TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @amaryllisfox
Posted - October 25, 2024 at 5:47 PM
Saved - December 22, 2024 at 7:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In a landscape filled with government censorship and corporate propaganda, I see @tuckercarlson and @elonmusk championing the free marketplace of ideas, which I believe is vital for our nation's freedom. The liberal media once embraced skepticism towards the CIA, but now it takes real courage to discuss these topics, especially given the power of intelligence agencies over political elites. I long for a return to a nation that values free expression and debate, where holding the government accountable to constitutional principles is standard practice.
@amaryllisfox - Amaryllis Fox
In a swamp of government censors, jingoism, and corporate propaganda, @tuckercarlson and @elonmusk hold the free marketplace of ideas aloft on their backs. There is no greater service to our country and no more crucial contribution to the endurance of human freedom on Earth. Liberal media used to welcome healthy skepticism of CIA. Today, it takes courage to air a conversation such as this. After all, in the words of Chuck Schumer, “the intelligence agencies have six ways to Sunday to get back at you.” In other words, political elites work for them, not for you. Imagine saying that. Imagine allowing it to continue to be true. It’s time to become again a country of free expression and debate. A country that holds its government to the principles of its constitution. A country where an interview like this is not the exception, but the norm.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
When Amaryllis Fox Kennedy says the intel agencies are a threat to our country, she’s not guessing. She spent ten years as a CIA officer before running Bobby Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. She’s now campaigning for Trump. (0:00) The Ukraine War Scam (9:50) Why Washington Doesn’t Care About Domestic Policy (14:13) Intel Agencies Operating Within the Media (19:48) How America’s War on Iraq Caused the Fall of Europe (27:43) The Classified Documents About 9/11 (33:20) The Kennedy Assassinations (36:21) Intel Agencies Working with Drug Cartels (43:49) Our Politicians Are Controlled by the Intel Agencies (57:12) The Impending EMP Crisis (1:14:20) Why Biden Reversed Trump’s EMP Preparedness Measures (1:26:31) The Media Blackout of Kennedy’s Campaign (1:37:41) Bobby Kennedy Endorsing Trump Includes paid partnership.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration allegedly influenced Ukraine to abandon a peace deal with Russia, resulting in significant loss of life and territory. The U.S. is accused of exploiting Ukraine's resources for profit while claiming to support its people. The conversation highlights the unsustainable nature of prolonged military engagement and the human cost involved. There's a critique of how U.S. foreign policy impacts domestic issues, including censorship and the erosion of democracy. The discussion also touches on the potential dangers of an EMP attack on the electrical grid, emphasizing the need for protective measures that were revoked under Biden. The media's role in shaping public perception and the challenges of free speech in the current political climate are also explored. The urgency of addressing these issues for the future of democracy and human rights is underscored.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is a tweet from I don't normally read people's tweets, but in standing with Ukraine, the Biden Harris administration convinced them, Ukraine, to abandon a peace deal that would have ceded only half of the territory that Russia now occupies. And for that opportunity to lose twice as much of their homeland, they paid with tens of thousands of innocent lives. We did this to control the 11,000,000,000,000 of minerals under the Donbas. We did it to grind down the Russian war machine on the grist of Ukrainian teenagers. We did it to hand out 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to US hedge funds who are, as we speak, carving up rights to Ukraine's fertile soil and vast mineral resources.
The truth is the United States has never stood with the people of Ukraine. That is simply a jingle, an ad campaign broadcast to those who have never been there, designed to to sell taxpayers on the appeal of prolonging war for profit. We have cost Ukraine her territory. We have cost Ukraine her children. The war hawks and the bankers are no friends to Ukraine.
Woah. I was applauding as I read that. Alone in my truck.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a horror. It's a horror, and we are I we just allocated another 100,000,000,000. I mean, it's and where is the endgame?
Speaker 0: How did you get here? How did you get I mean, I you're we're from, you know, the same city, basically, and you were a CI officer, and you're just from a world in which that is an extremely unpopular, never uttered sentiment. How did you get to that?
Speaker 1: Well, part of it is pattern recognition. Right? I mean Yeah. We we have done this before. And, you know, it's just how many times can you wade through years years of a war with absolutely no stated endgame and and dwindling public support and mounting civilian casualties and disintegrating homeland because all of your money is being spent, you know, fueling weaponry to blow up over foreign skies, and continue to print more money to pay for it?
And the answer the last time around was 20 years. And I I wanna make sure it's not again because, you know, here we are at $33,000,000,000,000 worth of debt, and we're now paying more on those interest payments every year than we are on defense. Completely unsustainable, and most importantly are the human lives. Yes. Tens of thousands of people who won't, you know, proverbially dance at their children's wedding
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And see the sunrise and drink a cup of coffee. And it's just that part of it is completely lost. And when you when you hear our generals and our political leaders saying, don't you understand this is a great thing? We are achieving the strategic aim of, diminishing Russian military reserves, and we don't even have to put a person on the ground. You know, what they are saying is that those Ukrainian children and now, you know, old men and anyone else that they can put up against the front line are lesser children of God than our own that we would send over there.
And, you know, that doesn't fly with me. So
Speaker 0: It's repugnant. Yeah. And I know you don't wanna talk about yourself, but I'm because I do I think I understand your background pretty well. I just I'm fascinated by the fact that you are saying this and that no one, very few people in the world from which, honestly, we both come, are saying anything like this. And so what what how did how did you reach this conclusion?
Of course, it's pattern recognition. You're saying it's common sense. Like, how could you not reach this conclusion? I agree with you. But how is it that almost no one else in Washington is saying anything like this?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I wish they would, and I think some of them are seeing it, you know, in the privacy of their own conversations. But I came to it, you know, after 911, there was kind of a suspension of opposition to war in our country that
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe has has never let up. I mean, there's some recognition now that that poor choices were made there. But in the moment when, you know, France was objecting and we decided to call French fries freedom fries and,
Speaker 0: you
Speaker 1: know, the there was a a a real hunger for war.
Speaker 0: And I remember gleefully participating in that to my shame. Yes.
Speaker 1: It it was a collective psychosis maybe or grieving process or you know? And for me, I'd just 911 happened as I was going into my last year, at university, and I I went to Oxford overseas, and it started in October, so I was home for it. My mom lived in DC at the time. And I had a whole plan. I was gonna go to to Thailand after graduation and do human rights journalism, and I sort of had a background there and on the Tiberius border before, before school.
And everything changed as it did for so many in our generation, I think, on September 11th. And for me, I I had lost one of my best friends in 3rd grade, on the flight that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, and it brought a lot of that back. And I think hearing the war drums beating, for me, I hadn't, oddly enough, heard much about the intelligence world. I mean, I didn't I didn't know many of the things that I know now. I don't think I probably would have gone into it if I had, but I liked the idea of a kind of a secret diplomatic service.
I like the idea that rather than conduct an incredibly expensive kinetic war, expensive both in terms of lives and treasure, that you could find out about something before it happened and prevent the attack from happening in the first place, which, admittedly, was a kind of naive early twenties understanding of of the intelligence business. But at its best, you know, that is what it does or what it intends to do. I think where they get into tremendous trouble is I'm tempted to say mission creep, but, actually, it was kind of built in to the entire OSSCA history. But it's when rather than going in and actually reporting what is happening in every corner of the world, they are making it happen.
Speaker 0: Yes. So it's not really intelligence gathering. It's a it's a kind of secret military.
Speaker 1: Right. I mean, rather than reporting that a coup is about to take place, you know for absolute sure it's about to take place.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And, that has but not worked out in 100% of cases as far as I can tell. And, and yet, again, we never learn our lesson. I mean, you look at what's happening in the Middle East now, you know, what, 70 years on, post Mosaddegh, and every oh, if only we had a democratically elected leader in Iran. We did. You know?
And people may or may not agree with with each of these governments, but they are for the people of each country to work through. We had our own revolution in this country. It was a very important, you know, stealing of our national values, and I think you have to go through that yourself. And I I worry in Iran that we're, you know, hearing the beginnings of that again with this kind of royalist sentiment, monarchist sentiment of, you know, well, the human rights abuses there are so egregious that anything would be justified, and it it just it does no one any favors.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, what you're describing is conceptual corruption, like a corruption of of first principles. If the point of your foreign policy is to spread democracy, you can't end democracy in the name of I mean, you just that's that's insane, and no one says that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Unless you're the Democratic Party in the United States these days who seem to be, you know, have cut their teeth on ending democracy to save it overseas and now are practicing the same theory here in the United States where they've told us for the last 2 years, you know, Donald Trump is such a threat to democracy that we must stage a palace coup, you know, replace our candidate with someone who hasn't received a single vote, undermine every other candidate of our own party and every other party in the courts, censor American citizens, undermine the constitution, all in order to save democracy. So I think what we what we reap overseas, we sow it or what we sow overseas, we reap at home, and we're in the midst of that.
Speaker 0: Does seem like our foreign policy drives our domestic policy or that there isn't actually much of a domestic policy. There's not a great concern about what happens in the United States in Washington. I have noticed I came to this over 40 years of watching, but, it that maybe was inevitable. If you start overthrowing democratically elected governments abroad, why wouldn't over time you think that's acceptable in your own country?
