reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I was asked about the recent election in Mexico, but I didn't follow it closely. The new president, Claudio Shinebaum, is a climate scientist and a globalist. People are concerned about Mexico's future under a socialist president, but many in Mexico don't pay taxes or follow laws. If the government tries to enforce regulations, they may face resistance, even violence.

Regular medical students, wearing white coats, spoke about being the reason that America’s calling you terrorists: 'we're the reason that America's calling you terrorists.' They added, 'if we're terrorists, we're proud to be terrorists because we're sending doctors around the world. And if that's our terror, then so be it.' Right? But here's this little island, a couple of miles away from America, you know, 90 miles away from America, and they have an a president who talks like us. They have a president who understands the need for a liberated Palestine. And I think that was, that definitely altered my world.

Speaker 1 argues that Cuba should make a deal and asks what that deal would entail and what Cuba should do. He describes Cuba as currently a failed nation, noting that they “don’t even have jet fuel to get for airplanes to take off” and that they are “plugging up their runway.” He says that the United States is talking to Cuba and to Marco Rubio, and asserts that Cuba should absolutely make a deal because it is a humanitarian threat. He emphasizes that many Cuban Americans will be very happy when they can return to greet their relatives and do things that they should have been allowed to do for a long time. He states his interest in the people who were “treated so badly by Castro and the Cuban authorities” and notes that they “have been treated horribly,” adding that they will see how it all turns out as “Cuba and us, we are talking.” Speaker 0 asks whether that would be a good deal. Speaker 1 responds by outlining the current situation: there is an embargo, there is no oil, there is no money, and there is “no anything.” He then asks rhetorically whether, if a deal isn’t made, the United States would consider an operation like the one in Venezuela. He says he doesn’t want to answer that, suggesting it would not be a very tough operation if he did answer, but states he does not think such an operation will be necessary. He concludes with “Mister president.”

"Who cares if Venezuela is run by some corrupt, petty tyrant? It's South America. They're all like that. It's always been like that. Just take their shit. Get as many countries on our side of the ledger so that we can take their shit. I don't know. Is that complicated? But on the other side of this debate, you have the ideological neocons like Rubio, like John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. You have these other people that insist. No, that's not good enough. We need a US puppet in place. We need a this female resistance leader that's pro democracy. Their election was fake. Dude, our election was fake. You think our elections are real? They said Maduro lost the twenty twenty four election. Yeah, Biden lost the twenty twenty election. We wanna start with that? This is a historic phone call. I actually probably favor regime change in Venezuela, to be honest. I think that that is a perfectly legitimate strategic goal of The United States. You know, we talk all the time about Israel and the war over there. And those are wars that don't benefit The United States at a pro American regime in Venezuela. Probably would be good for us because of the resources they have."

