do this, and I would really put it out there that look for the good to New York, for the good of the country. Adams and Sliwa and this other fool, except you know, give him a job, let him manage McDonald's,
don't matter, he's not really important. Leave him there, it doesn't matter. But Sliwa and Adams, Yeah, I would definitely give them a publicly available legal bribe to step aside for the better of the entirety of the Northeast. Is it corruption, Yeah, but that's the way this is supposed to kind of work. If they get a better job offer, they could choose not be forced out, but they could choose. See it's difference between force and volunteerism. And the fact
is it's like sex. If you didn't want it and somebody made you have it, it's rape. But if you were into it, you went for it, and the other person convince you to go for it. Sounds to me like just might be a good Saturday night. And you can make that happen in New York City by getting these two fools to step aside, because they're gonna do nothing but damage the place that they're alleging to care
about enough to be in charge of. They're only going to do damage by remaining in the race to that place. Step aside for the better, for the uplift of all concern. And I think they could do it publicly. There's a way to spend this and do it right. But will they Why bother because nuance and everything else is not necessary.
So either this is being floated as an idea right now and not being done, or it's being done and the New York Post acts like it has something special on its hands with these sources that are close to this and that. But the truth, truth is, this is the only way to go if you're rational and you
don't want to see New York City destroyed. And for those of you that don't care in the rest of the country, I get it, you know, screw New York, but you're not going to like the crater and the aftershocks that are going to go other places from that. And also what happened to those of you that said you were patriots and you really shouldn't want to see
any part of the country destroyed. I mean, I know it's fashionable to think that either California or Florida or most of the South should all sink into the ocean, depending on who you are, or maybe New York should just fall into the ocean. Or New Jersey everybody loved to whip on New Jersey for a long time. But even with their breakdancer at Town Halls. I mean, you
can't say that it's a dangerous as this nonsense. Anyway, The last news story I have to cover here is real simple, and I just want to bring it quickly to your attention. As we look at the MAGA faithful cheering on the National Guard troops being deployed to Chicago. They hope, they hope, they hope, because Chicago is always the favorite whipping post of the Conservatives. What do they do crime New York murderer Chicago, Chicago. Chicago's bad, I know.
But when we take a look at the numbers here, it's fascinating to me that the headquarters for New Space Command they want to send to Alabama as opposed to
Colorado where it is now for interesting reasons. And if you're concerned about law and order and the murder rates and all that, it's interesting that the National Guard is being deployed to Chicago to address again the most common go to for the bad blue city, where indeed they have the thirteenth highest murder rate among states, fourteenth if you count DC as a state, by the way, but Space Command headquarters they want to move it to the third highest murder rate, fourth again if you include DC
when it comes to Alabama from Colorado, which is twenty second in the US when it comes to murder rates. And I use a lot of different websites to come up with this, but it's fascinating the current murder rates. You know, the percentage of murders per one hundred thousand people, that's the ratio. Yeah, that's how it stands. Okay, Colorado at twenty two, right, Alabama at three, and Illinois where Chicago is well, you know, thirteen. Well we're going to
deploy National Guard there. DC, by the way, much higher ranked and to add a much higher murder rate apparently, you know, per one hundred thousand people. But again population, you know, shifts around and all that, and you could create a different way of looking at that ratio. But the point is it's a fairly good accurate member measurement
for states. And I looked at world numbers collected from outside the US numbers collected by the FBI Law Enforcement here, and there are some inconsistencies in it, and it's very interesting. But this composite that I picked up from let's see what is it called the World Population Review dot com the state rankings murder rate state by state, which I'll
give you a link to in the show notes. It's interesting that they come up with a very good general way of counting where the most you know, likely murder states are. And again Chicago not doing well. They're still in the upper percentage there, but at thirteen or fourteen as opposed to the third highest state, which is Alabama.
That's where they want the Space Defense headquarters to go, right next to one of the cities with the highest rate of murder except for I think one place in Louisiana, not exactly in that city, but the new Space City, USA or whatever is going to the state with one of the highest murder rates in the country. Now, is that just being blindsided by not knowing where you want to put your headquarters for Space Command in a not
so law and order friendly area. Is that something you do intentionally or is that something you do because you don't realize that even though it's a deeply red state, it's also very, very heavily dangerous and a good place to get murdered again on purpose accidentally. I don't know. I guess I'll leave that for you to decide. Again.
I'm just pointing out some of this stuff based on my analysis, and I've got plenty of prejudices and judgments I can add to this, but I'm trying not to, because information without bias is usually a lot more helpful, and as we discussed recently on this podcast, confirmation bias is a driving factor for way more people than you might realize, and sometimes the most brilliant people are the least confident in their expertise, while those that are extremely
confident and appear to have all of their pooped together, let's say, might be indeed having it all together because they're full of crap and know very very very little. But I digress. Once again, hopefully you've learned something out of this particular podcast. And again that's two for today, and I guess I'll talk to you guys again on Friday night, if I still have any voice left whatsoever, when we do the open mic Friday Night call in with my co host b Pete.
But until then, do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in 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 in 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.
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 armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mo by a 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.