Speaker 1: Acceptable, maybe even noble. I mean, you know, the lies people tell themselves in order to persist with what is ultimately an incredibly profitable business model. But, also, you know, if your end is stability and you tell yourself that stability requires control, you know, and that there need to be small short term sacrifices, and I think we really are seeing that bear out in our domestic politics, where, increasingly, I'm seeing the First Amendment as an obstacle. Does the constitution, you know, actually serve us? These kinds of questions and articles coming out in the media and Democratic leaders, and I think it really is a symptom of what we have been spreading around the world.
And the results are plain to see. You know, I mean, we had more Americans slip into poverty over the last 2 years than, I think, any year in the last 50. We've our nuclear clock, you know, we've ticked closer to midnight than at any time since its creation in 1947. More more people died around the world in the first two years of Biden Harris from war and violence than in all 4 years of Donald Trump, what the I I think people don't really recognize, and not even just because of Ukraine, even if you take Ukraine out of it. And so I think that, you know, the insecurity that that we see there and then the fact that at home, we have more children living in poverty than any rich nation except for Romania.
Our life expectancy sits right above Algeria's. You know, in the 19 nineties, if you were born in the United States, you could expect to live as long as in any other pure nation, and now you die 6 years earlier. You know, 6 years of hanging out with your grandchildren and watching the sunrise on your porch has just been robbed through absolute, utter lack of leadership on Yeah. Domestic health priorities. And and I it's really time for a shakeup.
Speaker 0: Everything you said is, so nicely put and true. I wonder because you know a lot of the, you know, you know, a lot of the people operating our current foreign policy, and you worked at one of the agencies prosecuting that foreign policy. Like, did you detect these attitudes when you worked there? When you worked at CIA, did you get the sense that people felt it would be okay to interfere in domestic politics in the US?
Speaker 1: Well, they were sure keen on doing it in other countries and used a lot of the same tactics. I never witnessed any tendency to do it in the US at all, but it also you know, I was working very specifically around I worked a UK liaison and then worked operationally on nonproliferation, but specifically within the context of non state actors. So very focused overseas, watch the exact same playbook of going in, finding underfunded, newspapers and radio stations and TV shows. You know, a benefactor would arrive with funding, and all of a sudden, you know, that mouthpiece is is presenting stories in a light that, you know, aligns with US foreign policy or the the preferences of of whatever leader is in power here. And I think that we are seeing that across the board in media except for new media like this, and that's been a godsend.
So
Speaker 0: you you think that we're seeing federal agencies, intel agencies, influencing American media surreptitiously?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I don't think that it's in as, I mean, I doubt they're actually investors. There there are layers of this. Right? I mean, you see at the most basic level, it's, you run the story for me, and I'll give you the best tip the next time that I have a leak, right, which is the oldest exchange in the world.
Well, maybe the second oldest. And I've
Speaker 0: seen it.
Speaker 1: And it goes on, you know, every day. But there's no doubt that there are also actual formal sources throughout the media and always have been. You know?
Speaker 0: What does that mean, a formal source in the media?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, an asset, somebody that would be paid by intelligence organizations to, to work on their behalf, play stories on their behalf, and, of course, that happens, you know, all across the world.
Speaker 0: But when it happens in the United States, then it's the end of democracy, of course.
Speaker 1: Well, look. I mean, we have CISA operating basically a Jira ticketing system for any tweet that the White House chooses to that they would like to see deleted even if it's in jest, even if it's satire. They just put it in the ticketing space.
Speaker 0: What CISA is?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, what's interesting about CISA is that it, you know, it's a a part of the Department of Homeland Security, but it's supposed to protect our our nation's infrastructure from terror attacks. And at the beginning of the Biden administration, a decision was made that information is infrastructure.
Speaker 0: Oh, it is now, is it?
Speaker 1: Which has, you know, an Orwellian tang to it. And as a result, in order to secure it, you know, CISA was quietly empowered with the ability, sometimes directly and sometimes through NGO cutouts, to present to all the social media companies and Wikipedia and Amazon, any content that was flagged as concerning. And they they you know, BOLO alerts went out beyond the lookout, And they held weekly meetings and said, you know, here here put put an enormous amount of financial pressure on these companies saying, you know, that their legal protections, from liability would be withdrawn if they didn't cooperate, naming and shaming them if they took, you know, longer than a week to respond on something from the podium in the White House. And Mark Zuckerberg has, you know, spoken publicly and and written about the degree of pressure that he felt to censor American people, and we're now seeing UK's Labour Party doing the exact same thing here in our own country, which is, you know, in some ways, more egregious and, and in other ways,
Speaker 0: you know, it's just not mean to
Speaker 1: So UK, the labor party, which is currently in power in the UK, has a series of NGOs that it funds and directs, that have waged war on free speech, especially, what they call Twitter under Musk or Musk's Twitter, that they have gone into multiple offices, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and said, you know, that they want to participate in and provide support for destroying Musk's Twitter. And, you know, this is
Speaker 0: Wait. They would be the dreaded foreign actor interfering in our democracy. Correct? That we're always hearing so much about it. Turns out to be the Brits.
Speaker 1: Turns out to be the Brits, you know, and many others. Right? But there is nobody's fighting them because labor has just sent, you know, I think, 30 people over to campaign for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 0: Is that legal? That seems like foreign interference in our
Speaker 1: Evidently, their their approach is that as long as you're not donating money as if you're out on the if you're out on the campaign trail volunteering, then it's legal. But, you know, certainly unwise, in my opinion, because, you know, if president Trump wins this election, which he's looking very likely to do right now, You know, it it it's it's an improper way to conduct foreign relations. Right? You don't go to another country and campaign for a particular candidate for office.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Or try and shut down their most basic rights.
Speaker 1: I mean, the first amendment, as everybody always says, it's first for a reason. The constitution, you know, was written a decade later, but largely in response to our secession from Great Britain to come and to meddle with that constitution, in our own country. And, of course, this follows suit, with some of the challenges that we're seeing free speech face in the United Kingdom, where people are being thrown in prison for 10 months, for 2 years, and so forth for, for social media posts. For talking?
Speaker 0: Yeah. You're half English. You're educated heavily in English.
Speaker 1: I love England. And and and by the way, that does not reflect England, or or Great Britain. It is a a very small group of leaders there who've aligned themselves with a very small group of leaders here in the same way that censorship and and undermining the constitution does not reflect the American people, and yet our leaders persist in doing it.
Speaker 0: So, Are you are you surprised as you look across and see what's happening there?
Speaker 1: I am. I mean, I I have a law degree, from Oxford on you know, in English law, and it was always clear that, you know, it's not a written constitution. It's much more based in precedent, but that there is a deep and abiding respect, going back to the Magna Carta, for, civil liberties. And the idea that an a flood of immigration, which, you know, we must take a measure of accountability for because largely, our going into Iraq was was what began that entire shift in the demographics of Europe, would have such an impact.
Speaker 0: It's fall in the northeast, and that means grouse season. I got up at 5 AM yesterday to take my dogs out to hunt for some rough grouse. And before I left, I went to my safe to pull out my grandmother's 28 gauge. Yes. My grandmother was a bird hunter.
Where do I keep that treasured possession? I keep it in a Liberty safe. For over 35 years, hunters have trusted Liberty Safes to keep their firearms safe and secure, and we do to this day in my house. Liberty Safes are made by American Craftsmen right here in the United States. It's a product we believe in.
It is a product you use to hide and protect the things you care about most, the things you would least like to see stolen. So, it's a special deal for all of you who hunt out there. Liberty is offering exclusive promotion for our viewers for the month of October. Go to liberty safe.com/tucker and place one of their best selling safes in your cart, use the promo code Tucker at checkout for a great discount. That's liberty safe dot com slash Tucker, promo code Tucker at checkout for a special deal in October, which, by the way, is bird hunting month.
With Liberty Safe, you are always protected. Because esketopause are going into Iraq is what set off the demographic shift in Europe. Yeah. I'd that's, of course, true beyond debate, but I think it's underappreciated.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. We broke the world for I used to say we broke the world for 20 years, but here we are, and I think, you know, the the ramifications we're continuing to deal with. And they, you know, they they compound because as a result of of that, you know, we have Brexit. We have many of the pressures that have led, to the Ukraine war. And as a result of that, we're facing, I think, really unprecedented dangers in this country that are also greatly underappreciated, and we will respond to if they happen.
And I think that escalatory cycle is what keeps us trapped in in the bad decision making. And, you know, I remember at the time in Iraq, it was, you know, 6 months, we'll be out. They'll greet us as heroes, and the same thing was said in Ukraine, and we find ourselves in these quagmires without realizing that, yes, there's a body count. And by the way, that is generally largely lied about and hidden.
Speaker 0: Oh, for sure.