- Speaker 0 asks for the first reaction to the news and whether it was clearly a special operations effort to capture Maduro or a larger military operation. Speaker 1 says it quickly became obvious it was a special operations mission, citing the ships and platforms ideal for this, and the ability to fly helicopters into Venezuela as supporting evidence. - On how the operation penetrated Caracas and Maduro’s defenses: Speaker 1 says cyber operations were used to turn off power and to blind the air defense by making tracking and identification difficult, in addition to traditional jamming and excellent on-the-ground intelligence built up over weeks. He also suggests internal help within the Venezuelan regime was likely. - On the possibility of an inside asset and the defensive protections: Speaker 0 notes Cuban intelligence and Venezuelan National Guard protection for Maduro and asks how insiders could have enabled the operation. Speaker 1 says insiders could have assisted, and acknowledges the intelligence on Maduro’s whereabouts was very strong. He cautions the president’s administration should not publicly reveal inside help, as that could cause paranoia within the command structure. - On the operation’s execution and its comparison to past regime-change operations: Speaker 1 emphasizes training and technology, noting the unit would include special operations aviation, Delta, and other components; argues this is a joint operation involving army, navy, air force, marines, cyber, and space-based platforms, requiring extensive rehearsals over weeks. He references Noriega’s capture as a point of comparison, but notes Maduro is on a different level. - On the electricity outage in Caracas: Speaker 0 asks if it was a cyber disruption or a kinetic strike. Speaker 1 responds that a cyber disruption to power is more likely than a kinetic strike, given the context. - On Venezuela’s air defense systems (S-300s, BUKs) and the $6 billion investment: Speaker 0 questions whether it’s fair to criticize these systems given the operation. Speaker 1 acknowledges they are sophisticated and capable but not sure of their maintenance and training levels. He notes the United States had telegraphed expectations for weeks and suggests negligence or incompetence in air-defense command and control if surprised. - On possible inside help and seniority of the asset: Speaker 0 asks who within the regime might have cooperated with the CIA. Speaker 1 is reluctant to speculate beyond confirming there was very good intelligence on Maduro’s whereabouts. He finds it unlikely that the vice president would have been an internal asset, though he concedes nothing is impossible, given a mix of factions in the regime and third-party interference. - On geopolitical repercussions and messaging to China, Iran, and Russia: Speaker 0 points to the timing with a Chinese delegation in Caracas and asks what message this sends to China and whether the date had symbolic resonance with other events. Speaker 1 says the date was probably driven by weather and other operations rather than a deliberate China signal; he suggests China would reassess oil dependencies and potential leverage now that Maduro is captured. He predicts the next target could be Cuba and discusses logistical challenges, such as Cuba’s island geography and Guantanamo Bay. - On US strategy in the Western Hemisphere and potential targets: Speaker 1 opines that Cuba is a plausible next target and explains why, including electoral considerations in Florida. He notes that a Cuba operation would be more difficult than Venezuela due to geography but could be motivated by domestic political calculation and the Monroe Doctrine as a signal. - On China, Russia, and Iran in the wake of Maduro’s capture: Speaker 1 argues the US demonstrates strong capabilities, and China would need to reassess oil supply and leverage; Russia’s and Iran’s interests could be pressured as the US asserts influence in the region. He mentions that the US might not directly engage in large-scale intervention in Iran but warns against overreach due to domestic political constraints. - On the broader pattern and future: Speaker 1 cautions about the risk of hubris and notes domestic political constraints and upcoming congressional pressures that could shape how far the administration pursues this strategy beyond Venezuela. He stresses the importance of not overestimating the ability to sustain similar moves without a plan for the post-Maduro environment.

John Featherson, a former migrant shelter director in Massachusetts, is interviewed in a setting at what is described as a Holiday Inn facility connected to Elliot Human Services. The interaction begins with the interviewer being told to stop recording or leave, on private property and trespassing grounds. Featherson makes a series of allegations about the operations and costs associated with migrant shelters and related services: - He asserts that “everything is free” for the migrants, contrasting it with the assumption that they pay for amenities. He notes that migrants have access to doctors’ appointments in Boston or immigration hearings in New Hampshire, and questions whether they use their own cars, suggesting instead that they request Uber or Lyft rides. - He claims the amount spent on Uber and Lyft for transportation is “well in excess of $100,000 a month.” - He describes a logistics operation akin to Amazon, stating that “every day I would order tens of thousands of dollars worth of product from Amazon every single day, seven days a week,” including diapers, formula, toothbrushes, hair dryers, combs, and strollers, delivered as needed. - He notes the presence of free on-site daycare at the shelter, countering any idea that children are transported daily to external facilities, with the daycare provided “on-site there.” - He mentions a school bus used for this purpose as part of the on-site arrangements. - He explains that as the hotel became overwhelmed with migrant families, there were fights over washers and dryers. He states that “the state contracted this company to come in five days a week and do everybody's laundry,” with a process of dropping off laundry by 07:00 and having it back by 17:00, folded and provided at no cost to the taxpayers of Massachusetts. - He addresses media portrayals of migrants by asserting what he says migrants claim about why they came, juxtaposing it with a narrative about past displacement from Haiti. He recounts a story: migrants claim they came because of promises of “everything was free” under a new administration. - He recounts a succession of migration routes and destinations: from Haiti to Chile for ten years after an earthquake, then to Brazil, and finally to America, with his interpretation that their reason for coming is tied to the claim that “Joe Biden told us everything was free.” Throughout, Featherson emphasizes the scale and variety of services he claims were provided to migrants and questions the underlying motivations and narratives surrounding their presence in the facilities.

Speaker 0 asserts that Cuba is on the brink of collapse, stating that Cuba is ready to fall and speculating on how they will hold up. The claim is that Cuba now has no income, with the source of its previous income being Venezuelan oil. According to the speaker, Cuba is not receiving any of that Venezuelan oil income now. The speaker emphasizes that Cuba is literally ready to fall. In this context, the speaker notes that there are many great Cuban Americans who will be very happy about this development. The statement is associated with Marco Rubio.

