Oh, yes, Okay, here we got.
December nineteenth, twenty twenty four, allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, you know, thankfully. And I'm saying this and nobody knows why. But and maybe I'll explain it to you on New Year's Eve or there after. But I'm waiting for twenty twenty four to be over.
Okay.
Anyway, as I look at the news speeds, as I examine, as I constantly do, what is happening domestically, internationally, et cetera, What is the significance of these different events that might be far far away from over there? You know, sometimes we got to spend over there so we don't have to spend over here. I know. It sounds like an army defense thing right where it's like we gotta fight them there. We don't got to fight him here. We're not there yet, But I almost feel like a new
era in the war on Terror is about to happen. Okay, but is anybody paying attention? Are they all locked up into the trumpet sphere? And as to whether he has sabotaged or has a great plan for our economy, which is a disaster. By the way, Merry Christmas. You know, my holiday sucks. I hope that some of yours don't. I really do, but I don't see how they don't. Anyway, Look enough for that. I'll get into the finances and some other things that are going on toward the end
of this year soon. How about international incidents, the geopolitical and status of the rest of the world, and how it's going to affect us and the rest of the world. Oh right, the thing is going on over there in Israel the Middle East as per usual, and you're yawning already stop it, okay, But Syria regime change, this occurred. Now we went from what two stars to three stars on the flag. But I gotta tell you this is
a bigger change than just in symbology. I see from my perspective that something has happened strategically here, something that's going to effect Vladimir Putin, something that's going to affect one of the current conflicts on the planet, which, by the way, two plus how many months now in Ukraine. Anyway, Syria, remember when Trump was in office and we were moving to the I think it was the northeastern part of
the country. Our military assets were because they were going to guard oil fields and let them sort it out. Apparently they've sorted it out, and Syria is an ally of Russia, and Russia was suddenly going to run rampant throughout the field there. I guess they were in support of the aside regime. Didn't work out too well for you there, did it?
But here we are.
What is happening in Syria? Why is the news media kind of covering it but not really examining what's happening or putting it in context on the globe. Okay, we've talked a lot of JFK with Larry Hancock recently, but there are other things that Larry does pay a great deal of attention to and is an excellent analyst with outside of the JFK assassination. I mean, you take a look at as many many books like Surprise Attack, Shadow Warfare, Creating Chaos. These things don't have a lot to do
with the JFK assassination. Although Surprise Attack and shadow Warfare that kind of sounds like you could, but not necessarily. Look, there are a lot of things that are occurring in spheres of influence, military movements, covert, overt, etc. The global politic Djure all of it, and Larry is going to help us kind of sort out and put into context the things that are occurring in Syria because I need somebody to I don't understand it. As I said, I
see a strategy unfolding. I'm not sure whose it is. I see that this has been timed for a particular purpose. Do I know what that purpose is? I see that there are various leaders who are generally worthy of headlines, and you know what those people's strategies are definitely in play. But is anybody talking about this or realistically examining it? And I don't trust what Seymour Hersh is saying. Well, you probably shouldn't anyway as a source. But anyway, it
is what it is. Larry. I know that that sounded a little incoherent, but I feel like it's not. It's an accurate description for what it is. We've been fed so far. What in the world is going on in Syria? How are we supposed to take this? And what are the ongoing consequences that we're all going to have to be dealing with soon one way or another in the international geopolitical spectrum, et cetera. But before we even go there, how are you doing tonight.
I'm doing okay, Chuck. I am ready for Christmas. I think I'm ready to take Christmas week is kind of okay. It's a good time to set back and relax and rest and like look towards your reset, Like you're talking about us, like lots of things have happened, we just need a pause, need to center ourselves, get ready for a while. So the holidays will be a good time for centering.
I think.
So you and I'll have the common reset time here. And you're looking forward to the new year too, to kind of says, let's bring our new resolutions, not even necessarily a New Year's resolution, but let's move forward to do something different and make things happen right going into twenty twenty five, because the world world is going to be an active place still, and it's going to be,
if nothing else, dynamic and entertaining. I think, although you know, I've got some other predictions for twenty twenty five, but that's not today's show, Larry. Yeah, So at least we're looking forward to twenty twenty five for the reset sort of aspect of it.