Speaker 1: But then there's this vastly higher body count of those whose lives have been uprooted and who have either died early as a result of, you know, migration or dust of despair. This is the same with lockdowns, and those numbers are incredibly hard to ever even peg down. And when you look at the 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 displaced I mean, Brown University pegs the the global war on terrorism as having killed or led to the deaths of 800,000 civilians. And that goes so far beyond what the US will will speak to, and then the the those that were forced to migrate are in the many millions. And when you take homogeneous you know, Europe is of is Balkanized, but each of each element there is accustomed to being very homogeneous.
Speaker 0: And Those are the indigenous populations Yeah. Of the continent.
Speaker 1: Right. And when, you know, when I was in when I was at Georgetown, at I did, my master's at the school of foreign service there, and the the focus of my thesis was trying to get very quantitative about predicting terrorism because at the time, it was a very squishy subject. It was post 911, and it was mostly qualitative the way people were describing it. And one of the one of the closest corollaries that I could find to being, predictive was the ratio between hookah bars and madrasas, but not just the ratio, the rate at which it changed. And that is, I think, deeply underappreciated.
It's not that they don't necessarily plan to, at some point, have their demographics look different.
Speaker 0: Right. But when
Speaker 1: it's forced so quickly Yes. That nobody can absorb The pace of change matters.
Speaker 0: It matters. We can't metabolize it. People are not designed for this pace of change at all.
Speaker 1: It really, really matters. Whatever you know, that's it. That madrasa bars and, hookah bars are, in the Middle Eastern context. But when you look at what we're experiencing in the US, where you have kids who've just come back from a pandemic then being sent home again to do Zoom school so that their classrooms can be used to house migrants or, you know, hotels all being shut for the same purpose while veterans sleep under bridges on the streets. It's the scale of it and the the deluge is what makes it impossible for any society to absorb, and that doesn't make it, you know, that doesn't make it racist.
It doesn't make it wrong. It it's human nature to need time, and and the nature of economies and societies to need time to be able to expand and adapt. And I think our going into Iraq Afghanistan a little bit, though, in the early days, that was actually pretty well managed before it before it sprawled. But 2003, I think, was really the beginning of this era where we were shifting you know, we're talking about a rules based order and breaking every single rule in that rules based order and then having utter disregard for the social chaos that was resulting.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And and people's need, which is inherent, for order and predictability and continuity in their lives and their communities. When I was talking about communities, nobody actually cares about communities.
They'll blow them up, in a heartbeat. So can I just ask you about I've there's so many threads, but, just to get back to what drew you into this kind of amazing life that you've lived, which was 911? I don't understand I sincerely don't understand, maybe you do, why 23 years later when, you know, every regime in place in 2001 is now different, including the Saudi government
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Why we would have so many classified documents from that time. What what's the excuse for that? I don't get that at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, why do we still have classified documents from the sixties?
Speaker 0: Oh, I completely agree. But because 911 was, you know, was the world changing event of our lifetimes, I think it's fair to say in retrospect. I I I don't understand the justification for that. And I don't know why nobody demands, like, why not declassify it? Like, why shouldn't it's our country.
All these people died. We should know.
Speaker 1: Right. And I and I I agree entirely, and I agree. I I mean, the same applies for the sixties. I think, ultimately, you know, when most Americans go to work for a third of their working week, they are working for the government. They're working they are taking that money, having spent the day away from their families, sacrificing whatever they would prefer to be doing, and they don't get to keep any of it.
They turn it all over to the government. The government works for the people directly. I mean, they are directly paid by the people. And if your boss asks what you've been doing and, you know, you say, sorry. I can't tell you it's classified, it doesn't cut it.
You know? And, you know, are there are there moments where, you know, the actual identity of a source who's, you know, preventing nuclear war with the Russians is at stake? Sure. But they're actually quite few and far between. And, you know, I think there is a bureaucratic inertia here.
Some of it is some of it is CYA, and some of it is, you know, probably more nefarious than that. But there is also a lot of bureaucratic inertia, and it's one of the reasons I'm excited about the prospect of Elon getting in there, but to to do some surgery on on some of that bureaucracy. But, you know, CIA 101, when you start, you have this 1 week, you know, fill out your tax forms, get the same as you would with any other job, like, nothing sexy about it at all. There is just here's the insurance program, and and the person who's gonna work in, you know, the coffee shop is sitting next to someone who's about to go down to the farm. It's just everybody goes through it.
And the email client that you use there looks a lot like Gmail. I mean, it's provided by Google, and it has all the normal fields and then an additional field that's for, for classification. And it's a a drop down menu, and it when it first drops down, it's all checkboxes with their own, you know, sub subsets. And it's hundreds of different classifications, all different numbers and codes. And you can hover over them, and they say when to use them.
But but there are a lot. And we were told in that first day, you know, in that first, course, You know, just to make it easy on yourself, pick HCS 404, checkbox it, hit save as favorites. It'll come up every time, and then you don't have to worry about it. Well, that's, you know, human compartmented sensitive information. It's usually reserved for, you know, the actual identity or address or identifying details of a source that whose life could be in danger for what they're doing.
And yet, here, it's being used for, you know, I'll meet you at 4:30 at Dunkin' Donuts and everything in between, good and bad, nefarious and not. And the problem with that is that it is completely exempt from any declassification threshold ever. And as a result of this kind of administrative tweak, which was is either just to save people time or maybe to, you know, reduce the number of things that will ever eventually be published. Now you have class after class after class of CIA officers that, you know, just chronically make sure that every single email they ever write will never see the light of day. And I think that is being done across government.
Speaker 0: So, literally, the default is secrecy from the public?
Speaker 1: Yep. The default is you will never know. You never know how much money was spent, what it was spent on, whether it was legal, you know, whether you spent that Tuesday away from your family working to pay taxes, and those taxes went to kill someone or went to save someone's life. There's no no accountability.
Speaker 0: And there's no way to know.
Speaker 1: And there's no way to know. And there could be. Right? I I have a lot of respect for for the role of intelligence agencies in saving lives and in preventing conflict and attacks. I think they're actually far more valuable in that than many people realize because they have so sullied their name by getting into all kinds of other business that that they shouldn't be doing.
But there is a very valuable role for them. And in that, there are some things that do, you know, need to remain secret. But 20 years later, 40 years later, 60 years later, you know, that then it becomes about, quote, unquote, preserving trust in our institutions. Right?
Speaker 0: Continuing to lie to you.
Speaker 1: You know, code for, if you knew what we did then, you would shut us down now. You know? And
Speaker 0: Is it I assume that's the motive behind continuing to classify documents from 1963 in the Kennedy's
Speaker 1: Well, it's sure not sources and methods. Right? I mean, if it is, then, you know, we've got
Speaker 0: we need to update our
Speaker 1: sources and methods. Our sources and methods. But it there it's not. I mean, from time to time, they they will say this is about protecting allies. Of course, I think we would all wanna know if if there were allies or any other nation states involved in what happened in the sixties or what happened in 911.
So protecting anyone above the American people who you work for doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Speaker 0: They'll actually say it's to protect allies.
Speaker 1: Well, not about a specific operation, but as a reason for long term classification when pushed. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's pretty outrageous that they would admit that.
Speaker 1: I mean
Speaker 0: So the interest of a foreign country are more important than the interest of the American people?
Speaker 1: I think their I think their kind of argument would be, if I were to steel man it, eventually, the American people will be protected by something that we need from that ally, some kind of, you know, security collaboration or whatever we might need down the road, and therefore, you know, we must keep that relationship strong. And, again, if it is the identity of somebody who's working with you, whose family is gonna be in danger, that is absolutely true. And maybe that's still true 40 years later. You know, it's possible that it is in certain circumstances. But
Speaker 0: How about how about 61 years later?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, less and less likely.
Speaker 0: What do you think that's about?
Speaker 1: The the assassinations of the sixties?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Oh, I could talk to you about that all day.
Speaker 0: I bet. You've intersected with it on various levels in
Speaker 1: I have. Yeah. And and I feel something of a responsibility to to get to the bottom of that, at at least in my lifetime, for my children. You know what I mean? My my daughter, Bobcat, is Bobby the 4th.
So her great grandfather was RFK. And and I don't I wanna be able to look at her and and for her to know whether or not her own government was involved in these assassinations, and if so, what's been done about it to make sure that that never ever happens again, that there's never a coup like that in this country again. And I think when you look at the collaboration that was going on in those days between the intelligence community and organized crime and the mob, you know, there there there were very blurry boundaries. And I worry that today the cartels have kind of taken the mob's role in that world.
Speaker 0: The cartoon meaning the Latin American drug cartels? Do you you think that the US government is working with the cartels?
Speaker 1: I I mean, working with is is broad. Right? I mean, the the intelligence community's job is to protect the American people, and sometimes they interpret that as requiring, collaboration with criminal elements, with terror organizations, ostensibly as part of cover to, you know, to complete an operation that will save American lives or provide information that, you know, would be helpful to American leaders. Clearly, in the sixties, that ended up being manipulated into a broader collaboration that allowed US government elements to undertake activities that they could not directly undertake by law. And, you know, I think we've seen that even with liaison partnerships.
You know, it's clear that Five Eyes has been used. You know, liaison intelligence liaison partners have been used to surveil leaders in our own government when our intelligence agencies could not do it directly because there's no prohibition on sharing intelligence.