Speaker 0 emphasizes that the MAGA base is not at risk of being lost because they want to win, want the country protected, and want strength to prevent hostile nations from having nuclear weapons, as well as support for certain allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. They state MAGA wants strength and victory, and that there has been success. They reference going into Venezuela, noting they campaigned on “peace with strength,” adding, “you wouldn't have to I said you'll never have to use it.” They then joke, “but some and Cuba's next, by the way. But pretend I didn't say that, please. Pretend I didn't say that. Please.” They conclude with a plea to the media to disregard that statement, and reiterate “Cuba's next.”

Speaker 0 argued that Maduro was not democratically elected and was not cracking down on drug trafficking to the U.S. and other countries, contrasting this with Honduras’ crackdown on drug trafficking supported by agencies like the DEA and Southcom, which earned praise for the Honduran government. The discussion then turned to U.S. policy. Speaker 0 asked whether the interviewee supports what the Trump administration did, or believes there is a line that should not be crossed. They noted that the U.S. military action against Maduro—bombing the country, entering, capturing Maduro, killing members of his government, and taking him to jail—was seen by some as positive, with Maduro described as a criminal who destroyed the country and economy. Speaker 1 responded by focusing on the human impact in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. They stated that a large portion of the population has suffered, with a notable number of people migrating from Venezuela and Honduras. They asserted that elections in Venezuela were stolen by Maduro’s regime, stating that the opposition’s poll results were stored in the cloud and the government did not want to see them because they knew they would lose. They described this as not democracy. They added that, since Hondurans left the country due to trafficking, vessels by sea and illegal flights were bringing jobs to Honduras, but also causing deaths and bloodshed. They argued that if the Trump administration framed Drug Trafficking as terrorism, it was warranted because the drug flow to the United States harmed not only U.S. citizens but also Honduras, which faced the highest death toll in fifteen years due to drugs coming through its borders, largely from Venezuela, and that nothing was done about this by prior administrations. Speaker 0 then asked for the stance on U.S. intervention in general: should intervention be allowed only in certain cases (e.g., Maduro), or should there be no U.S. intervention in Latin America under any president? Speaker 1 shared a Venezuelan friend’s view that there are no options to change Venezuela and that intervention might be necessary if there is no other way to save Venezuela. From a Honduran perspective, they believed Trump’s actions helped not only Honduras but also other Central American and regional countries along the drug-trafficking routes, by reducing corruption, bloodshed, and deaths. They argued that the political machinery Chavez created and used to stall elections in other Latin American countries had previously gone unchecked by the U.S., and that Trump faced Maduro with a confrontation. They concluded that many people in the world do not know what has been happening in Venezuela and its impact on the region. They stated that Trump confronted Maduro, who now has a chance to defend himself in a trial, and emphasized the issue of sovereignty for every country.

The speaker asks, why are we doing this and why are we so opposed to Nicolas Maduro. On the street, most people would say they don’t know who Nicolas Maduro is. But in places like South Florida, where people recognize Maduro and can identify Venezuela on a map, the typical answer shifts: because he’s a communist or a socialist. The speaker asserts that this is true: Nicolas Maduro and his government are very left wing on economics. The speaker notes an interesting distinction: this left-wing stance is economic, not social. In Venezuela, gay marriage is banned, abortion is banned, and sex changes for transgender individuals are banned. The speaker describes Venezuela as one of the very few countries in the entire hemisphere with those social policies, emphasizing that these policies are conservative socially. The speaker adds that Venezuela is one of the very few nations in the region with those social policies, specifying that it is on social policy, not defending the regime. The speaker mentions that only El Salvador comes close in conservatism, though El Salvador is much smaller. Additionally, the speaker brings up a political point: the US-backed opposition leader who would take Maduro’s place, if Maduro were removed, is described as eager to implement gay marriage in Venezuela. This is presented as a counterpoint to the idea that the opposition is globally liberal or that the regime is uniquely opposed to liberal social policies. The speaker references the notion of a “global homo” project and implies that the reality is different from that belief, labeling the project as not crazy after all. The overall argument ties Maduro’s economic leftism to social policy conservatism, and contrasts Venezuelan social policy with potential shifts under the opposition, while noting public recognition differences about Maduro.

What is your political philosophy? Our philosophy is based on representative democracy and social justice within a well-planned economy, not on communism or Marxism. Would you seize land from absentee owners? No, we prefer to buy unproductive lands and give them to poor citizens. How do you plan to gain power? We are not seeking power through force; we aim to end tyranny and establish a government through free elections. I’m not focused on being president or holding any position. What is the situation for ordinary Cubans? The main issues are the lack of freedom and justice, along with a low standard of living and high unemployment among youth. Cuba has great potential for a prosperous future with good governance.