Yeah, we are, and I think actually we have discussed we discussed probably a year two years back. I think we have have discussed the context for what's happening, which, as you say, the media certainly isn't reaching back in time to present any of anything except the most current events.
I mean, the media.
Has totally lost the ability to present context beyond oh, like two months. That's the backstory is two months, you know.
But you and I have talked about this. We had conversations a while back, and when we talked about how geopolitics has flipped between the Old Cold War and the New Cold War, and when during the old Cold War the United States tended to support established regimes and the Soviet Union tend to support revolutionaries, and it was really expensive to support established regimes, and and the revolutionaries over time always seemed to take the advantage, and the US
often supported regimes that got overthrown. And so a lot of our covert and deniable warfare came to not because we were taking the position of supporting regimes where the Soviet you know, where the communists where the revolutionaries. Obviously we fit with revolutionaries. And by the way, it's cheap to support them.
Okay, yeah, that's.
The thing, you know, you send them a few guns, you send them some food, and you can be a hero in a hurry. But the US would also have this other problem where yeah, it was kind of stagnant. We were just supporting well projects or trajectories that appeared to be in favor of what stability, right, That was always the key cry really from and.
You don't you don't have to build big bases. I mean, look at the gigantic military bases and ports that we built in Vietnam, for example, huge infrastructure expenditure in Vietnam, Yes, which we essentially donated to the Vietnamese over time, but it is expensive from an infocause when you're supporting a regime in place, you've got to pay for their.
Infrastructure as well.
Whatever country that's in, you end up paying for ports and roads and airports.
And that sort of thing.
And when the revolutionaries win, they just take it over and you know you have to write it off.
Your books as a loss.
Well that was US during the Cold War, and the Soviets were playing a you know, a low money game and maybe a long IDs game, but they often won. They wanted Vietnam, they want, you know, they want in many places. But what we've seen in the in this century, in the new Cold War era is it's flipped and Russia has decided that it's it's smart to support regimes like support the Syrian regime against the Syrian revolutionaries. Right, And so what do we see in Syria? Huge bases
and infrastructure built by the Russians, huge huge investments. We see Russian forces deployed all around Syria, much like we saw in Vietnam.
And I've been amazed.
Actually, I didn't realize the extent of Russian military deployments within Syria until I've been watching over the last few days, these long, long lines of Russian transport trucks and heavy equipment pulling back from all over Syria into their two remaining bases to be evacuated.
This, this is Vietnam. This for the Russians.
The only difference is they managed to fly their people out and get their people out without taking them off the roofs of embassies.
I mean, I think it's.
It's less spectacular because of that, but in.
Terms of loss of investment, loss of image, loss.
Of it's the same thing. So it's much more strategic. You know, there's a lot of talk about, well they'll just they'll just retreat to Libya region. That means they're going to have to support another Libyan regime, which amounts to another Libyan general who owns the port and owns the city. And guess what if they want to they're going to have to put military resources on the board.
They've already got some in o Limbya.
They're going to have to build a new if they want Libya to to replace Syria, it's going to be another huge investment.
So, right, strategically, this is a big deal.
Well, right, so we have Vietnam minus the Hanoi Hilton and the flip. But this was predictable in my mind due to the fact that again during the Trump administration, you had the withdrawal of the US. Basically, they didn't fully withdraw from Syria, but they relegated themselves to a very small part of the map, right, which gave free reign to the Russian assets throughout their allies territory.
Right.
So, now Asad's regime had Russians with it, they didn't have to even contend with making sure that they don't engage with the Americans. They didn't even have to contend with any of that, right, and they didn't.
But what they didn't recognize and maybe they did recognize, but Turkey, Turkey did a brilliant job of playing a hand.
At it is.
There's a backstory too, It's why the US was even anywhere in uh Syria to begin with. And that bad story goes back to twenty twelve in the Obama regime, when we once again decided that we would we would play a hand and we would oppose Isis taking over Syria by working with the non radical Alamist revolutionary groups. Assads looks weak, he looks exposed. Somebody's going to take over. Well, we want it to be the non Islam versus Isis.