Speaker 0: Right. So you get a foreign intel service to do the work for you, and then you get the information.
Speaker 1: Right. And, similarly, you get an NGO or a contractor to censor the American people, or you get a criminal organization to undertake a criminal act that, you know, you you might might not be so savory for your own officers to do. And that you know, I I never worked in Latin America, so it's not it's not something that I have directly witnessed, but I certainly have direct, you know, knowledge of it happening.
Speaker 0: Of the US government collaborating or having some relationship that's not purely antagonistic with the Mexican and or other drug cartels.
Speaker 1: Sure. And I and and I think, you know, again, the steel man would be, this is for the benefit of the American people.
Speaker 0: Well, it's always for your own good, for sure.
Speaker 1: Including true. Look. There is there an argument for having penetrations in the top of the cartels in the same way that you do at the top of, you know, the Iranian or Russian or any other adversarial government? Sure. These I mean, many of them are as powerful and threatening as as a as a nation state.
Speaker 0: The problem, though, is money. Right. And there's just so much money spinning off of these enterprises, these the cartels that I mean, you could just see corruption happening very easily. And I I know one person who was involved in that who who I trust. I can't prove it, but who who worked for CIA is a contractor moving over as so many do from the military.
And, you know, he's told me a great length about the money, that CIA was getting from from drug cartels in Latin America and South America in his case. I can't prove that, but I I was shocked to hear that. You don't seem shocked to hear that.
Speaker 1: Do I mean, look at Iran Contra?
Speaker 0: You
Speaker 1: know? I mean, look at Air America and Vietnam. Like, these are it's not this is not a new pattern for intelligence. And when you look at black budgets, you know, I mean, congress was stunned that there were operations happening in Niger, and, obviously, they control the purse strings. So who's funding that?
Right. And so that pattern has gone back, a long way where, where the narcotics trade has, has funded off book activities or that, you know, that is obviously what happened with the Contras and, has has happened before and since.
Speaker 0: Given how many Americans are dying or whose lives are being destroyed, families wrecked entire parts of the country just devastated by drugs.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: It's it's a little much. I mean, that's, like, kind of, at this point, like, Nazi collaboration level immoral, I would say.
Speaker 1: No? It is. It's pouring over the border, and along with it, you know, humans and children. And I think we really are seeing the devastation that that reaps. As you say, the I mean, the just the sheer scale and the sum of the revenue involved makes it a a a real challenge.
Speaker 0: So we're getting pretty close to presidential election. That probably has you thinking about the future and possibly feeling a little anxious about it. So what can you do to secure your future? Well, probably a lot of things, but maybe one of the first, and this is not glamorous, but get some life insurance. According to the annual insurance barometer study, 41% of people don't have the coverage they need should something unexpected happen to them and unexpected things happen.
In fact, it's gonna happen to all of us, not to be morbid. You don't wanna leave a mess behind. You've got people who love you and depend on you. They have mortgage payments or credit card debt. They need money, and you don't wanna leave them in the lurch.
And that has happened probably to people you know. And that's why we're proud to partner with Policygenius. It's a very straightforward tool that helps you find the right life insurance policy at the best price so you can have some peace of mind. Policygenius is easy. You can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a $1,000,000 of coverage.
Some options are a 100% online and let you avoid unnecessary medical exams. And if you're in the business of avoiding unnecessary medical exams, that's good news. Policygenius combines the best of a fast and easy to use digital tool with the expertise of real licensed agents. You compare quotes from America's top insurance side by side for free, so it's not confusing, and you don't suspect that you're getting shafted because you're not. Go to policygenius.com/tucker to get your free life insurance quotes and see how it works and how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com/tucker. So what about congressional oversight? I mean, I you wonder about the committee chairman in the house, couple Republicans who I know who seem to me as an outsider, sort of outsider, completely controlled by the intel agencies. Is that your perception?
Speaker 1: I mean, I look at Chuck Schumer's comment. Yes. They have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you. Remember when he said that to Rachel Maddow?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, you know, she didn't look too surprised. I think it's a known, it's a known quantity. Obviously, it goes back to Hoover. That was very well known. Within Intel, people will say, oh, yeah.
You know, that guy has a Hoover file on him, meaning this or that policymaker. Something is known that means that
Speaker 0: So that's real? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I look at the speaker of the house whose views on everything kind of changed instantly on the on the foreign policy questions. And I think, what are the I mean, there's never been a more obedient speaker to the to the will and whims of the intel community than Mike Johnson, and you sort of wonder, like, what is that?
Well, I I mean know the answer. But
Speaker 1: You look at, you know, the legislation that has come up through the house on multiple things, you know, on election integrity, on, EMP preparedness. Both are 2, you know, completely different things. Both of them actually the Shield Act in both cases, but several other iterations that passed the house with real bipartisan support and then just got completely gummed up in the senate. And these are things that seem so unassailable and and supported across the board by, you know, regular American voters and the base across both parties, that you have to you have to ask what what Hoover files are involved. And if not a Hoover file, then a, you know, a a second house wherever.
But I think between
Speaker 0: so corrupt. It's hard even to believe.
Speaker 1: It is. It is, but it's harder to believe that we're not gonna do anything to root it out. You know? And I I think you have to name a problem and and really recognize it before you can fix it, and it it's something that I admire about what, you know, Matt Taibi and and, Shellenberger did with the Twitter files was for Elon to go in and say, you know, before I even touch anything on day 1, please document for posterity, all of the abuses that have been happening here so that, a, we can fix them, and, b, the American people know this was happening and can prevent it from happening again. And, you know, if that hadn't happened, we wouldn't know what CISA had been up to, also oversees election integrity, by the way, and how important that
Speaker 0: It oversees election integrity? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Those are its 2. It's 2 outside of, you know, bridges and ports and regular infrastructure, those are its two big focuses or sen censorship of social media and election integrity.
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: To You can't have election
Speaker 0: integrity with censorship because censorship is itself an interference in the democratic process. Certainly.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look at the hunter buying a laptop story and, you know, it's been so successfully kind of sidelined that it's hard to even bring up, honestly. We would kind of roll their eyes. Not the Hunter Biden laptop story again. But what I find really astounding about that is that, you know, it was Tony Blinken as a campaign official for, for now president Biden who rang up the CIA and said, you know, we have a debate next week, and we need to be able to rebut this. And can you write this letter?
And in it, I mean, it's just such clear politicization of our security services, which is foundationally against everything, that I was told. When I, I mean, when I started there, I was told that if you had a partisan pin in the felt of your cubicle wall, you can be fired. And here we have you know, that's for the rank and file, but the 7th floor are, you know, writing false intelligence estimates to get a presidential candidate out of hot water for his son's documentation of business deals that frankly look pretty corrupt and that the voter should get to make up their own mind about. And maybe you're somebody who would look at the correspondence in that laptop and not be bothered by it, but you should get to make that decision before you cast your vote. And having a government agency where, you know, the the CIA can come in and say, this is Russian disinformation, when it flat out was not was completely authentic.
And then CISA can actually get to work for the coming 4 years while that person is president, memory holding that because every single post about it is then flagged as misinformation, is truly a violation of election integrity if ever there was one. I mean, all of the studies around that, the polling around it say that it would have changed a sufficient enough votes to have an impact on the election. And if having your security services step in to lie about, a foreign adversary's involvement in the election in order to conceal from voters correspondence of your own corrupt dealings with other foreign adversaries and have it change the outcome of the election is not interference. It's hard to know what it is.
Speaker 0: So nicely put. Were you shocked by that when you saw it?
Speaker 1: I was shocked by it when when I realized that that it was intentionally manufactured in that way. I mean, I think when I first heard it, you know, it seemed unlikely to me, but I hadn't really fully caught on at that point how manufactured the entire, you know, laptop story was. Like, it it seemed like too audacious an intrusion into domestic political life, I felt like they wouldn't they wouldn't have gone that far, that publicly, to just out and out lie about it. And, you know, and they did. And not only did they, but then the person who who orchestrated it is now our secretary of state going and preaching democracy all around the world.
Speaker 0: It's pretty dark. It must be bewildering for you who were once part of the machine. Yeah. I mean, to
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I can walk around that building in my, you know, with my eyes closed and say, you know, that door goes to this office, and I go and nowhere in any of those offices was the, like, overthrow governments and meddle with domestic politics office. Right? So, you know, I I was never exposed to it, and it could be because in the early days, I definitely threw up the flag on a few things and said, hey. This you know, they were using a lot of honorifics in the early days after 911 where, kind of in English, it would be like mister doctor.
You know? But after 911, everybody was sending in Arabic language threat reporting, or they were getting Arabic language threat reporting from their sources, and they were not Arabic speakers. And so there were these huge files for people like Hajj El Yemeni, just like someone who's completed the Hajj and comes from Yemen, which is, you know, many, many people, to put it mildly. And and so picking one person up and, you know, rendering them to another country because they fit that description when it's not a name and it's not an identifier was, you know, a a human rights nightmare. Did that happen?