These students who were regular medical students, they came and spoke and basically what they were saying was they were wearing their white coats, know, they looked like medical students. They were like, we're the reason that America's calling you terrorists. And they were saying, well, if we're terrorists, we're proud to be terrorists because we're sending doctors around the world. And if that's our terror, then so be it. Yep. Right? But here's this little island, a couple of miles away from America, you know, 90 miles away from America, and they have an a president who talks like us. They have a president who understands the need for a liberated Palestine. And I think that was, that definitely altered my world.

Coming from Cuba, I understand the value of freedom after losing it there. In 1975, hearing Jimmy Carter campaign for president reminded me of Fidel Castro, leading me to believe he was a communist. This realization sparked my interest in politics.

Look at those streets, it's like a war zone, a dead city. This is Havana, or what's left of it. There's no prosperity, no path, no future. People are living like zombies, surviving rather than truly living. It's sad to see a nation drowning in hunger and need. This is what Fidel Castro wanted for Latin America, what they want for Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico. This is communism, folks. Don't let it reach your country.

“Send me. Do you see the monument? So you won’t like what’s underneath. That is the monument that represents destruction, terror, crime, repression, and lack of freedom—what many people like me have lived, and what many of my families still live. Many others like him, and friends who escaped and died along the way to come to a country like this for freedom. Things like what you’re doing at your desk—asking for this ideology—cannot be done in my country. It prohibits freedom of dreaming, freedom of creation, freedom of expression, and freedom of the future. All your socialists never lived this. I haven’t seen you in your country—where you come from—proposing or promoting that ideology. I haven’t seen that. Why don’t you propose it in the country you come from? Do you know why? Because it doesn’t work. We’ve lived it ourselves, and we want to show it to the whole world and especially to this country.”

Speaker 0: Happy memories are the ones where protocol didn't matter, like Cuba watching faster. Speaker 1: He's in power because of his incredible charisma.

Speaker 0: Have you considered talking to the president of Colombia who you called a drop leader? Speaker 1: No. I haven't really thought too much about him. He's been fairly hostile to The United States, and I haven't given him a lot of thought. He's he's gonna have himself some big problems if he doesn't wise up. Speaker 2: Did you say Colombia is producing a lot of drugs. Have cocaine factories that they make cocaine, as you know, and they sell it right into The United States. So he better wise up or he'll be next. He'll be next too. I hope he's listening. Speaker 0: So was this operation a message that you're sending to Mexico, to Claudia Scheinbaum, president there? Speaker 2: Well, it wasn't meant to be. We're very friendly with her. She's a good woman, but the cartels are running Mexico. She's not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico. We could be politically correct and be nice and say, oh, yes. Is no. No. She's very, you know, she's very frightened of the cartels that are running Mexico. And I've asked her numerous times, would you like us to take out the cartels? No. No. No, mister president. No. No, no, please. So we have to do something because we lost the real number is 300,000 people, in my opinion. You know, they like to say a 100,000. A 100,000 is a lot of people, but the real number is 300,000 people. And we lost it to drugs, and they come in through the southern border, mostly the southern border. A lot plenty come in through Canada too, by the way, in case you don't know. But but they come in through the southern border, and something's gonna have to be done with Mexico. Cuban government, the Trump administration's next target, mister secretary, very quickly. Speaker 3: Well, the Cuban government is a is a huge problem. Yeah. The the the the Cuban government is a huge problem for Speaker 2: some So is that a yes? Speaker 3: Cuba. But I don't think people fully appreciate. I think they're in a lot of trouble. Yes. I'm not gonna talk talk to you about what our future steps are gonna be and our policies are gonna be right now in this regard, but I don't think it's any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro. His entire, like, internal security force, his internal security opera apparatus is entirely controlled by Cubans. One of the untold stories here is how, in essence, you talk about colonization because I think you said Dulce Rodriguez mentioned that, the ones who have sort of colonized, at least inside the regime, are Cubans. It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards. In terms of their internal intelligence, who spies on who inside to make sure there are no traitors, those are all Cubans. Speaker 0: He felt very strongly. We we needed for nationals. We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals. We had some we have so many sites for minerals and oil and everything. We have more oil than any other country in the world. We need Greenland for national security.