The Russians played a much stronger game, no more deniable nonsense. We're playing deniable nonsense. We're trying to covertly ship weapons into Syria from Libya, which gets our ambassador killed in ben Ghazi because Isis sees what's going on, and just after he sent off one shipload of weapons. I mean, we run a special CIA mission in Libya to connect collect weapons which we're gonna ship there Soviet weapons, by the way, which we will ship to Syria, which and
they're deniable, like everybody in Syria has got syvia weapons. Okay, great, so we're playing this deniability thing. Isis gets ahead of the curve and Libya becomes a nightmare for us. But Russia in Syria plays it exactly the opposite. Rather than playing around with you know, supplying rifles or machine guns or explosives to they send in heavy armor and air support for the Syrian regime. You know, that's this is
how we're going to play the game. And that works for a while, and it works for a long while, and so it leaves us hung out and Trump Trump wants the Trump says he wants the oil. There are only interest in Syria. Now he says, we have no interest. But then he said we had interest in the oil, which meant we had interest in the Kurds.
Because that's where the oil is.
Uh.
So, as you said, that's where you find you know, like, why are American troops still there?
It's really a hangover from the Trump administration. And once you get in place like that. It's true that they were a blocking force for ISIS, uh, but it wasn't really Isis. The Syrians, of course, were in league with the Iranians, and it's the Uranian military equipment and shipmunths that's coming through which we weren't blocking. But that's why we're still there at all. You know, you raised that
question like where are we even out there? Well, the real answer is Trump shut down the CIA support program, deniable support program for the revolutionaries. He kept troops out there where the oil fields are with the Kurds, and over the last several years, Turkey has decided that they need to play, they need to play in Syria because Turkey is opposed to We've got Turkey and Israel opposed to a ram Okay and.
Turkey, actually Turkey.
Russia is not saying anything about it. But it's pretty clear now that the revolutionary group groups that ended up taking Da Mascus are there because they were supplied and supported in the north across the Turkish border by Turkey.
Now adding to this confusion, Larry, and after I add my last you know, five to eight cents instead of two cents here into this equation, I'm gonna shut up and let you sort it. Because here's the problem. A couple of things. One, I recall Trump basically saying ISIS is destroyed, They're done, They're gone. And I said to myself, I don't think so you're not showing me enough bodies to account for this massive force you said was there.
But maybe maybe maybe he did it, you know, and we'll just never see it, because after all, this is also theoretical to the American public that they barely even know what we're talking about here. Okay, Fine, let's put that aside for a moment, because in the meantime since
the Trump administration, other things have occurred here. Israel is definitely involved in something else right now when it comes to Gaza, when it comes to the Palestinian question, all of that, and guess who else is involved in that situation, Iran. So they are both occupied, having their resources trained and their attention turned elsewhere. I would say that's a serious factor, okay.
In addition, the Russians, who are a main player here and clearly should have been the people that got some of this change going one way or another, either by failure okay, or by doing something covertly that worked another way. You get where I'm going with this, One way or another, Russia is a factor in why the Assad regime fell, whether it's because of errors they made, a lack of interest that they had because they were otherwise occupied, etc.
One way or another. Russia's involved there, Okay, so put that all aside. And then this guy who comes in and is supposed to be the leader of the new government now that's trying to take over and saying, look, we're not going to murder everybody who was, you know, supporting a SOD. We're here to make the change that we've all been waiting for half a century to make regarding getting away from not only a SOD, the current a SOD, but his father right long standing issue in
that country. And he's supposed to be an ISIS leader, and he comes out and basically says, we don't want to slaughter everybody. We don't want to do this and that. And the third thing that I've been told is the hallmark of a ISIS leader getting a country, which, by the way, this would have set off panic attacks all across every analyst, every Middle East watcher in the English speaking world would have been freaking out about eight years ago if if Siria fell to ISIS, right, what is
going on here? You have an ISIS leader who's not acting like an ISIS leader. You have us basically yawning at this whole situation in Syria because we're not really involved. And I guess if all we were doing was guarding an area that the Kurds were occupying, well you see how well that that's doing for anybody, because the Kurds have been this continuous question across the region, occupying parts of countries but not having a homeland of their own
for I don't know, I can't remember how long. But anyway, what does this all essentially mean? I mean, is there a significance to this? And oh, by the way, has the Islamic State, remember they were using that phrase for a while, finally captured one of the larger states that actually is an oil producer and everything else. Is this not something that people would have freaked out about a few years ago? Or am I missing something?