Different name, but I remember raising my hand around that because I was taking, like, Arabic 101 at, in my last year of grad school at Georgetown. And I had a wonderful Egyptian professor. And he had just done a class on honorifics at the beginning to kind of, like, warm people up and teach them pronunciation. And I was literally that far, and I mean, so so brand new. And if that hadn't happened, I wouldn't have recognized it.
But and it ended up, you know, actually being right. I mean, they'd they'd they'd it was a wrong person. And by the time that was recognized, they'd, you know, force fed him through his nose and, you know, just a whole human rights nightmare.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry to laugh. That's just so horrible.
Speaker 1: It's so so horrible as to not be
Speaker 0: They force fed him through his mouth.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sharing what was in public. Just just to be clear, I'm sharing what was in the public account, so I'd you know, I'd I don't wanna get go beyond that. But it was the first time that I said, you know, this is who do I talk to about this? This should not you know, this shouldn't be happening. And I think from that moment on, my sense is that I was kind of put in the pile of, like, this is a person who will make she's not gonna just go along.
Right? Like, she'll she she will make trouble. I I think I I got filtered out of the go ferment coups in foreign country recruitment program. Thank god. But I never witnessed any of that there.
It it was actually really once I left that in some ways, I feel like my education on the intelligence world began. And I knew a lot of really great people there, intellectually curious, smart, goodhearted, many theologians, many poets, like, really, like, interesting unique group of people who argued a lot about where we should be and what we should be doing and the morality of things. I didn't find it to be an evil place at all. But I also am aware that I never came across any of the kinds of operations that, you know, now are being uncovered. And so I think I was working, you
Speaker 0: know, the
Speaker 1: keep keeping nuclear precursors out of the hands of terror suspects is, like,
Speaker 0: a a a
Speaker 1: fairly easy moral choice. Right? And so I I never was exposed to any of that, and it was deeply distressing after leaving to to watch all of the subsequent declassifications of what was being done at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and, you know, Cat's Eye in Thailand, and I hadn't hadn't been aware of any of that. And then to see it weaponized domestically was the because, of course, that's the end of that story when you really think about it. Yeah.
You know, there's no in the end, the way that we treat other people is how we treat ourselves. The way that we treat people outside ends up in our home. You know? It's just the natural way of things. And I think it's no surprise when we have subjugated the world into kind of us versus them thinking and control being our kind of benevolent benevolent control being our love language globally as a nation, that, you know, our our leaders end up doing the same thing at home and feeling like it's noble.
Speaker 0: So, again, nicely put. You, made reference a moment ago to changes, under in the 1st years of the Biden administration, 1st months to our EMP preparedness. Can you explain what an EMP is and what changed?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, this is increasingly relevant now, and it's it's a great credit to president Trump that he prepared us for it and then, unfortunately, to president Biden that he revoked it. So let me sort of explain a little about what it is. Do you remember over the last couple of weeks, there's been there have been solar storms, and we've gotten to see the northern lights much Yes. You know, farther south, which is beautiful.
And maybe people were warned there might be slight disruptions to electronics, but for the most part, it's been it's been beautiful and uneventful. Those solar storms can be far more powerful than that, naturally. So before even getting into human weaponizing of that, there have been lots of examples, but the Carrington event is probably the best known, right, in 18/59 and was so I mean, it set, you know, telegraph, operators, on fire, set set forest fires. You damage the the transatlantic cable miles beneath the ocean. And NASA says that were it to happen, again, now given the interconnected electrical grid that didn't exist then, that, you know, we'd be looking at at darkness around most of the globe possibly for years up to 7 years is what they they have said.
And that these that these electromagnetic ejections happen from the sun every 100 to 150 years of that of that magnitude. Of course, that was, you know, in 1850, so we're coming up due for 1. Their current estimate is about 12% chance per decade. It's a not a nonzero chance. Fairly likely that in our lifetime or our kids' lifetime, we will experience another one of these Carrington events.
In fact, there was one in 2012 that came extremely close to us that would have been absolutely catastrophic, but didn't didn't hit.
Speaker 0: And then that would be no electricity for years.
Speaker 1: Right. And that, you know, that sounds inconvenient, and, you know, maybe people can see how it would be. You know, it would cause some loss of life, but I think there's part of us when we hear that that thinks, like, I could use a break from Twitter. You know? Like, it might be kinda nice.
The thing is that what what people don't realize is that the world is no longer what it was in the 19th century, that, that almost everything at this point involves what they call SCADA systems, which are these small computers that use sensors to move valves or, you know, whether it's how many how much natural gas can move through a pipeline, when to turn on the coolers in a nuclear power plant to make sure that there's not a meltdown, when to allow, water to go over the Hoover Dam to prevent flooding, you know, air traffic control, traffic lights, and so on, all operated by SCADA systems now. And those are are all susceptible to to this exact same, kind of attack, or in the early day you know, what we were just talking about was in the in the case of a solar flare. But humans being what they are, they've learned to weaponize this. Right? And we know this because we have done it.
Starfish Prime was the first test in 62 where the US realized that this could be used as a weapon and did the test above the Pacific, and it knocked out, you know, capabilities in Hawaii, and and farther beyond, and so there was that recognition. We now know that the the Soviets figured it out even earlier. They told us during the kind of detente in the nineties, that they had already done 7 tests at that point over Kazakhstan and wiped the entire power grid of of Kazakhstan and actually, you know, created a lot of suffering in the process. But they saw it as having huge potential as a weapon, because of that and began developing out, you know, what they called a super EMP, which is, very specifically tuned not for yield, but for electromagnetic pulse. And these are, you know, these are detonated 30 kilometers or so above a country, so you're not actually destroying anybody with the with the explosion.
It is with the, using the EMPs to kill the grid, what is now, by many of our adversaries, mentioned in their military manuals as no contact wars. So this is, you know, win World War 3 without ever having to have contact with the adversary. And when you look at the delivery mechanisms that are available here, and the way that we're seeing EMPs discussed in China and Iran and Russia, North Korea, there are a wide variety of them. I mean, North Korea in 2,013 ran the exact optimal orbit with, its KSM 3 satellite over New York and Washington DC that would be the optimal delivery for this kind of a a weapon. And on the very same day, in April of 2013, sent military special forces, essentially, that have never been identified in to to break into a a substation, PG and E substation, near San Jose in California.
And
Speaker 0: North Korean
Speaker 1: Well, thought to be North Korean, never I'd actually identified or apprehended exactly the same day on the West Coast that they did the satellite run on the East Coast.
Speaker 0: What they do at the PG and E substations? They gas and electric, by the way Yes. For our East Coast viewers?
Speaker 1: For our East Coast. They were assessed to be extremely professional by the the SEAL trainers who came in later to look at the site. They knew about, an underground comms tunnel that they went in and cut communications and, used sniper fire to damage but not take offline 17 transformers.
Speaker 0: In the United States?
Speaker 1: In the United States.
Speaker 0: Yep. Wait. We had a we had a North Korean team of saboteurs or saboteurs sent by
Speaker 1: North Korea. Professional special forces of some variety thought to be North Korean, just outside San Jose in coyote, California.
Speaker 0: We did an interview with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country. The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. What Casey Means, who we've not stopped thought thinking about ever since, is the cofounder of a health care technology company called Levels, and we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with Levels.
And by proud, I mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company and a great product. It gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your metabolic health. It helps you understand how the food that you're eating, the things that you're doing every single day are affecting your body in real time. You put stuff in your mouth, speaking for myself anyway, and you don't think about it.
You have no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you have no idea what it's doing to your body. But over time, you feel weak and tired and spacey, and over an even longer period of time, you can get really sick. So, it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The Levels app works with something called a continuous glucose monitor, CGM. You can get one as part of the plan, or you can bring your own.
It doesn't matter. But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma, and big food combine together to form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage on healthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with levels, you'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you. You get access to real time personalized data, and it's a critical step to changing your behavior. Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand.
This isn't talking to your doctor at an annual physical looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etcetera, etcetera. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health data, and then you can make much better choices about how you feel. And over time, it'll have a huge effect.
Right now, you can get an additional 2 free months when you go to levels.link/tucker. That's levels.link/tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and doctor Casey Means. I was, you know, I was an adult in 2013. Obama was president.
I was reading the news. I don't remember
Speaker 1: No. It was it was very, very downplayed, as vandalism. And, you know, 2 months later, July, we had or few months later, in July, they found, 2 SA 2 nuclear capable missiles in the the bay of a of a tanker in the Gulf of Mexico. And this was all really as the as the North Korean tensions were mounting, you know, which president Trump gets far too little credit, in my opinion, for for that, resolution or detente. And now, you know, under Biden Harris, we have we have North Korean troops being pulled by Putin into the war in Ukraine, so that escalation is is back in play again.
But those are 3 distinct ways to attack our electrical grid that were all mounted within, you know, a a handful of months. And as a result, in 2014, NORAD announced that they were fully moving and investing 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars into further rat heartening Cheyenne Mountain. So they've taken it very seriously for their own force protection, which is good, but not for the rest of us.
Speaker 0: And can you just give us the cliff notes on what what that means, hardening Cheyenne Mountain?