Well the simple answer to that last question is no. But the real problem is, again, we as Americans are very sophisticated in our use of terms. Isis was a regime, Okay, radical Islamist are a faith. You need to separate separate those who believe in implementing radical Islam in government from the ISIS regime. When Trump said the Isis regime was destroyed, yeah, it's capital capital was overrun. It's bureaucracy was destroyed. I mean it was issued in its own currency. I mean
the Isis as a regime was destroyed. That is true, But there are still radical Lomists all over the place. I mean it's a faith. I mean there are radical Christians in different places. It's it's the radical element of a faith. And it's not just in one place. It's all over the place. Radical Islam is in the Gulf States, it's in Africa. You have radical Islamist military groups operating in several states inside Africa. So the thought that Isis as a belief system and as a military network was
destroyed as ridiculous. It just shows you don't know what you're talking about. Okay, but let's let's go back to Syria. One of the leaders and just the most obvious leader at the moment, and one of the reasons he's most most obvious is that he comes out of a part of Syria, northwestern Syria. I probably pronounced that wrong, but near the Turkey border where they were receiving group was receiving a lot of support from Turkey, and he managed
to put in place a non radical Islamist regime. They didn't enforce shaha law like Isis would they you know, there were It was kind of a compromised regime. It certainly was not pure isis pure pure what we see when we look back two or three years in Iran, in Iraq, I'm sorry, it was more of a compromise state.
And that's one of the reasons why.
Is one of the things that the media is doing quite well at the moment is interviewing people from that area to ask them how he ran it? You know, how was it run?
Is it?
What would we expect if this goes national within Syria? And that's that's a good thing to do. You need to look on the ground at what their practices were, not just talk about them generically. You and I have talked about this all in regard to JFK. Don't just say c I A. Don't just say mafia. That's nonsense. That's too high a level.
Okay, so really fast, yeah, so really fast. I just want to throw something in here. Is that what we're seeing as far as this really vague reporting. That's what I was representing there when I was telling you about you know, like Isis and this and that is this vague reporting and slapping these labels on things is extremely unhelpful because, like you were just saying about the JFK thing, where they go, wellse Ia, like that's supposed to be
the end of the conversation. Yeah, that's what they're doing here, and it's doing no one a service, is my point. So that's why I'm asking, like, how is it that we suss this out?
Because you're actually it's the beginning of the conversation, right. The other point that you brought up as far as Russia again, I think what we're seeing is why did this happen during Russia's watch? Okay, well, that obviously is it's somewhat what happened to us in Vietnam.
You know, we got tired. You can't it. Can you sustain that level of expenditure for decades? You know? Can you? Literally?
It's true that Osad was generating a lot of revenue pretty much for himself, not Syria through drug sales.
We can see that.
That's the evidence of that is turning up now with speculation afore, but it's the stashes are turning up now, so you can see it for real. But Ukraine obviously is a huge drain on Russia, Russian manpower, Russian resources, and so Russia, you know, over a decade.
Or so.
Putin to some extent, I don't think as badly. I wish it was as badly, but he is ended up committing himself to multiple wars at the same time. Okay, and can you sustain that financially? Could if you look at the military force that he had in Syria. And again I don't think it's not been reported on very
well because it wasn't too visible to us. You know, now that we can look at the number of airlifters they have on the ground, heavy air transports, ships, that sort of stuff, taking stuff out, you get a much better feel for how much they had invested in Syria. The Russian air force and the Russian army was propping
up the Aside regime, assisted by and in the West. Okay, let's make that clear in the West, assisted by the Iranian militia and the Hamas that their fighters were also propping up the Aside regime in other parts of the country. So when Russia, you know, takes it has to force to take its eye off to look at Ukraine. When Israel knocks out a lot of the the firepower, the reserves, the ammunition supplies that were going in from Iran and from Lebanon. You know, it's a new ballgame one afternoon.