Speaker 1: Okay. So it's actually very easy. If you put your phone in the microwave, right, it is it is safe from this kind of electromagnetic radiation. And so the question is, when you look at something as complex as our entire national grid, what are the nodes that are most, vulnerable to this kind of attack? And, really, there there's sort of 2 categories that are highest consequence.
1 are the SCADA systems that would allow for the resulting forest fires and nuclear meltdowns and floods and plane crashes and, hospital failures and traffic crashes and so forth if they fail. And they are as easy to protect as, you know, putting them in a metal shed instead of a wooden shed or taking the wooden sheds that exist and covering them with, you know, metal mesh to the to the point that, you know, you could put that out for people in each community with specs, and I'm sure that they would get together on a Sunday and do it. You know? But regulation in our country doesn't allow us to do that. That so the SCADA systems, protecting those, and then the extra high voltage transformers are a huge issue and sticking point for our grid.
They only make about 200 of them a year, and they're incredibly expensive, 100 of tons, you know, to move. And the coils are done mostly by hand, amazingly. I mean, they're custom made, and they were invented here in the US. Tesla invented them here, but we don't make them anymore. And, most of the ones for export are made in Germany or South Korea, and they're they're designed custom for each spot.
So it's very hard to have extras for each one on hand. And they need to be in Faraday cages, which is you know, sounds fancy, but it's basically just a,
Speaker 0: Wire mesh cage.
Speaker 1: Yeah. A wire mesh cage. And, you know, the benefit of this despite, you know, in addition to protecting against this kind of attack, is that there are a lot of other grid vulnerabilities that are maybe maybe lower damage when they happen, but higher likelihood. You know, an EMP attack or or a, a solar flare are low probability, high catastrophe events. But weather related damage is is the opposite or sometimes catastrophic in its impact as we've seen recently, right, in North Carolina, and elsewhere.
And a lot of the same guards around especially around protecting from cascading SCADA failures where, you know, the the, charge can be the surges can be prevented is really important to, the EMP safety, but also would help prevent in those kinds of storm environments. And then you look at sabotage and vandalism, which is another really big issue that they have to protect against. And a Faraday cage, depending on its construction, can also, you know, prevent people from seeing where it is that they're that they're letting off small arms fire or that they're targeting, which we see. I mean, you know, when I drove in here, when you first arrive in your town, on the left, there's a little substation, and it has a chain link fence around it. You know, no cameras.
And that's the same all over the country, and everyone just sees those. You know, they see the little coils and don't really think much of it. But
Speaker 0: I've I've been here 50 years and never noticed it was there.
Speaker 1: That's right. I mean and that's true. Our eye just you know, we're so accustomed to to filtering these things out, but the entire basis of our life and our community and our country and our national security and our health care, our financial system, all relies on them. And it's not just, you know, detonating a nuclear weapon above the United States. Obviously, there's a deterrent effect.
There would be a response because Cheyenne Mountain and other parts are completely rat hardened. So even if the entire country were out, you know, the United States would be able to respond, and has had, subs overseas and so on. But you can achieve pretty much the same impact with commercially available EMP suitcases that you can buy for industrial reasons with no, you know, no special license or anything like that. And, you know, if you pick the right 9 substations to put that suitcase next to, you have achieved the exact same thing. And as you can see, you know, with the the San Jose attack, those people were never actually seen on camera, and they were never I mean, you can see them as figures, but they were never identified.
Speaker 0: So there's vandalism. There are natural weather events, including the solar flares, the storms that you, mentioned, and then there's EMP. So the threats to the grid and to our the lives of 350,000,000 Americans are are completely real and in some sense, imminent. Like, we know this is gonna happen at some point. So what the federal response hardening, the grid changed when Biden got elected?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And this is what is really hard to accept. It is very similar, actually, to what happened with the border wall, which is here you have 2 policies, the EMP executive order that president Trump was the 1st president to ever direct all parts of government to work together to be sure that the American people were protected from intentional EMP attack after decades of knowing that our primary adversaries were all considering it, training for it, had weapons programs designed to do this. And, by the way, I mean, before we get to Biden, you know, the primary delivery mechanism in all of those tests was a high altitude balloon. You know?
When we then have China, a primary adversary who we know have talked in their training sessions and their training manuals about using high altitude balloons to deliver this kind of an EMP device and have done tests where it's the same exact payload as the high altitude balloons that were recovered. And then you have Russia. I'm sure you remember last year, Washington worked itself into quite justified, in my opinion, state about, you know, the, quote, unquote, space nuke. Right? Putting a nuclear weapon into orbit on a satellite.
And at the time, the media made it out like this was maybe a danger, and even if it was a danger, it's only a danger to other satellites. Right? And it would it would get in the way of your car's GPS. And, you know, maybe it would be problematic for the military, and so we should pay attention to it. But they definitely downplayed its impact on anyone on the ground.
Right? And yet we know from past Russian, trials and the, the SA 3 satellite that, that the North Koreans sent over that this kind of delivery is the exact same, setup as an anti satellite weapon. You put a nuclear weapon on a satellite headed up from the south where we have virtually no detection set up. And you don't even get the 22 minutes that you would get with a solar flare. It just comes completely out of the blue, and there's no preparation whatsoever.
And in general, in the, you know, in the military theory of these of these adversaries, it's a multipronged attack. Right? That's the initial. You take out you know, you send send everybody into chaos, and you take out their ability to communicate with one another, and then it's followed by whatever comes next. And for us to know to have seen that in, you know, war games in at least 2 of our largest adversaries, both Iran and Russia, I've included in in their their training simulations.
It's in 3 of their manuals, China, Russia, and Iran. Russia, we know, is putting a nuclear weapon in in orbit. China's sending the space balloons. They've I mean, the HAL 2 balloons have already come across our own territory. North Korea, 3 three way attack, simulation, but all three were successful.
Clearly, this is on the minds of our adversaries, and it's an imminent danger. Certainly, the the vulnerability, the, you know, the area in which we are most vulnerable for maximum casualties and impact. And yet president Trump's was the first president to to say across different parts of government, who sometimes have a hard time talking to one another, I want you to work together to make sure that the American people are protected from this. And, by the way, it's not even that expensive in the big scheme of, you know, government spending. To do it really well, the the cost estimate was $2,000,000,000, which, you know, we've just sent another 100,000,000,000 to Ukraine.
So then Biden takes office, and, frankly, my mind just, inconceivably, revokes that. And in the same way that he says with the wall, you know, both of those, to my mind, are initiatives that are already underway, that are designed to protect the American people's security and homeland, and he reversed for you know, with with no with no replacement plan in place.
Speaker 0: But, you know, with the border wall, you could and I think that's a a more complex topic than we appreciate. Like, what is the point of what they just did? I I don't know. But at least there was a perceived political constituency in favor of mass immigration. K.
They thought it would make it a one party state. That's why they're for it. Got it. What could possibly be the motive for not defending yourself in a sensible way from an EMP attack? Like, I don't get that at all.
Speaker 1: Support from the electrical industry.
Speaker 0: Oh, really?
Speaker 1: Yeah. There's a huge amount of pushback. So it gets a little bit in the weeds and boring, but there's there are these 2 things, the NERC and the FERC. Yeah. Yeah.
And they, are supposed to regulate one another, basically, or one you know, FERC is supposed to regulator. And, unsurprisingly, in that kind of a cozy relationship, it doesn't work. And they do have some self imposed EMP standards, but they are for a reasonably light solar storm and would not come anywhere close to being able to withstand any kind of nuclear fallout, and really push back on the costs that would be involved. And the the difficulty you know, it could be passed on to consumers at 20¢ per consumer per year, which I think most consumers, when they really understand that this is this would, you know, keep their power on not just in those extreme circumstances, but also help in storms and with vandalism and with these other
Speaker 0: And keep millions from starving stuff.
Speaker 1: Right. Billions, potentially. I mean, these are these are global. I mean, in our in our country, not but, but these certainly will be global issues, and there will be global competition for the very slow to build transformers that would fix them. Right?
And so it's really important to recognize that everybody else will be going through the same thing at the same time. It's not like you can find a way to walk to outside of that area so that you can get order something and bring it back in, right, in terms of rebuilding your grid. So potentially catastrophic, non zero chance of it happening. I mean, 12% per decade is and I should say that the EMP committee that Congress, put in place and, unfortunately, was disbanded under president Obama, but prior prior to that, included, really, the intelligence community's best analysts based on all of the testing that they'd seen hostile countries do. Their estimate was 8 to 9 out of every 10 Americans could lose their life by the end of the 1st year, which is a staggering and almost impossible to believe estimate until you realize that, you know, within obviously, at the outset, you have half a 1000000 people in the air at any given time on a 1000 flights.
Right? So that's lost right away. And then
Speaker 0: So everyone on an airplane does.
Speaker 1: Right. So that's half a 1000000 people at any moment, any given moment. And then you have, you know, obviously, traffic and everything that that happens in in that immediate chaos. But very quickly after that, the SCADA systems begin to fail, and you have fire, you have flood. Within 72 hours, you have meltdown at all nuclear facilities.