You know, people asked why did this happen so quickly? I would say one of the reasons that happened so quickly is the elements were there in place, and suddenly, to a large extent, Israel's attacks in Lebanon and living in Israel's defeat of Iran's missile attacks opened the gates. It's like, okay, these people they are they can be defeated. You know, Russia has other things to do, and these other players can be shown to be defeated and not all powerful. I mean, Iran was being viewed as all
powerful a month ago, two months ago. Now they're not being viewed that way. So the floodgates open all at once, just the same thing that happened in Afghanistan to the Russians, the same thing that happened in Vietnam.
US.
When these things go, they go all at once. There's no magic to it. It's its culmination of events, well right.
And a big, huge part of it is simply that look, if we were to rewind the clock a little bit and go back two and a half years ago, you don't have the conflict in Palestine, you know, draining draining away what Iran could be investing in Syria. You don't have Ukraine draining away what Russia could be investing in Syria. So two key allies being otherwise entangled elsewhere, Yeah, causes
a lack of resources. Forget about strategy, forget about manpower, although manpower is probably an issue here as well, and therefore, without those two key allies to prop up the regime, it fell simple logic.
Nope, Yeah, especially without the Russian Air Force. I mean the Russian Air Force. And this is one of the reasons that there's a lot of speculations, Oh, the Syrians will allow the Russians to retain those bases and so on and so forth. I mean it was the Russian Air Force, and the Russians supplies to the Russian aircraft
and the Syrian air force over a decade. I mean we're talking about dropping chemical weapons, dropping, I mean massive damage created by Russian and Syrian slash Russian air strikes on the Syrian population.
That just.
Again it's Russians behaving like Russians are behaving in Ukraine. Russians fight total war, which is something we still haven't got our head around, is that Russians fight to win. Now, I'm not defending that, but you have to under stand they they will draw, draw, destroy a city, which they did in Syria, which they're doing in Ukraine. How do how do you destroy resistance? You literally destroy the resistance,
And that's what they've been. They did that in Syria, and that's why I find a hard time believing that the Syrians do not remember that, Uh, will not remember what the Russians did to them.
Yeah, well, so here we are right now, what does this mean for Russia now in Syria with the regime change? Does that mean all right now, we'll just withdraw everything we have here and we can focus it back on Ukraine one and two? I mean, is it a strategic move that now if there was anything left to be pulled back, you know, in reserve there say sitting in Syria that the Iranians could have utilized elsewhere, it's off the table now right because it's been neutralized and it'll
probably be captured. Uh if there were resources left? I mean, are we looking at a very significant change here.
Because of this, you think, well that I think the big strategic question is how important Africa is to putin because if it's not just a matter of if if everything is taken out of Syria by the end of next week, which it largely could be uh by everything that's air transportable, let's put it that way, that that that they can fly back to Russia that eventually could They're going to have to make a real decision though if they want to Syria was their transit base and they're they're really
avenue into Africa. If Libya is going to replace that, they're going to have to make a massive strategic shift to this rush the the Russian supporting general in Libya, and they're going to have to sustain him, and they're
going to have to build an infrastructure. They're either going to have to make sure he takes all of Libya, which he doesn't hold now, they're going to have to be prepared to allocate a good deal of that resource to whatever their plan is for Libya and Africa, because right now we see the fact that there are at least half a dozen nations in Africa that have essentially kicked out the French, kicked out the US and said that they are going with the Russian military, and the
Russian military is going to have to sustain them against their own radical Islamist revolutionary groups. So Putin's got to keep He's got to either go with that and keep his avenues into those countries for natural resources and or you know, it's it's not just all about Syria, It's also about Africa.
Right, And that leads to really my last logical question in this equation. And then you know, how is it that this is going to affect the US and our policies, et cetera in the region is my final thought. But really the biggest question here to me is we haven't heard a lot about the Libyan regime in the past few years, the condition of it, you know, post Kadafi
and all of that. I mean, once everybody lost their desire to look into BEng Ghazi, it's over in Libya as far as you know, we're concerned, right, They're not a significant factor anymore. That regime that's in place right now, as you I think you just said, doesn't even have control of the entirety of the country, does it. So what condition are we looking at here for this fallback position for Russia anyway? And is it going to be even a factor the more they get sucked into Ukraine
and that conflict. I mean, eventually all roads are going to lead to Ukraine. It looks like, you know, as far as where the Russian resources are going to go, where their attention, where the troops are going to go. I mean, it's the continent, not.