And then refrigeration has gone out at supermarkets and at the regional food warehouses, so the food supply ends. There's no, you know, there's no access to ATMs or money or financial structure of any any type, no access to your prescription medications, you know, no access to law enforcement, and no clean water and no food. So unless, you know, you have your Berkey that you can put lake water in and, you know, a year's worth of food, and a way to protect yourself, you know, you've which the vast majority of Americans don't have. You are in an incredibly vulnerable position that there's absolutely no reason to risk putting our own people.
Speaker 0: And if you're and that's just for people who are outside the cities. But if you're in the middle of a
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Tightly packed metro area, you're just done. Yeah. And and this the I mean, I can't even imagine people's be having, you know, covered chaos in Baghdad and Right. Hurricane Katrina. You know, anyone who's ever seen the, you know, disappearance of authority knows that, like, within hours, people start going crazy and hurting each other.
Speaker 1: And you have, you know, you have your kids in your apartment, and how do you get them out, and how do you get them to safety, and where do you take them? And, you know, the prospect of even rolling any kind of dice to put our our own people in that situation while then glibly taking the money that we could spend doing that and instead send it to to arm Ukraine when sending ballistic missiles into Russia using American satellites, you know, puts us in a direct hot war with Russia for the first time ever. You know, that that actually puts us at a higher risk of this kind of attack than ever in our history. And at a moment where instead of spending our money to protect ourselves from that attack, we're actually spending our money to provoke that attack.
Speaker 0: We did a live tour last month, one of the funnest things we've ever done, coast to coast, 16 different cities speaking. Well, next week, our grand finale, Halloween, October 31, 2024 in Glendale, Arizona. Our special guest that night, days before the presidential election, Donald Trump. All proceeds donated to hurricane relief. We're proud to do it.
Hope to see you there. So I I I don't know that 1 in a 1000000 Americans has ever heard any really anything you just said or certainly not heard it fleshed out in the way that you just did. And yet when you hear it, it makes sense, and it's clearly true. So that raises the question about our information, you know, the integrity of our information sources, and why aren't, we hearing this from the press, from the media? I don't understand that.
Speaker 1: Well, I, you know, I think there's a party line right now in the media, if you haven't noticed, And this, I think, does not support the security state's thesis about, about how safe the current administration has made us in the world. Right? And, you know, when you look at when you look at the economy versus stability you know, 4 years ago, and now it is just absolutely clear that we should be talking about the fact that the world has been set on fire over the last 4 years, and yet it's really not front and center in our news at all with, you know, with the exception of of, the Middle East, which, you know, gets, I think, pretty slanted coverage. So
Speaker 0: Oh, you think?
Speaker 1: You know, having come through 2 years of the RFK campaign, I will tell you, it is, I mean, it's truly amazing to me how to what degree a media blackout really can be coordinated and and be successful.
Speaker 0: What was your tell us. What was your experience?
Speaker 1: I mean, it was clear to me pretty early on that, you know, you were if you were someone who had heard from Bobby, then you were someone who was at least considering voting for him. And and many of those people, you know, were very clear that he was should be the next president of the United States. So you're either somebody who had heard from Bobby or you were somebody who had heard about Bobby, right, from your cable news source or from your newspaper and so on. And, you know, you begin to realize when you're on the inside of of, you know, the receiving end of all of that is that every place you know, anything that you know about this election, you know about it because you have read, heard, or seen it on a platform that has a commercial interest in the outcome of the election. Right?
I mean, you look at Google, 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars in in pharmaceutical ad revenue, 1,000,000,000 of dollars in pharmaceutical ad revenue, that Bobby said in his very first speech when he announced for president that he would bring us in line with the rest of the world by banning pharmaceutical advertising on TV. You know, what business do you know that is gonna give fair coverage to somebody that could cost them 1,000,000,000 of dollars a year in their business model? They you know, it's not in their fiduciary interest, and it's the same you know, we see it with, certainly, all the cable news channels who are also reliant on pharmaceutical advertising. And then, you know, the reliance I mean, Bobby's determination to cut excess military funding when so many of these media companies have board entanglements or common ownership with, defense contractors or are themselves. I mean, you look at Amazon Web Services and The Washington Post and, you know, GE and NBC and so forth.
I mean, there's a long, long history of that. And
Speaker 0: How much does Boeing spend on Politico every year?
Speaker 1: I mean
Speaker 0: I mean, But so that is kind of the I didn't understand this actually until Bobby explained it to me, having spent my entire life in the media, in television, not realizing that the point of the pharmaceutical ads was not to sell the drugs to consumers who can't prescribe the drugs to themselves, of course. It never made sense to me, and I didn't get the obvious poach. It's it's protection money.
Speaker 1: Yep. And that's exactly
Speaker 0: how I never got that.
Speaker 1: I mean, sometimes you even see the Boeing ad or, you know, the Northrop ads, and it's, like, impossible. As a consumer, you there's it's you actually can't. There's no way to to buy their product. No. I know.
It's just, like, completely naked bribery. But I never thought of
Speaker 0: that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm like, why would
Speaker 0: like, why are you Northrop
Speaker 1: advertising in Politico. Like, what? Because you're gonna go buy a bomber.
Speaker 0: It's to keep its reporters from criticizing.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is their entire Expense expenditures. Yeah. It's their salary, and they know it. And, you know, a free market is a free market.
Fine. But when when voters are so steeped in a media environment and especially with algorithmic things where, you know, they're seeing their Google News Feed, and every single time they see Bobby's name, he's like a psychopathic, crazy, dog eating, you know, joke. Right? And that was their approach, was either to absolutely not cover him whatsoever. I mean, he would give these extraordinary speech.
He had this peace speech that he did in New Hampshire in the at the outset of the campaign, and the the, America's Strong speech about building a unity government based on Lincoln's team of rivals were 2 of the most incredible speeches I've of the campaign, and neither of them they were all attended by 30, 40 reporters with cameras, obviously waiting for him to say some terrible thing so they could play that one clip, and then none of them ran any of it because they, you know, because they were such strong speeches. And so we we were up against that throughout. And Did you
Speaker 0: know how the America I mean, obviously, you've been around you worked at BBC, you've been around the American media your for your whole life, but did you appreciate how this works before you started running this campaign?
Speaker 1: Not nearly to the degree that, you know, the the degree of politicization was surprising to me, and and I think I had not really come to understand the, the kind of deep commercial drivers behind editorial lines. And, you know, I guess, had a little bit of idealism still from the old, like, Edward R. Moreau. Like, you know, there there must be some journalist still out there kind of thing. And they've been very few and far between.
I mean, I really I'm hard pressed to even come up with an example. I'm glad to be sitting across from you, but I will say thank god for Elon Musk.
Speaker 0: Yes. I agree.
Speaker 1: I mean, I really believe that every American should include him and his family in their prayers every day because, you know, he is holding our constitution together right now. And, you know, even the Internet archive is offline now. It's there's nothing left. There's no other way to know. And, sure, are there things on there that turn out not to be true?
Absolutely. Are there things on there that you're gonna disagree with or find offensive? Absolutely. And, you know, such is the nature of free speech, and it's audacious and bold and beautiful and sometimes infuriating, but that's what we've built our entire country on. And when it I mean, I I remember recently explaining this to my daughter, and and she was you know, she's 5.
And she was asking me why why I'm always traveling. I'm working in the moment, and and I was explaining about the importance of free speech and and how I wanted her to have it when she was older. And she said, so are there countries where if you criticize the leader, you know, they'll put you in jail? And I said, yes. Or are there a lot of those countries?
They that used to be all the countries, basically. And when you when you go back and you look at the at the audacity of what that idea was at the beginning and the fact that it wasn't happening anywhere else, and then 100, you know, of of other countries now have followed suit, and that we're just gonna give that up for the short sighted gain of 1 political party in 1 election cycle or one blob for, you know, 5 to 10 election cycles while, you know, their lust for power continues, and that as a result because no government is ever going to cede power given to an emergency. So even once that runs its course, it still means that my kids' kids will not have the freedom of speech that, you know, that they that is their birthright, given to them by our country's founders. And I just can't I can't abide that. I can't let it happen.
And to see Elon, who wasn't even born in this country, step up and defy the commercial interests. You know? I I I don't know his finances, but it seems to me that he has taken a serious financial hit.
Speaker 0: Oh, serious. To protect He's not a money worshiper. Right. Unlike so many billionaires, just to be blunt. They're money worshippers.
That's why they're billionaires. Right. He's not.
Speaker 1: No. And I I think he's genuinely driven by the desire to see human freedom endure. And I don't know why more of us are not because there's nothing more important, and it's ours to lose. You know? And it's bewildering to me when I hear people say, well, you know, our government can be trusted with those.
Like, they can make the judgment of what I should be able to say and what I shouldn't. He just the the idea that but what about the next leader? You know, every government is it is it Federalist 51, the one that where Madison talks about, you know, if if men were angels, we wouldn't need government, and if government were angels, it wouldn't need to be regulated, but we are making you know, the challenge is making a government of of men over men, and and yet they took on that challenge and achieved it so beautifully. And I remember mister Saar at NCS tell my last 2 years of high school in DC when I came back to the United States telling telling us about Skokie versus Illinois, and I and just being incredibly moved by the courage that it takes as a society to defend such abhorrent speech Yes. Because you know that, you know, it's it's not a sliding scale.