If Putin wants Africa. Ah Okay, that's the point. You and I talked about this about a year ago, I think, and I remarked or two years ago maybe now, about that Putin appeared to be tactically brilliant and that he managed to, you know, acquire ports in Syria, give give Russia Mediterrane presence that had never had acquire access to huge national resources in Africa. And we're not just we're
not talking about just oil and gas. We're talking about minerals, which may come to be as important as oil and gas, honestly if you take a better look at it. And that he had managed to insert himself in places where the Soviet Union had never been effective before, and he was doing it cheaply because he was doing it all with the Wagner Group. He's doing it cheaply and somewhat deniably. I mean, there were Russian flags flying in African cities
because of the Wagner Group. So what happens, Well, Wagner Group's destroyed. Wagner's destroyed, But there's still Russian forces there, okay, because they've been integrated into the Russian military. So there are still Russian military forces there. Does he want to maintain that? He's going to have to. I mean, and although it doesn't get much press coverage here, only recently, within the last few months major Russian contention was slaughtered on the ground and by one of these ISIS groups.
So it does. It's it does consume resources. As far as Libya is concerned. In North Africa as a whole, there is a geopolitical battle going on there.
With Egypt, with uh Saudi.
We don't happen to be players, but one of the things that's happened, Chuck, I think that we haven't.
You asked the question what does it mean for the US, Well.
These days we're not necessarily the only power sphere players. Maybe we like to think of ourselves this way, but Iran, Saudi, Turkey Egypt are the power players in the Mid East. Israel, we're we're hanging out. We supply weapons to people that we like, but we're not We're not in the.
Position we once were. So the two questions that are relevant is, you know, what is our role?
You know, can we can we be a peacemaker or can we help in entreaties? Can we help in alliances? Rather than being the power broker we once were, everybody still looks at us as the power broker. I'm not sure that that's the same way to look at it anymore. Yeah, we can be mediators and facilitators, but these other people are in it to the extent of I mean, Egypt has military forces in Libya and is supporting groups. You know, these people are not bashful about sending over military into
these conflicts. We are, and since we are, we're no longer unless if you're not prepared to participate militarily, you know, are you really a power anymore?
Today? Israel basically destroyed.
Iamani shipping by deciding to take make out all their major ports.
That's a power broker, right. Uh?
What did we do in human We bombed missile sites. That's not a power broker, and why do we do that? Obviously we don't like to be nice guys, and you know we we're not brutal like these other people. The guys that are brutal unfortunately tend to be the power brokers. Again, not saying I like it, it's just like that's the reality.
So back to your question of what is our role. Our role is probably to not do what we have tried.
To do in the past, to not do to try not to try necessarily to pick sides all the time. Two uh, you know, do we really do we really have a have a place with military forces in Syria or would it be better for us to look at a way to strengthen the Syrian regime? I mean, the I got to tell you there is no sign that the current Syrian leader that is trying to you know, re establish a Syrian state would be meant any more
excited about Black Flag. Isis troops pouring across the border from you know, from the eastern border than anybody else is. You know, So we've we've got to look maybe maybe we're not the power brokers, but we've got to look for the you know, least dangerous choices. That was that was the long winded answered obviously to a very complex but we've got to get it out of our head that we we are the power brokers like we used to be.
Yeah, huge key, huge key there. So all right, I guess the final thing then, really the true final thing here and then we'll just put a bow on this thing until later, you know, stay tuned. I guess, right, is very a very simple question, but complex answer. I'm sure we have an administration coming in obviously there's going to be some changes here. What do you think you were looking at? I mean, are we looking at something
that's going to go completely down the memory hole. Nobody's going to look at this in the West for a while. It's just gonna oh, well, something's happening in Syria. But we're going to be too busy, you know, with the with the domestic political circus, and that'll be that. Or do you think there'll be a significant change that's going to make a difference here with the incoming administration.
It's clear that Trump wants to be a deal maker in terms of Ukraine and Russia and in Europe, it's totally unclear that he has any interest in being a deal maker anyplace else. Certainly, it's clear that he has a commitment to Israel, right, so is there room for some participation in negotiations mediations the same sort of could the administration? Could the Trump administration do what the Biden administration has been trying to do in negotiations Hill, which
is is not a major role. It's a you know, we're here, maybe we're a neutral party.
We can help, you know. But I know, I don't see us.
I don't really see us getting involved in in Africa or more in the Middle East, because I think his interests are, his interests are elsewhere. His interests are domestic, and his interest are clearly he's shown that he has an interest in the Far East, you know, in the China question, you know, But I so, no, I don't I don't see him having a real focus on there. And I think it will go the way that it goes to a large extent in one of the things that he's going to be consumed by. And you mentioned
it as domestically. I mean what we've seen today. If he does indeed manage to persuade Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling, his whole life for his administration's life is going to find a way to follow through on that without making the national debt explode. I think he will have more than enough, you know, between negotiating with Putin and that, I think he will have more than enough on his plate.
So that's what we're looking at for the next long while. I think is that quite honestly, if his entire administration is not occupied with that issue, then you know, it'll only that would indicate that it's solved. And I don't see that being solved in any quick, sodic vas.
Here in the last In the last administration, his whole platform was reducing the national debt, and it expanded by almost eight trillion. Okay, again, what happens if you take the ceiling, which is what he proposed today, there's no more ceiling, there's no more congressional oversight, there's no ceiling on the national debt. It's just a commitment to somehow
reduce it by reducing spending while reducing taxation. I I didn't take a lot of economics classes in college, but I took some, and so far I haven't been able to draw a chart that makes sense out of that to me.
But that's just me.
The only way to make sense out of that chart, Larry, you know from again, I'm not an economics guy either, but the only way in my mind is to create another revenue stream. Okay, that's the only thing, and it better be a hell of a good one. That's all saying.
You know, I agree, I don't know where it's going to come from, because the other if you don't and I've been through this in actual real world situations, if you don't do exactly that as a commer, as a commercial company in corporation that I've been with, who ends up eating the net result is your banker. I mean you may you go bankrupt and your banker will take you to court, But who actually ate the failure? The banker that you borrowed the loans from that you could not replace with income.
Yeah, eventually, that's where it's.
Going in this sense. How would who? Who would who would backstop that nation?
The Oh oh we would no more bankers?
It's us.
Yeah, that's what it comes down to. Except in real world business, what happens is the company, uh disbands and it's gone.
Okay, and we don't really want to do that. I don't, I'm not Yeah, that doesn't sound good.
That's the thing, you know, just firesale USA does not seem like the way to go. But you know, I guess we'll again have to stay tuned. Larry, any final thoughts on this before we close it out, because I mean, it's definitely it's definitely going to go the way it's going to go. And I think you're extremely accurate in saying that people need to understand that we're not going to be the big influencer here as this goes forward. We're not going to be the most significant stick, no
matter how many carrots or sticks are involved here. Even though we have the biggest stick on the planet, it doesn't mean that we're going to be able to play a role in this circumstance.
It seems now it doesn't. And I think one of the interesting things is the other big the other big.
Thing that we need to learn from what's going on right now is big stick no longer matters except between those people that have it. They may not hit each other with it because they each have one. But in the smaller playing fields in eastern Ukraine, you know, Putin may talk all day long about nukes, but nukes would not win it. For him anymore than nukes would have won it for US in career of Vietnam. They're not ground level tactical weapons. What's going to play out in
Africa and the Middle East. We're talking about people with automatic weapons and anti aircraft missiles. That's how these struggles are going to play out. So the big stick is not really relevant, and it's relevant between US and Russia, Russia and China, you know, but that part of the Cold War mentality is no longer in play because the weapons have changed. I mean, look at what we were
worried about today. Are we worried about ballistic missile attacks? No, We're worried about weaponized drone swarms.
And where the hell are those things going? Gee? I wish I could have done a show with you on that, but it seems as though the mainstream media has decided to pick up on it finally. So you know, they flew over over Jersey for about six weeks before anybody gave a crap, but now they do, so it's okay. And oh, by the way, there's news about that. But maybe we'll cover tomorrow night on the call in show, Larry.