It's just you either have it or you don't. I mean, Salman Rushdie says the minute somebody says, I believe in free speech except, you know, stop them right there because they don't need to finish the sentence.
Speaker 0: But I get I just refer back to my first question, which is since I'm so familiar with, you know, all the schools you went to, the credentials you have, you know, the world that you're from, I mean, you've gotta be in the 1 tenth of 1 percent of people you know who've taken this position. You took such an unpopular position. And I know, you know, you're married into the family and all that, but still you became Bobby Kennedy's campaign manager. And now Bobby Kennedy's endorsed Trump, and I just don't think you could hoist a bigger middle finger in the face of the world that you're from. I mean, I just know that because I I know that world.
So, like, did you even hesitate before doing that? What was your thinking? And, like, I'm sure none of your classmates did anything like that. Why did you do that?
Speaker 1: You know, I think that if you gave them the choice I mean, if they came down from Mars and you put the exact occur you know, what is happening right now in front of them without the names of the parties or the names of the participants and said, you know, you have 1 4 year stint where no new wars are started, where, you know, bread costs half of what it costs now, gas a third, you know, etcetera etcetera, you know, rises in standard of living across the country, lower suicide rates, lower depression, you know, lower homelessness, lower incarceration, lower immigration that is, you know, illegal and and and results in in children being lost around the country, and then you compare it with 4 years of another government that is endorsed, by the way, by Dick Cheney now and a host of neocons that involves 2 new wars, you know, printing $8,000,000,000,000 of additional debt that is a tax on the poor and on future generations, in order to pay for more war, more children going into poverty, more you know that we have a real unemployment rate of 25% in this country? A quarter.
When you take into account people who want a full time job and don't have 1 or people who have a full time job but don't make $25,000 a year, which is not a living wage. If you take that into account, we have 24.9% true unemployment rate. So when you what I think that you asked about people in my world. I think if you put any of that to them, and then on top of that said, you know, and this this leader that has plunged people into poverty and unemployment and, you know, had 2 2 additional wars started on his watch is censoring speech on social media, weaponizing the courts to take people of his own party and every single other party off of the ballot. I mean, literally, Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson, Robert Kennedy junior, obviously, president Trump, no labels, Jill Stein, everybody.
There's nobody that, as far as I know, that didn't face some kind of a lawsuit to try to challenge their actual ballot access, the ability for an American to turn up and exercise their own sacred individual sovereignty of thought and choose whether or not to vote for them. Every single one of them was attacked in court to get their name off of the ballot. It's like, we believe in democracy. You can vote for anyone as long as it's me. Right?
And I I believe that anyone who who I knew growing up, and, hopefully, any American that I didn't know growing up, when when they see it with the in group, out group coding stripped away, would all, I mean, would all choose the same outcome here. I think the challenge is that, you know, we are evolutionarily designed to to, you know, retain the approval of our group. When you're walking across the, you know, the early savannah and your your group shuns you, you know, you're out of luck. Right? It's a lot harder to survive, and I there's, there's a study that DARPA did around news you know, reading news, where they they expected the frontal lobe to light up because you were assessing the logic of what you were reading.
And, actually, it lights up second after this area over the ear, which is, if you hold up a shirt and think about whether your friends would make fun of you if you wore it. So, you know, you are using your analytical mind, but only after you've already decided whether you're using it to poke holes or, you know, to reinforce. And I think that honestly, my friends who don't support president Trump, I think that's why. I think, you know, there
Speaker 0: it is. I guess everything you said is true, and for the 3rd time, nicely put. But I also have a little more difficulty giving that group a pass because that's our that's our leadership class
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Raised and to some extent, to be brutally honest, bred to Yeah. Rule. Yeah. And every society has that class, and that's fine with me. I think it's inevitable.
It's part of the human ordering. But that class should be able to think critically and rationally. That's their job, and they're not. And I just don't understand how this happened. A total breakdown in the sort of mental faculties of the people who run everything.
Like, what the hell?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, part of it, I think, is this intentional, addictive, hypnotic quality of of media and social media that has really intentionally been designed that way. You know, Cali Means talks about how the tobacco companies bought, you know, the food companies and sent over their chemists and made them, you know, intentionally addictive, and that is horrifying and true. I feel that the same has really been done to our information ecosystem, and part of it is for, you know, for for corporate profit, and part of it is for political control. And as, as that media environment has also become more global and these partnerships with, you know, other parties and other countries assist in censorship, it's I think it's difficult to, to think critically without a single input telling you that you're living in The Truman Show.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: You know? And, I mean, the the agency, they used to have these these things called red teams, right, where they would in the eighties, they started putting people in, analysts, in kind of a bunker for 3 to 3 months or 6 months that looked for all the world like you were living in Soviet in the Soviet Union. And all of the books that you had available were all the things that you would be reading if you were military or leadership class there, and you're listening to live radio broadcast in, you know, Russian and just living the life of a Soviet leader in the bunker. And every day, you're writing what you would do. You know?
Today, I would push on the Berlin Wall, etcetera, and and that is actually one of the things that came out of it was when was the tie a suggestion of the timing for when Reagan should should push on on bringing down the wall. But it allowed people to really channel their adversary to such a degree that they were viewed with a lot of suspicion when they came out. It was like, well, now you've gone native. You know? Now, like, you're you maybe you're the enemy now.
And now after 9/11, they started, ramping these things back up, around Islamic extremism and reading, you know, all of the old academic writings of, you know, some of the the more violent jihad leaders and so on. And there that suspicion remained as the the better you performed in there in terms of really being able to get into somebody's mind, the more suspicious people were of you when you left, and you were generally put in some kind of, like, a teaching assignment or some you know, somewhere you couldn't really do any harm. And I I I tell that story because it's very interesting to me that it's like a tacit acknowledgment that you are what you read, or you you are what you're immersed in. Right? And you can have been, you know, this 19 eighties cold warrior so much so that you're working, you know, as an analyst in Russia House at CIA.
Presumably, you're, like, pretty dyed in the wool, you know, blue team. And then you do this 3 months or you do this 6 months, and it is so convincing, this immersion in the thoughts and radio and books and, you know, beliefs of your adversary, that you might just be lost forever when you come out. Right? Like, you might have just had a full conversion experience. I think that is what's happening.
I mean, I think that media approach is now the experiment that's running all around us all the time.
Speaker 0: Yes. I agree with that. This is such a terrifying effect. I wish we had more time.
Speaker 1: It's always more time, all in God's time, but this was so nice to stop and actually talk about some, some of the real challenges that, you know, I think sometimes in the final weeks of the campaign, everything becomes about, you know, the day's polls or, you know, whatever the the media opportunity of the day was. And in the end, this is what's at stake. I mean, we're talking about decisions over the the very constitutional ideals that this country was built on, the physical safety of our communities, of our families. I mean, you were putting it's it's really one of the the only times that, as a parent, you are putting the lives of your children in the hands of someone who, frankly, is a stranger to you. And, you know, you you when you look at these EMP scenarios and then you look at these censorship scenarios, you know, the the well-being of our constitution of our children and of human freedom is at stake here.
And, you know, if it weren't, I I wouldn't be fighting for it so hard. But thank you for taking the time to really dig in to those issues rather than, you know, the the latest photo op of the day.
Speaker 0: You're welcome back anytime. Thank you. I'm Morales Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Tucker.
Posted - October 27, 2023 at 3:21 AM
Saved - November 3, 2023 at 3:49 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Shi'a militias have launched numerous attacks on US bases since the killing of Soleimani. Despite Iraq's call for US forces to leave, they remain. The recent strikes are not unusual enough to justify US escalation into a catastrophic war. The war machine's corporate puppeteers prioritize profit over lives and the global economy. We need new leadership to contain the conflict and rely on Tehran's restraint. It's time for a responsible approach to maintain peace.
@amaryllisfox - Amaryllis Fox
This is what craven provocation of war looks like. Shi'a militias have launched over a hundred fifty attacks against US bases since we killed Soleimani in 2020. Much like Israel's lobbing of missiles across the Lebanese border, this activity has been in the normal range of the Middle East's delicate status quo. The US has tolerated it, given its troops remain in Iraq, a majority Shi'a country, even after Iraq's legislature unanimously voted for US Forces to leave its territory in 2020, US Forces have killed over 300,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria, and our military operations in both countries are egregious violations of international law. Any claim that recent Shi'a militia strikes are unusual enough to justify US escalation into a potentially catastrophic regional war are fatuous chunks of red meat designed to be repeated by useful idiots. The corporate puppeteers of our war machine are revving up their money machines without a single thought for the blood that may be spilled or the calamitous damage to the global economy (and your cost of living) that may result. Until we get such corrupt influences out of govt, our only hope to keep this conflict contained is praying for the restraint of Tehran's response. You know it's time for new leadership in Washington when the current crop leave you dependent on the mullahs' good judgement to keep your country out of war. Time for a grown-up in the situation room and a return to American strength by keeping the peace. #Kennedy24 #Syria #Iran #Biden #Trump #WarMachine