I know I'm not going to speak to you again until next year, and when we do speak, I think we're going to start to focus on the brand new book, which should be out. When when is the release Do you have a release date for that?
Yeah? I think you.
I actually should have a review copy. Those will be shipping out by the end of the year, excellent, So you should have a copy in your hands by then. We should be ready to talk about it at the end of the year, first week, because it should. It is supposed to be shipping by the second week in January. He might ship earlier. Everything seems to be on target.
So and I'm really ready because I've been not talking about that for weeks now, and as you know, me not talking about something increases my stress level.
Oh absolutely, And look, I definitely promoted it at Lancer. I went around, I did a special handout of the of the promotional materials at Lancer at a certain point this past year. But the Oswald Puzzle will be out and I'm looking forward to reading the final product and going over it with you here on this show. We might do a couple of parts on it, actually, but not until January. So Larry, with that all that in mind, I want to say that I hope that you have
a great holiday season one way or another. You know, Christmas is less than a week away now, and of course the New Year the following week, so you know, we'll talk sometime after that and cover for people what it is that you have released in this book, which, by the way, is Boiling listed as the co author.
Oh yeah, okay, it's me and David and it is. It's interesting. We might want it to.
It's actually two books, and one really which we're trying to get across because that's hard to communicate. One half of the book is who what really was Lee Rvy Oswald? And what did the world look like through his eyes? Not what we wanted to make it look like or the Warrant Commission, you know, what was the world like to Lee Harvey Oswald?
What were his agendas?
The second half of the book deals with why he behaves strangely on November twenty second, which had nothing to do with shooting President Kennedy.
And you ever noticed that strange behavior is only called strange behavior until you understand what's actually happening during that behavior. Then it all starts to what makes sense.
And strange behavior. That's one of the things we're trying to get across. Strange behavior looks strange from the outside, especially afterwards.
Yeah, but for.
An individual, behavior is either it is not strange. They know what they're doing, they have an agenda. Like internally, it's not strange. Externally it may look strange, but nobody may comment unless something. If Oswald had gone about what he was doing on a regular day and the president had not been shot, we would not even know about him.
Now, nobody would notice the strange behavior unless something occurred to call your attention to it. And here's the problem. Just because your attention has been called to it does not mean you understand the circumstances that created the situation that this behavior occurred in. I know that's long winded, but that's exactly what it is we're looking at here. Anyway. It is.
And when you have a guy in jail who's for killing the president, his wife comes to visit him, and his main concern is is she going to get new baby shoes?
Yeah? Did you get the new shoes?
It's like, wait a minute, what was really on his mind? WHOA what's going on here? Yeah?
Oh, by the way, I know all this is going on but make sure Junior gets some new shoes June. Okay, sure, it makes sense to nobody except him because he's in the circumstance anyway.
But we'll get there.
We'll get into all that and a whole lot more in the coming years. So again, Larry, I hope you have a great holiday, and we'll talk again sometime in January.
Okay, all right, Merry Christmas, Chuck.
Absolutely, and you guys out there listening. We have tomorrow night's call in show for sure, and yeah, we'll be talking to Larry in January. Until then, I absolutely support and endorse all of Larry's work, all of it that exists so far. I got a feeling I'm going to endorse the Soswald book as well, but I haven't read the whole thing yet, so we'll see when it comes out, right anyway, Larry Dashhancock dot com. Check out Larry's blog.
All of his works again, all of them endorsed by me sitting on my shelf, taking up a lot of space, but not just taking up space. Incredible stuff, whether it is the various books that do have something to do with the Kennedy assassination, like Tipping Point, the upcoming Oswald puzzle. Someone would have talked that one's a little old, but it's been reissued a few times, gotta say. Or it is the other works by Larry and some of his fine co authors like Stu Wexler, David Boyle In et cetera.
You know what, all great stuff Larrydashhandcock dot com. Go there, check it out and remember this. At o'chelly dot com, come on buy and anything you chip in will be helpful during this holiday season. If you can, I would greatly appreciate it. But there it is. The donate button at o'chelly dot com is available twenty four to seven, just like our online radio station is. Anyway, I am merely o'celly. All of you are indeed the effect Chili dot com